What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to...
.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
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
1
@ColleenV -- This question is asking for a word for following the letter instead of the spirit "of a law or contract". The proposed answers are commonly used by lawyers discussing the law. Why would [legalese] not be an appropriate tag?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
@Jasper because the question isn’t asking for legalese and it isn’t about legalese (the specialized language of the legal profession). “Loophole” isn’t legalese. “an inferred private right of action” is an example of legalese.
– ColleenV♦
1 hour 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
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
word-request
edited 14 hours ago
ColleenV♦
10.5k53261
10.5k53261
asked yesterday
frbsfokfrbsfok
622215
622215
1
@ColleenV -- This question is asking for a word for following the letter instead of the spirit "of a law or contract". The proposed answers are commonly used by lawyers discussing the law. Why would [legalese] not be an appropriate tag?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
@Jasper because the question isn’t asking for legalese and it isn’t about legalese (the specialized language of the legal profession). “Loophole” isn’t legalese. “an inferred private right of action” is an example of legalese.
– ColleenV♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
@ColleenV -- This question is asking for a word for following the letter instead of the spirit "of a law or contract". The proposed answers are commonly used by lawyers discussing the law. Why would [legalese] not be an appropriate tag?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
@Jasper because the question isn’t asking for legalese and it isn’t about legalese (the specialized language of the legal profession). “Loophole” isn’t legalese. “an inferred private right of action” is an example of legalese.
– ColleenV♦
1 hour ago
1
1
@ColleenV -- This question is asking for a word for following the letter instead of the spirit "of a law or contract". The proposed answers are commonly used by lawyers discussing the law. Why would [legalese] not be an appropriate tag?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
@ColleenV -- This question is asking for a word for following the letter instead of the spirit "of a law or contract". The proposed answers are commonly used by lawyers discussing the law. Why would [legalese] not be an appropriate tag?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
@Jasper because the question isn’t asking for legalese and it isn’t about legalese (the specialized language of the legal profession). “Loophole” isn’t legalese. “an inferred private right of action” is an example of legalese.
– ColleenV♦
1 hour ago
@Jasper because the question isn’t asking for legalese and it isn’t about legalese (the specialized language of the legal profession). “Loophole” isn’t legalese. “an inferred private right of action” is an example of legalese.
– ColleenV♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
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.
1
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
yesterday
2
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
yesterday
2
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
yesterday
4
@JarsOfJam-Scheduler In France the term would probably be in French, so not really applicable here at English Language Learners.
– David K
10 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".
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
yesterday
5
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
23 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
23 hours ago
4
@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
23 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
22 hours ago
add a comment |
Consider the etymology of loophole:
also loop-hole, mid-15c., from hole (n.). + Middle English loupe "narrow window, slit-opening in a wall" for protection of archers while shooting, or for light and ventilation (c. 1300), which, along with Medieval Latin loupa, lobia probably is a specialized word from a continental Germanic source, such as Middle Dutch lupen "to watch, peer." Figurative sense of "outlet, means of escape" is from 1660s.
Loopholes are placed intentionally for avoiding certain provisions, usually for benefit of special interest groups or other political donors. Those who take advantage of loopholes are using the law as it was intended, at least on some level. The term can also be problematic because people sometimes (especially in political contexts) disparage aspects of even precise laws that they simply dislike as loopholes, e.g., the “gun show loophole” or the “mortgage interest loophole,” and the discussion degrades into an argument over whether it is truly a loophole or part of the intent.
The scenario from your question involves twisting or perverting the law into saying something that it does not say. Read on for more more accurate descriptions.
Applied to rhetoric in general and not just legal argument is sophistry:
The use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
‘trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry’
Another possibility is legalism:
Excessive adherence to law or formula.
Realize that the term can have religious connotations, as described in the second sense of the linked definition.
For a more cynical and even inflammatory characterization, Lavrentiy Beria was head of Stalin’s secret police and is said to have boasted, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” In other words, he believed he could manipulate the law to find any person guilty. Crisis Magazine ran a piece called Beware the Beria Method (emphasis added). Note that this is not in common usage.
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison rejected the claim that the then-proposed U.S. constitution conferred to the new federal government any power that might be alleged to benefit the general welfare with (emphasis added)
No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Finally, someone seeking to abuse law or contract terms is said to use a strained interpretation, an overly literal interpretation, or a tortured interpretation. A less formal and broader way to state it is the person is out in left field or, to avoid the personal attack, that the interpretation came out of left field.
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
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
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.
1
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
yesterday
2
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
yesterday
2
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
yesterday
4
@JarsOfJam-Scheduler In France the term would probably be in French, so not really applicable here at English Language Learners.
– David K
10 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.
1
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
yesterday
2
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
yesterday
2
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
yesterday
4
@JarsOfJam-Scheduler In France the term would probably be in French, so not really applicable here at English Language Learners.
– David K
10 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.
