What happens when there is a typo in a law? Specifically when it is not clear what the law refers to due to the typo In Austria we have a law that forbids having 'dangerous animals' as pets. To be more clear the law then gives us a list of what is considered a 'dangerous animal' using latin names. In this list we have the latin name 'Scolopendra gigantica' which refers to a giant centipede. Now, a little google search reveals that in fact 'Scolopendra gigantica' does not exist and they most likely meant 'Scolopendra gigantea'. Now the thing is when it comes to latin names (and the pet trade that this law tries to regulate uses almost exclusively latin names) it is important to get it correct as similar sounding latin names can still mean different animals. For example a 'Grammostola pulchra' is an entirely different species of tarantula than a 'Grammostola pulchripes'. So one could argue that I could go to a pet shop, see something named 'Scolopendra gigantea', check real quick if it is on the list of illegal animals and since it is not on the list buy it without second thought. Now my questions are: Could this mean legal consequences or would I be safe as I &quot;bought nothing illegal&quot;? If a scientist discovers a new type of centipede and names it 'Scolopendra gigantica', would it be illegal immediately? If it was illegal to own a 'Scolopendra gigantea' due to that law and a scientist now names a new centipede 'Scolopendra gigantica' would that immediately legalize the 'Scolopendra gigantea'? Sidenote: I don't plan on getting one, it just intrigues me how this would be ruled because honestly, I have not even the slightest clue.
In the vast majority of countries (both common law and civil law), statutes are interpreted in a manner that reflects the intend of the drafters of the statute a.k.a. legislative intent, when it is possible to reasonably determine what was intended. There is a canon of statutory interpretation in almost all legal systems that provides that absurd or nonsensical interpretations of legislative language are to be disregarded in favor of those that reflect the likely intent of the body passing the law, even if the literal and technical reading of the words does not state precisely what was intended. Thus, if there is a clear grammatical, punctuation, or spelling error and the intend meaning can be discerned from the language of the law, the larger context of the law, or extrinsic evidence such a legislative history and public discussion of the reasons for enacting the law in the first place, those clues will be used to interpret the legal effect of a law. Could this mean legal consequences or would I be safe as I &quot;bought nothing illegal&quot;? No. Ignorance of the law is no excuse even in cases where the interpretation of the law calls for the courts to ignore minor errors in legislative drafting. You would have an argument, but where you can state &quot;in fact 'Scolopendra gigantica' does not exist and they most likely meant 'Scolopendra gigantea'.&quot; The likelihood that you will face legal consequences is great. Also, in this particular example, keep in mind that biological species sometimes have more than one accepted Latin name, or once had a different name than the currently accepted name. For example, in this case, &quot;gigantica&quot; and &quot;gigantea&quot; are different grammatical inflections of the same Latin root word, and really are the same word in the same way that &quot;geese&quot; and &quot;goose&quot; are different tenses of the same word in English that refer to the same genus of birds. If a scientist discovers a new type of centipede and names it 'Scolopendra gigantica', would it be illegal immediately? The judges would look at all of the facts and circumstances and decide if the new species was within the scope of what the law intended to ban. But, the mere fact that the word is the same would not make the law apply to it. In the same way, suppose that a law had an exemption and didn't apply to animals in the town of Zootopia where many exotic pets are naturally common in the wild because a failed zoo released them into the area. But, given that context, the town of Euclid could not make itself exempt from the law by renaming itself Zootopia after the former town of Zootopia was disincorporated after its residents were all eaten by lions. If it was illegal to own a 'Scolopendra gigantea' due to that law and a scientist now names a new centipede 'Scolopendra gigantica' would that immediately legalize the 'Scolopendra gigantea'? No. For the same reasons discussed above. Footnote Re Similar Issues With Controlled Substances Laws This said, the issue you discuss does come up, and sometimes wins and sometimes loses, in the case of laws regulating controlled substances (i.e. illegal drugs). One of the reasons that this comes up is that the proper names of chemical substances in organic chemistry is not, as it is in biology, arbitrary. The name of an organic chemical is determined from looking at which atomic elements in which combinations with what kinds of bonds to each other are present. Given a chemical diagram of an organic chemical, every organic chemist would give it the same name, even if they've never discussed it, and likewise, you could ban an organic chemical that has never been observed or synthesized in real life and it would be illegal if it ever was synthesized. These statutes have usually been interpreted strictly to apply only to the named chemicals, but usually include an additional statutory section that either ban &quot;analog&quot; chemicals that are intended to or do have the same