If the facts change, I change my mind; but I don't think you're being realistic, here. Judges sometimes have to interpret poorly-written statutes. Legal draftin

If the facts change, I change my mind; but I don't think you're being realistic, here. Judges sometimes have to interpret poorly-written statutes. Legal drafting has improved a lot over the last hundred and fifty years or so; but that has been a gradual process. Some countries have what are effectively brand new political and legal systems; but countries with comparatively long histories of stable governance generally have comparatively old laws that must be interpreted. You ask three questions in the foregoing: - Why would any legislature pass a law delegating responsibility to a non-existent agency? If the city does not have a health department, it may be that the county does, or the state does, and they meant to delegate to them. - How could this legislature pass a law with clearly contradictory stipulations regarding temperature? The stipulations make use of a common, unfortunate misphrasing; that doesn't mean they are actually contradictory. - Then, finally, for what reason would intent clauses be written if they were then be entirely ignored? Intent clauses are generally considered non-binding, in legal systems all over the world. Another commenter has pointed out that this is the case not only in the Anglo-American system but also in the EU system: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41284984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41284984 That doesn't mean intent clauses serve no purpose. It just means they don't serve the purpose of providing a specific, actionable rule.