2

Currently, we have both and .

They both seem to deal with the body of law, but they're not all on the same questions.

We can:

  • Leave it as it is if we can find some difference in usage
  • Merge and synonymise them if they are being used for the same purpose

Thoughts?

2

I think it's possible to make a distinction. E.g., could be about the laws that govern the interpretation and limitations of contracts in general, while would for questions about contracts themselves.

An example of : Is a contract that involves illegal actions enforceable?

An example of : Is it possible to use a contract to indemnify a duelers?

But, as we can see here, the distinction is very hard to discern because the principles of the former almost always inform answers to the latter.

Therefore: We should synonymize these, and, following @cpast's rule1 make a synonym for .


1Use the phrase that someone would actually use instead of trying a this-site-specific contraction.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .