4

Currently, we have both and .

They both seem to deal with the body of law, but they're not all on the same questions.

We can:

  • Leave it as it is if we can find some difference in usage
  • Merge and synonymise them if they are being used for the same purpose

Thoughts?

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

I think it's possible to make a distinction. E.g., could be about the laws that govern the interpretation and limitations of contracts in general, while would for questions about contracts themselves.

An example of : Is a contract that involves illegal actions enforceable?

An example of : Is it possible to use a contract to indemnify duelers?

But, as we can see here, the distinction is very hard to discern because the principles of the former almost always inform answers to the latter.

Therefore: We should synonymize these, and, following @cpast's rule1 make a synonym for .

1Use the phrase that someone would actually use instead of trying a this-site-specific contraction.

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .