Are you allowed to disregard the spirit in which laws are written as long as you keep to the letter of the law?
<p>Jeremy Clarkson a renowned UK motor enthusiast once mentioned that he had to credit Mercedes-Benz for when they created the first of there hybrid supercars they created a car that could both do 200mph on the autobahn and also give you all the emissions tax benefits and rebates you got from buying a Pruis. In essence keeping to the letter of the law while blatantly disregarding the spirit in which it was written.</p>
<p>Another example is how you can buy a decommissioned tank in the UK and because it carries more than six people and is powered by a diesel motor it counts as a people carrier and is therefore exempt from the London congestion fee.</p>
<p>So I was wondering if this concept of keeping to the letter of the law but disregarding the spirit in which it was written has been discussed in the American justice system?</p>

<p>You've basically described two of the ends of the pole in theories of jurisprudence (there are dozens of ends). There is no theory of law that relies purely on &quot;spirit&quot; (also no theory that actually relies on the letters uses=d in writing law), instead, everybody interprets the text (the words enacted by the government) and some people supplement their interpretation with consideration of &quot;other factors&quot;, such as assumed legislative purpose. Certain scholars and judges are inclined to put most weight on the actual wording of the law, while others are inclined to let purposive considerations dictate the interpretation of a law. <em>Interpreting law</em> by W.N. Eskridge is an informative guide to supplementing a reading of the statute with anciliary considerations. Antonin Scalia is the best-known proponent of the textualist approach.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/australia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" rel="tag">australia</a></p>
<h2>Statutory interpretation must use a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purposive_approach" rel="nofollow noreferrer">purposive approach</a></h2>
<p>Even though this is mandated by statute, Australian courts still tend to lean more towards <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">textualism</a> than most other common law jurisdictions. That is, if the interpretation of the statute is not <em>inconsistent</em> with the purpose, it tends to be read at face value. In most other jurisdictions, a meaning that <em>furthers</em> the purpose is preferred.</p>
<p>So, if the purpose of the tax breaks on the car is to meet the specified emissions standards, any car that does so gets them. If the purpose is to reduce emissions, then a car that met the standards but emitted more, might be excluded.</p>
<p>Similarly, if the purpose of the congestion fee is to reduce the number of vehicles in London the court would determine whether the decommissioned tank met that purpose.
Or whether the Parliament did not have such vehicles in contemplation when they defined people mover.</p>

us-constitution justification