3 ms·

Law, really? Aren't there a lot of legal terms (like 'ownership', 'possession' 'contract',...) that have precise legal definitions that may differ in crucial as

by c7b 4y ago

Law, really? Aren't there a lot of legal terms (like 'ownership', 'possession' 'contract',...) that have precise legal definitions that may differ in crucial aspects from their colloquial usage? I think you're confusing a definition being easy to understand with it being well-defined. Mathematical definitions are often hard to grasp exactly because they are so well-defined. If you want something to be easily understandable by a lot of people (especially outside the discipline), you'll usually have to sacrifice rigor.

lazide 4y ago
In my unfortunately extensive experience with legal matters as a non lawyer, there really aren’t many legal terms with material reduction in meanings when used legally. For the most part, like in medicine, a less commonly used word is used instead (often in another less commonly used language, such as Latin). For example, most people would consider a contract to be something written down that says ‘contract’. A few know it can be verbal too. When really, it could be verbal, video, scrawled in blood on the side of a fence, or any number of other forms, and really covers any agreement that meets certain criteria (generally that there is some form of payment or consideration, an offer, and an acceptance - think ‘quid pro quo’ or something for something). 99% of the time, the public is right. The other times, something went really wrong somewhere and someone did something pretty weird and dumb for it to matter. In engineering, physics, math, it’s not uncommon to need SOME unique identifier for the thing, and there are very specific technical needs for it to even have a conversation on the topic - and often we’ve run out of pronounceable or recognizable symbols, alternative alphabets, etc. So down spin quark it is.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Ha, contract is a really bad example here, as proven by the very very wrong term "Smart Contract." The thing that is called a "Smart contract" has literally no overlap with a legal contract; because a legal contract is the "separate human statements of agreement that are associated with the action/performance and usually only needed when the performance goes wrong," The "smart contract" is the actual performance.

by c7b 4y ago

lazide 4y ago

In my unfortunately extensive experience with legal matters as a non lawyer, there really aren’t many legal terms with material reduction in meanings when used legally. For the most part, like in medicine, a less commonly used word is used instead (often in another less commonly used language, such as Latin). For example, most people would consider a contract to be something written down that says ‘contract’. A few know it can be verbal too. When really, it could be verbal, video, scrawled in blood on the side of a fence, or any number of other forms, and really covers any agreement that meets certain criteria (generally that there is some form of payment or consideration, an offer, and an acceptance - think ‘quid pro quo’ or something for something). 99% of the time, the public is right. The other times, something went really wrong somewhere and someone did something pretty weird and dumb for it to matter. In engineering, physics, math, it’s not uncommon to need SOME unique identifier for the thing, and there are very specific technical needs for it to even have a conversation on the topic - and often we’ve run out of pronounceable or recognizable symbols, alternative alphabets, etc. So down spin quark it is.

jrm4 4y ago
Ha, contract is a really bad example here, as proven by the very very wrong term "Smart Contract." The thing that is called a "Smart contract" has literally no overlap with a legal contract; because a legal contract is the "separate human statements of agreement that are associated with the action/performance and usually only needed when the performance goes wrong," The "smart contract" is the actual performance.