What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?“Misuse” vs. “Abuse”Meaning of 'by' in 'promise by which'How to analyse/parse an incomplete 'if, [independent clause]'?Does 'in the promisee’s position' harm the promisee or promisor?Please explain 'confer an equitable right on B to compel fulfilment of the promise'?Grammaticality - 'order their affairs safe'My shoes 'make a funny sound' when I walkWhat is the proper word in the mentioned sentence?What do you call someone who is focused too much on the technicalities of a law rather than the big picture?Doing something right before you need it - expression for this?
Can Medicine checks be used, with decent rolls, to completely mitigate the risk of death from ongoing damage?
Circuitry of TV splitters
Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?
Is Social Media Science Fiction?
How do we improve the relationship with a client software team that performs poorly and is becoming less collaborative?
Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?
How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?
Is it possible to do 50 km distance without any previous training?
Pronouncing Dictionary.com's W.O.D "vade mecum" in English
Why CLRS example on residual networks does not follows its formula?
Japan - Plan around max visa duration
"which" command doesn't work / path of Safari?
Can a German sentence have two subjects?
New order #4: World
If Manufacturer spice model and Datasheet give different values which should I use?
What defenses are there against being summoned by the Gate spell?
Validation accuracy vs Testing accuracy
Draw simple lines in Inkscape
How to report a triplet of septets in NMR tabulation?
I see my dog run
Do airline pilots ever risk not hearing communication directed to them specifically, from traffic controllers?
Banach space and Hilbert space topology
Infinite past with a beginning?
Can I make popcorn with any corn?
What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?
“Misuse” vs. “Abuse”Meaning of 'by' in 'promise by which'How to analyse/parse an incomplete 'if, [independent clause]'?Does 'in the promisee’s position' harm the promisee or promisor?Please explain 'confer an equitable right on B to compel fulfilment of the promise'?Grammaticality - 'order their affairs safe'My shoes 'make a funny sound' when I walkWhat is the proper word in the mentioned sentence?What do you call someone who is focused too much on the technicalities of a law rather than the big picture?Doing something right before you need it - expression for this?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Sometimes, the wording of a law or contract is vague and imprecise, and it allows people to abuse it, but doing so goes against the spirit of the law or the contract when it was written, or in other words the intention the people who wrote the law or contract. Is there a word for this?
word-request legalese
edited 9 hours ago
Jasper
19.7k43974
asked 9 hours ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
561112
add a comment |
Sometimes, the wording of a law or contract is vague and imprecise, and it allows people to abuse it, but doing so goes against the spirit of the law or the contract when it was written, or in other words the intention the people who wrote the law or contract. Is there a word for this?
word-request legalese
edited 9 hours ago
Jasper
19.7k43974
asked 9 hours ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
561112
1
I'm not aware of any such word, not least because there are many different ways that the situation you describe could arise. So "loophole", as @Jasper suggests, may work in some situations, but not others. But in a very real and practical way, I suspect that if you asked a lawyer about this situation, they would say that the word for something that goes against the spirit of the law, while still being legal, is "legal"! In other words, they would advise that we don't get distracted by such notions as "spirit" vs "letter". The WHOLE POINT of the law is to turn spirit into letter.
– tkp
7 hours ago
1
@tkp -- Your comment would make a good answer.
– Jasper
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Sometimes, the wording of a law or contract is vague and imprecise, and it allows people to abuse it, but doing so goes against the spirit of the law or the contract when it was written, or in other words the intention the people who wrote the law or contract. Is there a word for this?
word-request legalese
edited 9 hours ago
Jasper
19.7k43974
asked 9 hours ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
561112
Sometimes, the wording of a law or contract is vague and imprecise, and it allows people to abuse it, but doing so goes against the spirit of the law or the contract when it was written, or in other words the intention the people who wrote the law or contract. Is there a word for this?
word-request legalese
word-request legalese
edited 9 hours ago
Jasper
19.7k43974
asked 9 hours ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
561112
edited 9 hours ago
Jasper
19.7k43974
asked 9 hours ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
561112
edited 9 hours ago
Jasper
19.7k43974
edited 9 hours ago
Jasper
19.7k43974
edited 9 hours ago
Jasper
19.7k43974
19.7k43974
asked 9 hours ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
561112
asked 9 hours ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
561112
asked 9 hours ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
561112
561112
1
I'm not aware of any such word, not least because there are many different ways that the situation you describe could arise. So "loophole", as @Jasper suggests, may work in some situations, but not others. But in a very real and practical way, I suspect that if you asked a lawyer about this situation, they would say that the word for something that goes against the spirit of the law, while still being legal, is "legal"! In other words, they would advise that we don't get distracted by such notions as "spirit" vs "letter". The WHOLE POINT of the law is to turn spirit into letter.
