The "You know what I/we meant" Law - General

History has shown that if a rule is made or someone is put on the record for saying something, somebody will creatively manage to distort it into something else. In politics, it can be someone saying "I don't like cheesecake" and someone else using that quote to say that particular person is against the diary industry because he does not liked dairy products. In law it can be manupulating wording so that you can get something past the radar. Lawyers are pretty much paid to do this in some instances. A good example would be some popular toy which has a sticker saying "NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 5". Regardless of the sticker, the toy is given to a child under that age and then subsequently the child is injured or killed. A lawsuit is filed and it is noted that the packaging it was not "suitable" for the child, not "allowed" for children under 5. Chances are the parents will win the case and the packaging is revised. Another good example would be a place where it is a rule that connecting systems together over the network is not allowed. Someone then uses a remote VPN server to connect several systems together over an internet connection. Subsequently a password gets leaked and a valueable file is stolen. when the person responsible for the VPN is approached about his actions and tries to get out fo it by stating that he never connected the systems over the internal network. He used an external network we just call "the cloud" or "the Internet". In this case of course regardless of how he connected the systems together, his ass would be canned. Still it's bullshit. It makes me wonder why we could not patch so many loopholes and workarounds with a "you know what I/we meant" law. It would indeed be a very dirty fix but it would in most cases eliminate a lot of bullshit. Imagine someone suing because they burned themselves on some coffee and the cup said that the contents may be hot when obviously, it was. You could easily throw the case out using the "you know what I/we meant" law to point out that it WAS coffee, the cup WAS warm from the hot coffee, and there WAS steam coming off the freshly brewed coffee and the fact that you were not using your logic to notice this was your fault. Of course, there would be people who would oppose such a law, possibly because it makes their lives a lot harder (ambulance chasers would pretty much go extinct) or simply because it's so dirty (tasty politics). There would also be the possibility that it would conflict with other laws. (in the US, it would probably conflict with the constitution in some way) I still think thought hat it would be somewhat effective. If anything it would reduce the number of garbage cases that clog up the courts for weeks of not months.

Fixing ambiguity with ambiguity? Yeah okay dude.

then why not go the whole way and not bother writing down laws at all

Laws are typically worded in such a way as in to be interpreted as intended by the creator. Your "law" makes no sense.

How are you doin man? I remember your thread a bit back. I hope you're doing better.

[QUOTE=Pred4tor;29115835]How are you doin man? I remember your thread a bit back. I hope you're doing better.[/QUOTE] If the thread explains much, I think I have gone insane. It's either that or I can no longer think rationally.

:psyduck:

People have tried this and failed. A guy raped a woman because she asked if he would like a cup of coffee, he invoked the "we all know what asking someone for coffee means" law and the judge threw his ass in jail.

[QUOTE=MIPS;29115940]If the thread explains much, I think I have gone insane. It's either that or I can no longer think rationally.[/QUOTE] You need to get out of the country for a while man.

This already exists it's called judges

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29117697]This already exists it's called judges[/QUOTE] remember that lady that spilled coffee on her lap and sued for 3 million or something like that yeah

There was a woman who got raped, but asked the man to put on a condom first. This apparently got the guy off the hook.

[QUOTE=Android phone;29117868]remember that lady that spilled coffee on her lap and sued for 3 million or something like that yeah[/QUOTE] The media got that all wrong. She suffered third degree burns and the original suit was just to pay the medical bills. Mcdonalds refused and as a result they have to pay several millions. If they'd just settled they wouldn't have had to pay that.

[QUOTE=Downsider;29117985]There was a woman who got raped, but asked the man to put on a condom first. This apparently got the guy off the hook.[/QUOTE] ugh maybe if every judge was a bitch like judge judy the US would have a drastically lower crime rate v:v:v [editline]11th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=garrynohome;29118215]The media got that all wrong. She suffered third degree burns and the original suit was just to pay the medical bills. Mcdonalds refused and as a result they have to pay several millions. If they'd just settled they wouldn't have had to pay that.[/QUOTE] still, "herp oh no I spilled my coffee this must be mcdonald's fault!!!" doesn't sound quite right does it

[QUOTE=Android phone;29118216]ugh maybe if every judge was a bitch like judge judy the US would have a drastically lower crime rate v:v:v [editline]11th April 2011[/editline] still, "herp oh no I spilled my coffee this must be mcdonald's fault!!!" doesn't sound quite right does it[/QUOTE] Well when I sell you something and you burn your legs severely I'll see if you still think that way.

You do not know what you're talking about. Go to law school and then reconsider this idea.

[QUOTE=garrynohome;29118324]Well when I sell you something and you burn your legs severely I'll see if you still think that way.[/QUOTE] "alright be careful this coffee is hot as shit and if you spill it on yourself you'll probably get burns" "okay :downs:" it'd be like someone buying a gun, injuring himself with it, and suing the company that made the gun [editline]11th April 2011[/editline] when I was five, I jumped out of a swing and landed on a pipe thing covered up by woodchips, breaking my arm in three places it's common goddamn sense not to jump out of a swing, but unfortunately if our family decided to we could sue the preschool AND the makers of the swing and win, that's just wrong

This is a bad idea. You know what I mean? [editline]11th April 2011[/editline] I understand it, but it in retrospect it will not work. [editline]11th April 2011[/editline] Also, someone could simply say "I don't know what you mean" and get off scot free.

[QUOTE=Android phone;29118588]"alright be careful this coffee is hot as shit and if you spill it on yourself you'll probably get burns" "okay :downs:" it'd be like someone buying a gun, injuring himself with it, and suing the company that made the gun [editline]11th April 2011[/editline] when I was five, I jumped out of a swing and landed on a pipe thing covered up by woodchips, breaking my arm in three places it's common goddamn sense not to jump out of a swing, but unfortunately if our family decided to we could sue the preschool AND the makers of the swing and win, that's just wrong[/QUOTE] The coffee was noticeably hotter than other coffee's sold by other restaurants.

[QUOTE=garrynohome;29125008]The coffee was noticeably hotter than other coffee's sold by other restaurants.[/QUOTE] Scalding hot, it can cause serious burns in 2 to 5 seconds and in less than 15 seconds it will form 3rd degree burns - 180–190 °F (82–88 °C).

[QUOTE]in the US, it would probably conflict with the constitution in some way[/QUOTE] You mean like, due process?

[QUOTE=Android phone;29118216] still, "herp oh no I spilled my coffee this must be mcdonald's fault!!!" doesn't sound quite right does it[/QUOTE] No. Too bad that's not the full case. I'll quote this- [url]http://www.cracked.com/article_19150_6-famous-frivolous-lawsuit-stories-that-are-total-b.s..html[/url] "It turns out there's a lot more to the story. First of all, the hot coffee wasn't just uncomfortable and embarrassing, it gave her third degree burns over six percent of her body, which required fucking skin grafts. [url=http://pratlaw.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/an-old-posting-i-always-wanted-to-have-referenced/]You can see the burns yourself if you're not squeamish.[/url] Secondly, coffee served at that temperature (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit) will give a person third-degree burns in two to seven seconds, while home-coffee brewers normally serve coffee at much lower temperatures (130 two 140 degrees) which won't immediately burn you. Yes, Starbucks and other joints do serve coffee at the hotter temperatures -- because some customers prefer it -- but then again, they get sued for it also. Thirdly, she attempted to settle for $20,000 at one point, and McDonald's refused, which is when she started getting cranky. You may have heard that she got millions of dollars, when the final award was $640,000. Then from that you take out the medical bills (hint: skin grafts aren't cheap). But she has to take some responsibility, right? She may not have been driving, but she was trying to open the lid in her lap so she could add cream and sugar. That's kind of careless, isn't it? Why couldn't the jury see that? Well, they did. That's why the compensatory damages portion ($200,000) was reduced by 20 percent, because they ruled it was 20 percent her fault. So if you still want to argue about it, you have to admit this case isn't the joke most people play it off as in email forwards and know-it-all water cooler lectures."

Common sense cannot be law because common sense is not universal. It's that simple.

How about they write down the reasoning for the law when they make it. So that way the intent of the law is known and it can be used by it, as well as all laws under the same reasoning have equal support. Like a tree of laws.

Part of the skill of law writing is avoiding loopholes.

I see what you mean dude but you know that if you try that you are opening a can of worms. Just look at people who've been accused of rape but when they go to court they get off from lack of evidence. Even if you know they are the rapist you still have to work within the system to prove the crime or else innocent people would also be going to jail because, "they just look like they would have raped someone." Or when the police file for a search warrant on someone but the warrant is filed incorrectly and there's a typo in the name of the suspect or something, even if the judge knows exactly who the warrant was meant for he can't throw away the possibility that the typo was on purpose to cut through red tape. And so the judge has no other choice but to let the suspect go. Fortunately this also works both ways because actual innocent people can use this things so they don't go to jail for something they haven't committed.