What is the hardest thing to understand in Law?
Hardest thing in law
Law is a giant jigsaw that makes sense at the end. What is the hardest thing that a law student will have to get their head around? The nature of legal interpretation and the inherent uncertainties in legal reasoning appear to be particularly difficult.
Here's a breakdown of these and other challenging concepts in law:
Legal Interpretation
Statutes and legal documents can be ambiguous. Judges must use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation to find their meanings.
Judges may apply different rules of interpretation such as the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule and the purposive rule.
The literal rule applies the plain meaning of the words in a statute, but this may lead to absurd outcomes.
The golden rule allows judges to modify the literal meaning to avoid absurdity, but it can be subjective and unpredictable.
The mischief rule interprets words in light of the problem that the statute was trying to address.
The purposive rule interprets words in line with the purpose of the legislation.
The use of broad terms, ambiguous language, and the change of word meanings over time makes statutory interpretation difficult.
Extrinsic evidence, such as legislative history, may be used to interpret what the legislature intended, but this can be complex.
The process of interpreting a will can be difficult, as testators may use ambiguous words or phrases that can be interpreted in different ways.
Uncertainty in Legal Reasoning
Legal materials, such as statutes and case law, do not always determine the outcome of legal disputes, so legal outcomes are uncertain.
Legal reasoning is not always purely logical or deductive.
The common law is built on a system of precedent which can be difficult to navigate because it is a form of oral tradition based on general customs, principles and rules.
Hard cases are particularly challenging because they require judges to deviate from rules to uphold justice, or involve conflicting rules, or uncertain scope of the rules.
The application of legal rules can be affected by the available evidence and the financial resources of the parties involved.
Legal principles, unlike rules, have a dimension of weight or importance and may lead to different conclusions.
Judges may also need to consider questions about the morality of a law when they make decisions.
Critical Legal Studies (CLS) theorists argue that legal materials don't completely determine the outcome of legal disputes, as the law is a form of political decision making.
The law may impose constraints on judges, but it may not bind them to come to a particular decision in a given case.
Conflict of Laws (Private International Law)
Determining which jurisdiction's law applies in cases with connections to multiple jurisdictions is complex.
Characterization, the classification of a cause of action, is necessary to determine the correct choice of law.
The distinction between substance and procedure can be difficult, as procedure is governed by the law of the forum (lex fori).
The law of the forum is the law of the court in which the trial is taking place and procedural matters including remedies, parties, evidence, damages, and limitation periods are determined by the lex fori.
However, there are exceptions, for example, an irrebuttable presumption of law is considered substantive and governed by the lex causae.
The legal concepts of one country may be unknown in another country.
The rules for determining domicile and habitual residence and which law applies for family matters can be intricate.
The validity of a marriage can be determined by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated (lex loci celebrationis), or by the law of the domicile of one or both parties.
The law applicable to a contract is the choice of law designated in the contract (lex contractus).
Jurisprudence and Legal Theory
Understanding the different schools of thought, such as natural law, legal positivism, and legal realism is difficult, as each has different perspectives on the nature of law and its relationship to morality.
Concepts such as the rule of recognition and the internal morality of law can be difficult to grasp.
Dworkin's theory of "law as integrity" can be difficult to understand because it considers the whole law and not just an individual statute or legal principle.
The debates among legal theorists, such as the Hart-Devlin debate, and Hart's debate with Dworkin, can be complex and challenging to follow.
Application of the Law
Applying the law to a specific set of facts can be difficult and requires a careful analysis of the issue, the rule, and the facts.
It can be difficult to identify the central legal issue(s) in a complex question.
It is important to understand how the legal rules apply to the facts of a problem question.
It is sometimes difficult to identify the key legal issues, as well as any sub-issues or related concepts.
It can be difficult to determine whether a contract is "fob" or "cif", as contracts vary infinitely according to the wishes of the parties.
Balancing Competing Interests
Balancing the competing interests of neighboring landowners can be a challenge in cases of private nuisance.
Courts must balance efficiency and fairness in administrative law.
Other Difficult Concepts
Strict liability in criminal law can be challenging, as it does not always require mens rea (criminal intent).
The concept of a floating charge in company law can be difficult to grasp, as courts will look at the substance of the charge rather than the label given to it.
The issue of certainty in the law, for example when a trust is not sufficiently clear can be difficult to understand.
Some legal concepts may be unknown in different legal systems.
In summary, while many areas of law can be difficult, the hardest things to understand often involve legal interpretation, uncertainty in legal reasoning, and applying abstract legal principles to concrete situations. These are difficult because they often involve subjective judgments, balancing competing interests, and navigating complex and sometimes conflicting legal theories and rules.