– tkp
7 hours ago
1
@tkp -- Your comment would make a good answer.
– Jasper
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
I'm not aware of any such word, not least because there are many different ways that the situation you describe could arise. So "loophole", as @Jasper suggests, may work in some situations, but not others. But in a very real and practical way, I suspect that if you asked a lawyer about this situation, they would say that the word for something that goes against the spirit of the law, while still being legal, is "legal"! In other words, they would advise that we don't get distracted by such notions as "spirit" vs "letter". The WHOLE POINT of the law is to turn spirit into letter.
– tkp
7 hours ago
1
@tkp -- Your comment would make a good answer.
– Jasper
2 hours ago
1
1
I'm not aware of any such word, not least because there are many different ways that the situation you describe could arise. So "loophole", as @Jasper suggests, may work in some situations, but not others. But in a very real and practical way, I suspect that if you asked a lawyer about this situation, they would say that the word for something that goes against the spirit of the law, while still being legal, is "legal"! In other words, they would advise that we don't get distracted by such notions as "spirit" vs "letter". The WHOLE POINT of the law is to turn spirit into letter.
– tkp
7 hours ago
I'm not aware of any such word, not least because there are many different ways that the situation you describe could arise. So "loophole", as @Jasper suggests, may work in some situations, but not others. But in a very real and practical way, I suspect that if you asked a lawyer about this situation, they would say that the word for something that goes against the spirit of the law, while still being legal, is "legal"! In other words, they would advise that we don't get distracted by such notions as "spirit" vs "letter". The WHOLE POINT of the law is to turn spirit into letter.
– tkp
7 hours ago
1
1
@tkp -- Your comment would make a good answer.
– Jasper
2 hours ago
@tkp -- Your comment would make a good answer.
– Jasper
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
This is known as a loophole.
There is a principle in American jurisprudence that if a law is too vague, it is not valid. Similarly, if a contract allows more than one reasonable interpretation, the party who wrote the contract does not get to decide which interpretation(s) will be used. Instead, the other party gets to choose.
answered 9 hours ago
JasperJasper
19.7k43974
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
8 hours ago
Tony Coehlo wrote the Americans With Disabilities Act. He was an epileptic, and he wrote the act to protect epileptics. A few years after the law was passed, a court ruled that epileptics whose condition was controlled by drugs were not protected by the law. He was quoted as saying that he "was written out of [his] own bill." Can anyone find a citation for this quote?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
40 mins ago
add a comment |
Jasper's suggestion of "loophole" is excellent, but you may also hear this situation arising from unintended wording referred to as "a technicality".
answered 3 hours ago
Ben VoigtBen Voigt
23317
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f204342%2fwhat-do-you-call-something-that-goes-against-the-spirit-of-the-law-but-is-legal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is known as a loophole.
There is a principle in American jurisprudence that if a law is too vague, it is not valid. Similarly, if a contract allows more than one reasonable interpretation, the party who wrote the contract does not get to decide which interpretation(s) will be used. Instead, the other party gets to choose.
answered 9 hours ago
JasperJasper
19.7k43974
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
8 hours ago
Tony Coehlo wrote the Americans With Disabilities Act. He was an epileptic, and he wrote the act to protect epileptics. A few years after the law was passed, a court ruled that epileptics whose condition was controlled by drugs were not protected by the law. He was quoted as saying that he "was written out of [his] own bill." Can anyone find a citation for this quote?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
40 mins ago
add a comment |
This is known as a loophole.
There is a principle in American jurisprudence that if a law is too vague, it is not valid. Similarly, if a contract allows more than one reasonable interpretation, the party who wrote the contract does not get to decide which interpretation(s) will be used. Instead, the other party gets to choose.
answered 9 hours ago
JasperJasper
19.7k43974
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
8 hours ago
Tony Coehlo wrote the Americans With Disabilities Act. He was an epileptic, and he wrote the act to protect epileptics. A few years after the law was passed, a court ruled that epileptics whose condition was controlled by drugs were not protected by the law. He was quoted as saying that he "was written out of [his] own bill." Can anyone find a citation for this quote?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
40 mins ago
add a comment |
This is known as a loophole.
