What&#39;s the difference between &quot;a question of fact&quot; and &quot;a question of law&quot;?
<p>I'm trying to understand the difference between <strong>questions of fact</strong> and <strong>questions of law</strong> but it's difficult to find any good definitions of either, and it would be helpful to have some illustrative examples.</p>

<p>The best definition I can find is that a question of fact is about "what happened", while a question of law is about "applying subsequent legal principles to those facts", but that definition doesn't make it clear to me how to determine whether a specific example is a question of fact or law.</p>

<p>When searching for definitions I seem to find more legal review / reform articles discussing the difficulty of defining and distinguishing the two than I can find definitions.</p>

<p>Are they indeed indistinguishable, such that appellate judges are free to twist the definitions whichever way they prefer for any given case (as was suggested in 1 of the legal reform articles that I read)?</p>

<p>Let me give you a simple, even if rather silly example: You take me to a civil court. You tell the judge "gnasher regularly parks his blue car in front of my home, and the color blue violates my sense of beauty. Judge, make him stop it. "</p>

<p>A question of fact would be: Is my car actually blue? Not green, or red? And do I actually park my car in front of your home, and do so regularly? </p>

<p>A question of law would be: Am I allowed by law to park my car in front of your home, even when my car has a color that you don't like? </p>

<p>If this goes to a civil court, the judge would look at it and probably say: "Even if all the facts that 'Gimme the 401' claimed are true, as a matter of law there would be no case for gnasher to answer, since these actions would be permitted by law". </p>

<p>If the judge decided that it is illegal to park cars in offensive colours in front of someone else's home as a matter of law, the court would then have to decide the facts: Whether what you claimed is actually the truth. </p>

<p>(And while this example is silly, there have been people claiming that the neighbour's use of WiFi interfered with their health. And by law it <em>is</em> illegal to interfere with someone's health, so the facts would have to be examined). </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The best definition I can find is that a question of fact is about
  "what happened", while a question of law is about "applying subsequent
  legal principles to those facts"...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Those are good, working definitions.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>...but that definition doesn't make it clear to me how to determine
  whether a specific example is a question of fact or law.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because you (we) need a specific example - of a case, a law or of testimony - to determine the application of those two definitions above.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>...such that appellate judges are free to twist the definitions
  whichever way they prefer for any given case.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Again: give a specific example of a judge "twisting" - or a better, non-value loaded term to use is <em>interpret</em> - one or both of those definitions.</p>

<p>Otherwise, this is simply a question about philosophical or linguistic ideas, and a very abstract one at that.</p>

common-law definition