biochemical effect as the banned chemical, or allow an administrative agency to add new chemicals to the list without legislative action. Still, complications do come up even then because many lawyers and legislators become lawyers or politicians because they couldn't become doctors or engineers, because they flunked organic chemistry. (Joking aside, almost 50% of college students in the United States taking organic chemistry for the first time fail the course. This and first semester calculus are the most frequently failed college courses in the United States.) The Florida Cheese Ban For example, Florida recently classified a chemical present in many kinds of ordinary cheese as a controlled substance, which would in theory make every grocery store owner and millions of Floridians felons. Florida probably meant to ban high concentration synthetic extracts of that chemical administered as a drug, but didn't do anything to say so. But interpreting the statute to have that meaning was harder in that case since the same statute applies to many, many different drugs and the interpretation of the statute would make the ban on the chemical found in cheese make sense, would not make sense for the other drugs on the list. But, Florida courts may ultimately end up ignoring the addition of that chemical to the list based upon the canon against absurd interpretations, at least on an &quot;as applied&quot; case by case basis where the literal meaning of the statute would make millions of Floridian felons for violating this law. The Grand Junction Conviction For Possession Of A Legal Drug Another case came up in Grand Junction, Colorado where a woman was prosecuted by a government lawyer for possession of a controlled substance for possession of a chemical named in the indictment, and her government provided public defender had his client plead guilty to the crime. The woman tried to explain that this made no sense since its was an ordinary prescription drug, but the prosecutor, her own lawyer and the judge didn't believe her, and her public defender told her she was certain to be convicted anyway. (It isn't clear if she actually had a prescription for the drug, but even if she didn't, it wouldn't have been a crime.) So, she took a plea deal and was sent to prison to serve a medium length incarceration with work release sentence, instead of the medium length prison sentence she could have received if she went to trial, was convicted, and received a typical sentence for that conviction. The problem was that the chemical she was indicted for possessing in violation of the controlled substances act wasn't actually on the controlled substances list and wasn't an analog version of a controlled substance. There was also no reason to think that the drug he was convicted of possessing which had no pleasurable psychoactive effect was ever intended by the legislature to be banned or regulated. About a year later, in the year 2005, when this issue was ultimately discovered, a different criminal defense lawyer brought a post-conviction challenge to the conviction on the convicted woman's behalf, and the convicted woman was released with the conviction vacated, because the crime she was indicted for committing and convicted of didn't exist. Allysan Isaac, 24, was held nearly a year in work release for something that a judge said Tuesday was not even illegal. &quot;You were incarcerated for a case that was not a crime,&quot; said Mesa County District Judge Brian Flynn, who presided over the case. Flynn, the prosecutor and Isaac's defense attorney were unaware last year that the offense she was charged with was not a violation of the law. No one had noticed that a prescription drug found in Isaac's possession, an anti-anxiety medication called Buspirone, is not a controlled substance. ... District Attorney Pete Hautzinger said he had &quot;no idea&quot; why Isaac had been charged with and convicted of something that wasn't a crime. The defense attorney who represented Isaac in the first case was also baffled. &quot;I don't have an answer,&quot; assistant public defender John Burkey said. &quot;Nobody caught it. The police were saying it was a controlled substance.&quot; (Source quoting from and citing an article I read and confirmed the story from in the Rocky Mountain News, a now defunct newspaper. Corroborated here.) Incidentally, even though this woman was horribly wronged because of this wrongful conviction, the prosecutor and judge had absolute immunity from civil liability for the wrongful conviction, and criminal liability requires knowledge that you are committing a crime. The government likewise had no duty to compensate her for her wrongful incarceration because her rights weren't intentionally violated by anyone as required by civil rights statutes. She may have had a claim for legal malpractice against her own lawyer, for which negligence can be a basis of liability. Even that would have been a difficult case to win, however. This is because she would have to show that the public defender violated the standard of care of a reasonable lawyer by relying upon law enforcement's claim that a substance was a chemical banned by the controlled substances act which is a question of fact upon which expert witnesses could reasonably disagree. There is nothing in the public record to show that she pursued such a claim, but a private settlement reached before the case was filed wouldn't be revealed in that way. So, it is possible that a private settlement was reached in a legal malpractice case against her public defender that never actually resulted in a case being filed in court.
You should probably look up the Open Gaming Liscense (OGL) and what you can or cannot do with respect to it. Generally, classic fantasy monsters (Dragons, Manticores, Sasquatch, Vampires). Are fair use. OGL also allows for creatures that are similar to D&amp;D exclusive monsters to exist so long as the name is changed sufficently. Most &quot;monsters&quot; are in what's called Public Domain and are free to use and modify. Additionally &quot;powers&quot; of a monster (or superhero) aren't generally copyrighted but the totatllity of their use in a work can be (does your superhero fly? Is super-strong? Is invulerable? Can be fine. Is he named Clark Kent? That's a problem). Fair Use also allows for some parody but again, it's a defense to copyright infringment and not a liscenses to take someone elses work wholesale. It also doesn't stop them from suing you, as you have to claim fair use as your defense if and when each suit arises. I'd recomend looking at National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc. for an example of an intellectual property dispute that is close to yours. Note that Fawcett won at trial but lost on appeal and rather than take the matter before SCOTUS decided to settle out of court.
My gut response without really analyzing it (which is honestly what a lot of these cases boil down to in the end) is that the proposed name would imply an affiliation with the company that does not exist. A case challenging that name could be expensive and come out either way. Instead, "The [Wife's Name] Toy Museum" with descriptive material in brochures and on a website saying that the exhibits were manufactured by "Toy Company", which is a nominative use that does not imply an affiliation with the Company would be a wiser move.
The "Crabs" game can be legal if it is seen as a form of parody. That is one of the forms of "fair use" that allows copying (within limits). This is to allow the use of limited amounts of copying for critical or "mocking" pieces, which are considered a form of free speech. Two other issues come into play under "fair use." The first is whether or not this is "commercial" (yes) or non-commercial (e.g educational) use. That is mildly negative for "Crabs" but by no means dispositive. The second is the likely market impact, whether the new use tends to compete with the old use in its "home" market, or whether it is likely to open a new market of a very different, perhaps "opposite" audience that might later buy the original as a "crossover." The "Crabs" game seems to address the "green" or at least "pro animal" (PETA) market. If the defendant can show that the "Cards" market addresses e..g., your "inner Nazi," making it "opposite," that would be ideal. It would be less convincing if "Cards" were addressing e.g. human rights, because that might be seen to overlap with the green market in terms of social conscience.
Normally, initial identification is conducted by a police Dog Legislation Officer: ...or an officer trained in dog-related legislation with a good knowledge of the identification of the prohibited types of dogs. Who will normally: provide an expedited streamlined forensic report on the dog type and will almost certainly be the prosecution expert witness. Where the police are not the prosecution’s expert witness, they will identify an expert witness from a suitable organisation... One such organisation is the British Veterinary Association, but other expert witnesses with the requisite knowledge and understanding are available. Where the defence challenge the identification / type of dog: the court may direct the experts to serve a statement on what they agree and what they do not agree Although DNA testing is possible, in my experience the identification is based around the dog's appearance and physical characteristics. For example, Annex 2 of this Guide(pdf) gives a starting point for identifying Pit Bull Terrier (PBT) types.
european-union united-kingdom There are laws about consumer product safety that are not specific to umbrellas. In the EU, and including the UK for the time being unless its laws diverge, the framework is given in the General Product Safety Directive of 3 December 2001. Its preamble notes that It is very difficult to adopt Community legislation for every product which exists or which may be developed and so the Directive exists as a catch-all for products that aren't specifically covered elsewhere. As there is no Umbrella Tips Directive, here we are. The UK implementation was the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Some children's umbrellas will be covered by the Toy Safety Directive of 2009 instead, and in the UK that is the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011. The GPSD regime is quite general and its definition of a &quot;safe product&quot; is to be interpreted in the context of its marketing, likely uses, accompanying instructions, likelihood of degradation over time, and so forth. The TSD does have some more specific rules, such as that protruding points and edges of toys should be designed so as to reduce the likelihood of injury as much as possible. But this too is subject to contextual interpretation, and there is no direct rule saying how spiky the spikes can be, for example. Note that regarding umbrella safety, it's not just about the pointy bits. Ribs may be sharp, and catch fingers when the umbrella is being folded Spring-loaded mechanisms may cause the umbrella to unfold violently The fabric may be toxic If the handle is hard to grip, then it might blow out of my hands and injure somebody etc. If there are your proposed safety balls on the end of the ribs: They could fall off to leave an even sharper fixture than in conventional umbrellas They could be unscrewed and swallowed by a child They could shatter into little pieces when I accidentally whack the umbrella against a wall, and the little pieces might get in my eye etc What I mean to say is that it's not just about requiring a particular mechanism, but there are all sorts of things to think about in how the requirement is phrased. All of these are already implicitly dealt with by the current safety regime. Moreover, it can be adapted to changing technology and circumstances more easily than if it were fixed in primary legislation. So it is, with respect, not completely obvious that a law about umbrella tips would do the job better than the existing regulatory situation.
A typo in a contract does not ever void the contract. If the typo changes the meaning of the contract from what was actually intended, then it is up to a judge to interpret the contract and whether it is reasonable that a person would assume its intended meaning. In your example, it is obvious that the word "least" was meant to be there and not "lease" - as the alternate word makes no sense in context - so a judge would not void the contract or release you from your 30 day obligation (which is probably even granted to the landlord by local laws regardless of whether it was stated in the contract). Even misspellings of people's names or addresses on a lease do not void a contract if you have already paid or taken up residence. If any of these situations were brought to court, the judge would just amend the contract to a corrected version that would then serve as the contract between the two parties, replacing the version with the typo. This is known as contract reformation.
A person who uses a name similar to an existing protected trademark may have committed trademark infringement. The trademark owner can sue, and possibly collect significant damages, and possibly also get an injunction against further infringement. Note that this is not a matter of a crime, but of a lawsuit by one person or business against another. (A point of terminology: A trademark, like a copyright, is said to be &quot;infringed&quot; when someone uses it without permission in ways that the law does not allow. The word &quot;broken&quot; is not used for this.) In many countries, only marks properly registered with the appropriate national registry are protected. In the US simply using the mark can lead to its being protected, although registration can give greater rights to the mark owner. Protection in one country does not give protection in another. In general, protection only applies in the same or a similar market area as that in which the mark is already being used. An electronic game may well be similar enough to a card or board game for protection to apply. A key question is how similar a mark can be and avoid infringement. The basic test is if a reasonable person could be confused into thinking that the products were from the same maker, or were affiliated, or that the maker of the original product or service endorsed the new one. This is always something of a judgement call. If a mark is similar enough that a judge or jury might think that some reasonable consumers would be confused or mislead, then there is risk of an adverse judgement. Note that even an unfounded suit may be costly to defend. If there is any question, consulting an experienced trademark lawyer may well be a good idea. I will not express an opinion of the similarity of &quot;2oobbllee&quot; and &quot;Dobble&quot;. That would be legal advice. But if the OP were to change the name of the app, the whole matter would seem to be finished with no risk of court action. Note that the concept of a game, unlike the name, cannot be protected, neither by trademark law nor by copyright law,