Law - should the English be followed, or should the objective?

@vandana7 (58811)
India
December 8, 2009 11:38pm CST
I've come fresh from another discussion where there was a kind of oddity which made me think whether we should be following English as per the Webster or the object behind the framing of any law or rules? Are you aware that they can, at times (rarely), be in conflict? Lawyers have exploited this aspect several times over. And the poor draftsman of law may be periodically dragged into hell for failing to cover all possibilities. I think we should be kinder to the pour soul. He/she was, after all, a human being. What is your call on this? Please share.
1 person likes this
4 responses
@PeacefulWmn9 (10424)
• United States
9 Dec 09
This is what we call a "technicality," and yes, when it comes to matters of contracts and legal things, the absolute correct wording is important, lest one fall into a trap and not know it. Karen
@vandana7 (58811)
• India
11 Dec 09
Hi peacefulwmn, what if the wording is such that even though the person is not doing any wrong per se, still he becomes liable or punishable? For example, mylot does not allow another person to use our accounts. Fine, that is ok. But if I have a friend who just wants to wish mylotters - happy christmas. And I introduce her to mylotters as I start my discussion - this is my best friend, she wants to say something. Please listen to her. And she starts typing - Hi everybody, I am so excited - I got this new dress. I hope you all also liked your Christmas shopping. Wish you all a merry christmas and a happy new year. Would that amount to violation of mylot rules or not in your opinion. Note, there are no quote anywhere. :)
1 person likes this
• United States
24 Dec 09
I don't see how that could be a violation...you are simply relaying a message from someone with you as part of your discussion...and the other person is not using your account. Thank you for the BR :) Karen
@vandana7 (58811)
• India
24 Dec 09
Well, she typed and she wrote in first person. :) I expected you to take that stand Karen.:)
@yugasini (12814)
• Anantapur, India
9 Dec 09
hi vandana madam, it is very hard to me to understand this discussion,i think you know the law also,really i am lucky to get friends like you in mylot,you know about my English and my language is very very poor,what ever comes to my mind i will write but some times i think and some times i will not,have a nice day
@vandana7 (58811)
• India
9 Dec 09
Hi yugasini, my English is not that good. :) Ask any of our English speaking friends - they will tell you. :) What i wanted to know is suppose there is a law made to stop something. For example - everybody is required to give address proof to open a bank account, isn't it? Now, if in the same bank, if you open another bank account, do you need to once again give an address proof? Or is it enough if you have given it once, after all the bank manager knows you for the last 10 years!
@Buchi_bulla (8299)
• India
9 Dec 09
Very truely said. Lawyers try to see the loopholes in the rules and exploit it to succeed in their case. Then the Law makers are questioned for the loopholes. If the exploitation is going to help the helpless person, then it is taken in a good spirit, as long as there is no counter allegation on it.
@vandana7 (58811)
• India
11 Dec 09
Yes, at times the law cannot be drafted perfectly and this is something people who have been drafting laws know very well. They've to consider all possibilities, but there can be somethings that they fail to consider as they would not have come across such situations anytime. This makes it easy for lawyers to hang on to the law by language rather than looking at the justice. I think at such times, the judge should have the discretion to overlook the wording and give reprieve. This is when there has been no harm done but the law or rule has been transgressed. :)
@Buchi_bulla (8299)
• India
9 Dec 09
Hai Vandana, to be frank, I did not follow the discussion. Can you explain in a simple way for me? Please do not mistake. I want to answer but I did not get the correct picture. May be my understanding is low.
@vandana7 (58811)
• India
9 Dec 09
I appreciate your frankness. :) Well, there are times when rules are so stringent that the exact object is missed out. For example we have a rule here in mylot that we should not let another person write instead of us. Obviously the idea is to prevent any future litigation. But when it is unlikely to cause any legal problems, then should it still be followed? That is what I meant to say. :)