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.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
JasperJasper
19.9k44074
19.9k44074
1
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
yesterday
2
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
yesterday
2
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
yesterday
4
@JarsOfJam-Scheduler In France the term would probably be in French, so not really applicable here at English Language Learners.
– David K
10 hours ago
add a comment |
1
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
yesterday
2
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
yesterday
2
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
yesterday
4
@JarsOfJam-Scheduler In France the term would probably be in French, so not really applicable here at English Language Learners.
– David K
10 hours ago
1
1
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
yesterday
And in France please?
– JarsOfJam-Scheduler
yesterday
2
2
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
2
2
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
yesterday
I think there is no chosing involved, the interpretation that disadvantages the writer is used afaik.
– technical_difficulty
yesterday
4
4
@JarsOfJam-Scheduler In France the term would probably be in French, so not really applicable here at English Language Learners.
– David K
10 hours ago
@JarsOfJam-Scheduler In France the term would probably be in French, so not really applicable here at English Language Learners.
– David K
10 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".
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
yesterday
5
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
23 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
23 hours ago
4
@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
23 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
22 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".
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
yesterday
5
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
23 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
23 hours ago
4
@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
23 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
22 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".
Jasper's suggestion of "loophole" is excellent, but you may also hear this situation arising from unintended wording referred to as "a technicality".
answered yesterday
Ben VoigtBen Voigt
38318
38318
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
yesterday
5
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
23 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
23 hours ago
4
@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
23 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
22 hours ago
add a comment |
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
yesterday
5
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
23 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
23 hours ago
4
@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
23 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
22 hours ago
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
yesterday
youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
– Infiltrator
yesterday
5
5
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
23 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
23 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
23 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
23 hours ago
4
4
@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
23 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
23 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
22 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
22 hours ago
add a comment |
Consider the etymology of loophole:
also loop-hole, mid-15c., from hole (n.). + Middle English loupe "narrow window, slit-opening in a wall" for protection of archers while shooting, or for light and ventilation (c. 1300), which, along with Medieval Latin loupa, lobia probably is a specialized word from a continental Germanic source, such as Middle Dutch lupen "to watch, peer." Figurative sense of "outlet, means of escape" is from 1660s.
Loopholes are placed intentionally for avoiding certain provisions, usually for benefit of special interest groups or other political donors. Those who take advantage of loopholes are using the law as it was intended, at least on some level. The term can also be problematic because people sometimes (especially in political contexts) disparage aspects of even precise laws that they simply dislike as loopholes, e.g., the “gun show loophole” or the “mortgage interest loophole,” and the discussion degrades into an argument over whether it is truly a loophole or part of the intent.
The scenario from your question involves twisting or perverting the law into saying something that it does not say. Read on for more more accurate descriptions.
Applied to rhetoric in general and not just legal argument is sophistry:
The use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
‘trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry’
Another possibility is legalism:
Excessive adherence to law or formula.
Realize that the term can have religious connotations, as described in the second sense of the linked definition.
For a more cynical and even inflammatory characterization, Lavrentiy Beria was head of Stalin’s secret police and is said to have boasted, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” In other words, he believed he could manipulate the law to find any person guilty. Crisis Magazine ran a piece called Beware the Beria Method (emphasis added). Note that this is not in common usage.
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison rejected the claim that the then-proposed U.S. constitution conferred to the new federal government any power that might be alleged to benefit the general welfare with (emphasis added)
No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Finally, someone seeking to abuse law or contract terms is said to use a strained interpretation, an overly literal interpretation, or a tortured interpretation. A less formal and broader way to state it is the person is out in left field or, to avoid the personal attack, that the interpretation came out of left field.
add a comment |
Consider the etymology of loophole:
also loop-hole, mid-15c., from hole (n.). + Middle English loupe "narrow window, slit-opening in a wall" for protection of archers while shooting, or for light and ventilation (c. 1300), which, along with Medieval Latin loupa, lobia probably is a specialized word from a continental Germanic source, such as Middle Dutch lupen "to watch, peer." Figurative sense of "outlet, means of escape" is from 1660s.
Loopholes are placed intentionally for avoiding certain provisions, usually for benefit of special interest groups or other political donors. Those who take advantage of loopholes are using the law as it was intended, at least on some level. The term can also be problematic because people sometimes (especially in political contexts) disparage aspects of even precise laws that they simply dislike as loopholes, e.g., the “gun show loophole” or the “mortgage interest loophole,” and the discussion degrades into an argument over whether it is truly a loophole or part of the intent.
The scenario from your question involves twisting or perverting the law into saying something that it does not say. Read on for more more accurate descriptions.
Applied to rhetoric in general and not just legal argument is sophistry:
The use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
‘trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry’
Another possibility is legalism:
Excessive adherence to law or formula.
Realize that the term can have religious connotations, as described in the second sense of the linked definition.
For a more cynical and even inflammatory characterization, Lavrentiy Beria was head of Stalin’s secret police and is said to have boasted, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” In other words, he believed he could manipulate the law to find any person guilty. Crisis Magazine ran a piece called Beware the Beria Method (emphasis added). Note that this is not in common usage.
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison rejected the claim that the then-proposed U.S. constitution conferred to the new federal government any power that might be alleged to benefit the general welfare with (emphasis added)
No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Finally, someone seeking to abuse law or contract terms is said to use a strained interpretation, an overly literal interpretation, or a tortured interpretation. A less formal and broader way to state it is the person is out in left field or, to avoid the personal attack, that the interpretation came out of left field.
add a comment |
Consider the etymology of loophole:
also loop-hole, mid-15c., from hole (n.). + Middle English loupe "narrow window, slit-opening in a wall" for protection of archers while shooting, or for light and ventilation (c. 1300), which, along with Medieval Latin loupa, lobia probably is a specialized word from a continental Germanic source, such as Middle Dutch lupen "to watch, peer." Figurative sense of "outlet, means of escape" is from 1660s.
Loopholes are placed intentionally for avoiding certain provisions, usually for benefit of special interest groups or other political donors. Those who take advantage of loopholes are using the law as it was intended, at least on some level. The term can also be problematic because people sometimes (especially in political contexts) disparage aspects of even precise laws that they simply dislike as loopholes, e.g., the “gun show loophole” or the “mortgage interest loophole,” and the discussion degrades into an argument over whether it is truly a loophole or part of the intent.
The scenario from your question involves twisting or perverting the law into saying something that it does not say. Read on for more more accurate descriptions.
Applied to rhetoric in general and not just legal argument is sophistry:
The use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
‘trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry’
Another possibility is legalism:
Excessive adherence to law or formula.
Realize that the term can have religious connotations, as described in the second sense of the linked definition.
For a more cynical and even inflammatory characterization, Lavrentiy Beria was head of Stalin’s secret police and is said to have boasted, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” In other words, he believed he could manipulate the law to find any person guilty. Crisis Magazine ran a piece called Beware the Beria Method (emphasis added). Note that this is not in common usage.
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison rejected the claim that the then-proposed U.S. constitution conferred to the new federal government any power that might be alleged to benefit the general welfare with (emphasis added)
No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Finally, someone seeking to abuse law or contract terms is said to use a strained interpretation, an overly literal interpretation, or a tortured interpretation. A less formal and broader way to state it is the person is out in left field or, to avoid the personal attack, that the interpretation came out of left field.
Consider the etymology of loophole:
also loop-hole, mid-15c., from hole (n.). + Middle English loupe "narrow window, slit-opening in a wall" for protection of archers while shooting, or for light and ventilation (c. 1300), which, along with Medieval Latin loupa, lobia probably is a specialized word from a continental Germanic source, such as Middle Dutch lupen "to watch, peer." Figurative sense of "outlet, means of escape" is from 1660s.
Loopholes are placed intentionally for avoiding certain provisions, usually for benefit of special interest groups or other political donors. Those who take advantage of loopholes are using the law as it was intended, at least on some level. The term can also be problematic because people sometimes (especially in political contexts) disparage aspects of even precise laws that they simply dislike as loopholes, e.g., the “gun show loophole” or the “mortgage interest loophole,” and the discussion degrades into an argument over whether it is truly a loophole or part of the intent.
The scenario from your question involves twisting or perverting the law into saying something that it does not say. Read on for more more accurate descriptions.
Applied to rhetoric in general and not just legal argument is sophistry:
The use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
‘trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry’
Another possibility is legalism:
Excessive adherence to law or formula.
Realize that the term can have religious connotations, as described in the second sense of the linked definition.
For a more cynical and even inflammatory characterization, Lavrentiy Beria was head of Stalin’s secret police and is said to have boasted, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” In other words, he believed he could manipulate the law to find any person guilty. Crisis Magazine ran a piece called Beware the Beria Method (emphasis added). Note that this is not in common usage.
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison rejected the claim that the then-proposed U.S. constitution conferred to the new federal government any power that might be alleged to benefit the general welfare with (emphasis added)
No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Finally, someone seeking to abuse law or contract terms is said to use a strained interpretation, an overly literal interpretation, or a tortured interpretation. A less formal and broader way to state it is the person is out in left field or, to avoid the personal attack, that the interpretation came out of left field.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
Greg BaconGreg Bacon
45027
45027
add a comment |
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
@ColleenV -- This question is asking for a word for following the letter instead of the spirit "of a law or contract". The proposed answers are commonly used by lawyers discussing the law. Why would [legalese] not be an appropriate tag?
– Jasper
2 hours ago
@Jasper because the question isn’t asking for legalese and it isn’t about legalese (the specialized language of the legal profession). “Loophole” isn’t legalese. “an inferred private right of action” is an example of legalese.
– ColleenV♦
1 hour ago