|
|  |
|
Legal Needs
| [This Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts] | | Topics |
|
|
| |
| Oct 24, 2008 12:51 am |
|
re: re: re: Defining an Idiot !! The Supreme Court defines an Idiot |
Vijay Nair
| |
Sudheendra,
As Ritu says, the post on that link does have an elaborate discussion on "Idiot"
Legal definitions should better be kept away from common modes of conversation. Not only "Idiot", there are many many more terms defined by Statutes and Courts, which are relevant only in the context that they are being defined. A particular term might have been defined differently across several statutes and many terms may have the same meaning in one statute. Therefore, quirkiness of such definitions have to be analysed contextually.
While this is being discussed, let me give you an example. The definition of "kidnapping" and "abduction" is different. In common parlance, these two words are used inter-changeably and liberally.
Similarly is the case or "criminal breach of trust" and "cheating".
A glossary of such usages would make an interesting reading.
Vijay Nair, Partner
KNM & Partners, Law Offices
http://www.knm.in/Private Reply to Vijay Nair (new win) |
|
| |
|
