Legal disputes cannot be resolved simply by looking at relevant laws because the two sides in the dispute will not agree with one another on various important issues. For example, they will not necessarily agree on which laws are relevant, how they apply, or the facts of the case.
In our legal system, there are myriad numbers of laws and of cases that have been litigated regarding those laws. Lawyers will look through all of these laws and cases, trying to find laws or precedents that will work in their favor. They will, of course, not agree as to which laws or precedents really apply to the situation at hand. They will both have arguments that are more or less logical and plausible, and they will not be able to agree on whose arguments are better.
In addition, the way a case is resolved (whose favor it goes in) depends a great deal on the facts of the case. The two sides in the case will not always agree on what the facts are, let alone how those facts are relevant in the case at hand. Since the two sides will often be unable to agree on these things, there is no way that their dispute can be resolved simply by looking at the relevant law.
Legal disputes are not simple issues of fact that can be solved by computers or without argument. They are complex issues where words have to be interpreted and people have to try to think of ways to connect various laws and precedents to their own particular cases. Therefore, they cannot be resolved simply by looking at relevant laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment