Mfcttrf

Copycat chess is back

I see my dog run

How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?

Is there really no realistic way for a skeleton monster to move around without magic?

least quadratic residue under GRH: an EXPLICIT bound

Showing the closure of a compact subset need not be compact

How is the relation "the smallest element is the same" reflexive?

What typically incentivizes a professor to change jobs to a lower ranking university?

Download, install and reboot computer at night if needed

Can I interfere when another PC is about to be attacked?

What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server

Example of a relative pronoun

How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?

What does "enim et" mean?

Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?

cryptic clue: mammal sounds like relative consumer (8)

Non-Jewish family in an Orthodox Jewish Wedding

My colleague's body is amazing

Is Social Media Science Fiction?

A function which translates a sentence to title-case

Accidentally leaked the solution to an assignment, what to do now? (I'm the prof)

Why is the design of haulage companies so “special”?

Modification to Chariots for Heavy Cavalry Analogue for 4-armed race

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;

4

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

share|improve this question

edited 13 hours ago

Jasper

19.7k43974

asked 14 hours ago

frbsfokfrbsfok

569112

• 
  
  
  

  
  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
  12 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @tkp -- Your comment would make a good answer.
  
  – Jasper
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

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

share|improve this question

edited 13 hours ago

Jasper

19.7k43974

asked 14 hours ago

frbsfokfrbsfok

569112

• 
  
  
  

  
  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
  12 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @tkp -- Your comment would make a good answer.
  
  – Jasper
  7 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

share|improve this question

edited 13 hours ago

Jasper

19.7k43974

asked 14 hours ago

frbsfokfrbsfok

569112

share|improve this question

edited 13 hours ago

Jasper

19.7k43974

asked 14 hours ago

frbsfokfrbsfok

569112

share|improve this question

edited 13 hours ago

Jasper

19.7k43974

asked 14 hours ago

frbsfokfrbsfok

569112

edited 13 hours ago

Jasper

19.7k43974

edited 13 hours ago

Jasper

19.7k43974

asked 14 hours ago

frbsfokfrbsfok

569112

asked 14 hours ago

frbsfokfrbsfok

569112

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

14

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 13 hours ago

answered 13 hours ago

JasperJasper

19.7k43974

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  And in France please?
  
  – JarsOfJam-Scheduler
  12 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
  
  – technical_difficulty
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

Jasper's suggestion of "loophole" is excellent, but you may also hear this situation arising from unintended wording referred to as "a technicality".

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Ben VoigtBen Voigt

27317

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
  
  – Infiltrator
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  To me "technicality" implies something quite different: it implies that the reason is procedural rather than material. For example, if you commit a crime (violating both the letter and the spirit of the law), but the evidence that the police find is in an area that they didn't actually get a search warrant for, then the evidence might get thrown out, and so you might get "off on a technicality".
  
  – ruakh
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @ruakh: I think there's considerable overlap -- yours is a good example of where two goals of the law come into conflict. There are also examples of technicalities which are loopholes. For example, a requirement to do something in two successive months, intending that a subscription or account should be maintained for an entire intervening month, but technically it may be possible to do the action on March 31st and April 1st.
  
  – Ben Voigt
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @BenVoigt : I think your use of "technically" in your comment is a better fit than "technicality" in your answer. An action may be technically legal or technically compliant with the terms of a contract, because, of course, technically correct is the best kind of correct. I don't know of a usage of technicality for these positive constructions -- typically a technicality is a reason for a negative construction: "not found in breach due to a technicality", "not found guilty due to a technicality".
  
  – Eric Towers
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @EricTowers: The example in my comment meets the criteria of "following the letter but not the spirit (of the law or contract)", don't you think? As far as "technically correct is the best kind of correct", here's an interesting case where the bank did not think so, and voided promotions on the basis of "their intent": doctorofcredit.com/capital-one-500-money-market-account-bonus
  
  – Ben Voigt
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more 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
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

14

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 13 hours ago

answered 13 hours ago

JasperJasper

19.7k43974

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  And in France please?
  
  – JarsOfJam-Scheduler
  12 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
  
  – technical_difficulty
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

14

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 13 hours ago

answered 13 hours ago

JasperJasper

19.7k43974

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  And in France please?
  
  – JarsOfJam-Scheduler
  12 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
  
  – technical_difficulty
  5 hours 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.

share|improve this answer

edited 13 hours ago

answered 13 hours ago

JasperJasper

19.7k43974

share|improve this answer

edited 13 hours ago

answered 13 hours ago

JasperJasper

19.7k43974

answered 13 hours ago

JasperJasper

19.7k43974

answered 13 hours ago

JasperJasper

19.7k43974

8

Jasper's suggestion of "loophole" is excellent, but you may also hear this situation arising from unintended wording referred to as "a technicality".

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Ben VoigtBen Voigt

27317

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
  
  – Infiltrator
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  To me "technicality" implies something quite different: it implies that the reason is procedural rather than material. For example, if you commit a crime (violating both the letter and the spirit of the law), but the evidence that the police find is in an area that they didn't actually get a search warrant for, then the evidence might get thrown out, and so you might get "off on a technicality".
  
  – ruakh
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @ruakh: I think there's considerable overlap -- yours is a good example of where two goals of the law come into conflict. There are also examples of technicalities which are loopholes. For example, a requirement to do something in two successive months, intending that a subscription or account should be maintained for an entire intervening month, but technically it may be possible to do the action on March 31st and April 1st.
  
  – Ben Voigt
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @BenVoigt : I think your use of "technically" in your comment is a better fit than "technicality" in your answer. An action may be technically legal or technically compliant with the terms of a contract, because, of course, technically correct is the best kind of correct. I don't know of a usage of technicality for these positive constructions -- typically a technicality is a reason for a negative construction: "not found in breach due to a technicality", "not found guilty due to a technicality".
  
  – Eric Towers
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @EricTowers: The example in my comment meets the criteria of "following the letter but not the spirit (of the law or contract)", don't you think? As far as "technically correct is the best kind of correct", here's an interesting case where the bank did not think so, and voided promotions on the basis of "their intent": doctorofcredit.com/capital-one-500-money-market-account-bonus
  
  – Ben Voigt
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

8

Jasper's suggestion of "loophole" is excellent, but you may also hear this situation arising from unintended wording referred to as "a technicality".

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Ben VoigtBen Voigt

27317

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
  
  – Infiltrator
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  To me "technicality" implies something quite different: it implies that the reason is procedural rather than material. For example, if you commit a crime (violating both the letter and the spirit of the law), but the evidence that the police find is in an area that they didn't actually get a search warrant for, then the evidence might get thrown out, and so you might get "off on a technicality".
  
  – ruakh
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @ruakh: I think there's considerable overlap -- yours is a good example of where two goals of the law come into conflict. There are also examples of technicalities which are loopholes. For example, a requirement to do something in two successive months, intending that a subscription or account should be maintained for an entire intervening month, but technically it may be possible to do the action on March 31st and April 1st.
  
  – Ben Voigt
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @BenVoigt : I think your use of "technically" in your comment is a better fit than "technicality" in your answer. An action may be technically legal or technically compliant with the terms of a contract, because, of course, technically correct is the best kind of correct. I don't know of a usage of technicality for these positive constructions -- typically a technicality is a reason for a negative construction: "not found in breach due to a technicality", "not found guilty due to a technicality".
  
  – Eric Towers
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @EricTowers: The example in my comment meets the criteria of "following the letter but not the spirit (of the law or contract)", don't you think? As far as "technically correct is the best kind of correct", here's an interesting case where the bank did not think so, and voided promotions on the basis of "their intent": doctorofcredit.com/capital-one-500-money-market-account-bonus
  
  – Ben Voigt
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

Jasper's suggestion of "loophole" is excellent, but you may also hear this situation arising from unintended wording referred to as "a technicality".

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Ben VoigtBen Voigt

27317

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Ben VoigtBen Voigt

27317

answered 8 hours ago

Ben VoigtBen Voigt

27317

answered 8 hours ago

Ben VoigtBen Voigt

27317