Define: Argumentum Ab Inconvenient Est Validnm In Lege Quia Lex Non Permit Tit Aliquodinconveniens

Q: What does “Argumentum Ab Inconvenient Est Validnm In Lege Quia Lex Non Permit Tit Aliquodinconveniens” mean?
A: “Argument from inconvenience is valid in law because the law does not permit anything inconvenient.”

Q: What is the purpose of this phrase?
A: This phrase is often used in legal discussions to argue that if a law or legal principle leads to an inconvenient or absurd outcome, it should not be followed or applied.

Q: Can you provide an example of how this phrase is used?
A: Sure! Let’s say there is a law that states all vehicles must be painted red. However, enforcing this law strictly would cause significant inconvenience and financial burden for vehicle owners. In this case, the argumentum ab inconvenient est validnm in lege quia lex non permit tit aliquodinconveniens can be used to argue that the law should not be applied strictly, as it would lead to an unreasonable inconvenience.

Q: Is this phrase universally accepted in legal systems?
A: No, the acceptance and application of this principle may vary across different legal systems and jurisdictions. Some legal systems may prioritize strict adherence to the law, while others may allow for more flexibility based on the principle of avoiding inconvenience.

Q: Are there any limitations to using this argument?
A: Yes, there are limitations to using this argument. It is important to consider the overall intent and purpose of the law in question. If the inconvenience is deemed necessary to achieve a specific legal objective, the argumentum ab inconvenient est validnm in lege quia lex non permit tit aliquodinconveniens may not be successful.

Q: Can this argument be used in non-legal contexts?
A: While the phrase itself is primarily used in legal discussions, the underlying concept of avoiding inconvenience can be applied in various contexts. It can be used to argue against policies, rules, or practices that lead to unnecessary hardship or impractical outcomes.

Q: Are there any alternative phrases or concepts related to this argument?
A: Yes, there are related concepts such as the “doctrine of absurdity” or the “rule of reason” that can be used to challenge laws or legal interpretations that lead to unreasonable or absurd results.

Q: How can one effectively use this argument in a legal context?
A: To effectively use this argument, it is important to provide clear evidence and reasoning to demonstrate the inconvenience or absurdity caused by strictly applying a law. Additionally,