Le 23/05/2012 17:28, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:08:11 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 
>> On 23/05/2012 02:33 AM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sort of waiting for a company to get sued for exactly this reason.
>>
>> Because that, apparently, is how the law works. The result of one court
>> case determines what the law is, and until that court case happens, the
>> law is undefined.
>>
>> And here I was thinking that the law-makers define the law...
> 
> Lawmakers define law.  The courts interpret it - and sometimes interpret 
> it to mean something other than what the lawmakers wrote it to mean.
> 
> Jim


Lawmakers define law, for reasonnable people.
Courts have to deal with perverts that seek and abuse holes in the
letter of the law. So, they must pave the void in the law with
interpretation.

What if... a law stated :"storing an apple is the right of any citizen
in town."

reasonnable people might have at home an apple or some pounds of them.

But perverts might make a business of storing hundred of tons of apples
at a common place.

Now the issue is that apples would expell ethylen gaz as part of their
aging. one apple is fine, but too many in a not-ventilated room.. there
is a fire-hazard... the court has to state about that: the law says
storing of apple is ok, but maybe large storing of apple need a bit of
regulation, or not.

Post a reply to this message