4 ms·
No, it's a defect. It's probably futile attempting to write "perfect" law, and probably for the best that jurists look to the law's intent rather than always tr
by gweinberg 11y ago
No, it's a defect. It's probably futile attempting to write "perfect" law, and probably for the best that jurists look to the law's intent rather than always trying to apply the law literally. But how can it be a good thing if people honestly do not and cannot know what is and is not legal?
- jevgeni 11y agoAmbiguity of legal language doesn't mean you cannot figure out if a certain phenomenon is legal or not. For example, how would one write insurance contracts? Is it possible to write out every single eventuality? No, so the solution is generic language. There are of course badly worded laws, but it does not mean that everything has to be concretely written out.