There is a principle in American jurisprudence that if a law is too vague, it is not valid. Similarly, if a contract allows more than one reasonable interpretation, the party who wrote the contract does not get to decide which interpretation(s) will be used. Instead, the other party gets to choose.
answered 9 hours ago
JasperJasper
19.7k43974
This is known as a loophole.
There is a principle in American jurisprudence that if a law is too vague, it is not valid. Similarly, if a contract allows more than one reasonable interpretation, the party who wrote the contract does not get to decide which interpretation(s) will be used. Instead, the other party gets to choose.
answered 9 hours ago
JasperJasper
19.7k43974
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
JasperJasper
19.7k43974
answered 9 hours ago
JasperJasper
19.7k43974
answered 9 hours ago
JasperJasper
19.7k43974
19.7k43974
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
8 hours ago
Tony Coehlo wrote the Americans With Disabilities Act. He was an epileptic, and he wrote the act to protect epileptics. A few years after the law was passed, a court ruled that epileptics whose condition was controlled by drugs were not protected by the law. He was quoted as saying that he "was written out of [his] own bill." Can anyone find a citation for this quote?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
40 mins ago
add a comment |
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
8 hours ago
Tony Coehlo wrote the Americans With Disabilities Act. He was an epileptic, and he wrote the act to protect epileptics. A few years after the law was passed, a court ruled that epileptics whose condition was controlled by drugs were not protected by the law. He was quoted as saying that he "was written out of [his] own bill." Can anyone find a citation for this quote?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
40 mins ago
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
8 hours ago
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
8 hours ago
Tony Coehlo wrote the Americans With Disabilities Act. He was an epileptic, and he wrote the act to protect epileptics. A few years after the law was passed, a court ruled that epileptics whose condition was controlled by drugs were not protected by the law. He was quoted as saying that he "was written out of [his] own bill." Can anyone find a citation for this quote?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
Tony Coehlo wrote the Americans With Disabilities Act. He was an epileptic, and he wrote the act to protect epileptics. A few years after the law was passed, a court ruled that epileptics whose condition was controlled by drugs were not protected by the law. He was quoted as saying that he "was written out of [his] own bill." Can anyone find a citation for this quote?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
40 mins ago
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
40 mins ago
add a comment |
Jasper's suggestion of "loophole" is excellent, but you may also hear this situation arising from unintended wording referred to as "a technicality".
answered 3 hours ago
Ben VoigtBen Voigt
23317
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Jasper's suggestion of "loophole" is excellent, but you may also hear this situation arising from unintended wording referred to as "a technicality".
answered 3 hours ago
Ben VoigtBen Voigt
23317
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Jasper's suggestion of "loophole" is excellent, but you may also hear this situation arising from unintended wording referred to as "a technicality".
answered 3 hours ago
Ben VoigtBen Voigt
23317
Jasper's suggestion of "loophole" is excellent, but you may also hear this situation arising from unintended wording referred to as "a technicality".
answered 3 hours ago
Ben VoigtBen Voigt
23317
answered 3 hours ago
Ben VoigtBen Voigt
23317
answered 3 hours ago
Ben VoigtBen Voigt
23317
answered 3 hours ago
Ben VoigtBen Voigt
23317
23317
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
2 hours ago
add a comment |
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
2 hours ago
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
2 hours ago
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f204342%2fwhat-do-you-call-something-that-goes-against-the-spirit-of-the-law-but-is-legal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
I'm not aware of any such word, not least because there are many different ways that the situation you describe could arise. So "loophole", as @Jasper suggests, may work in some situations, but not others. But in a very real and practical way, I suspect that if you asked a lawyer about this situation, they would say that the word for something that goes against the spirit of the law, while still being legal, is "legal"! In other words, they would advise that we don't get distracted by such notions as "spirit" vs "letter". The WHOLE POINT of the law is to turn spirit into letter.
– tkp
7 hours ago
1
@tkp -- Your comment would make a good answer.
– Jasper
2 hours ago