legal-concepts
How to reconcile opposing legal answers?
<p><a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/46745/a-fraud-in-the-terms-of-use">A fraud in the terms of use</a> has two opposing answers: one said it <strong>was</strong> a fraud, while some said it was <strong>not</strong>.</p>

<p>How do I reconcile those answers?</p>

<h2>Law is more like sport than mathematics</h2>

<p>You don’t know how it will turn out until you play the game.</p>

<p>If a case goes to trial it’s because at both sides believe they can win. Both sides probably have good reasons for their belief. At least one of them is wrong.</p>

<p>I don't know what you mean by "deal with it". I presume you are not asking how to psychologically cope with the contradiction in conclusions, instead the question is how to evaluate two or more answers, both of which might be wrong. IMO the appropriate question is, what is the best-supported answer. The most important thing to do is not decide that based on which outcome you like the best: you have to be prepared to lose and learn something.</p>

<p>Any answer has not only logical structure, it has or should have empirical support. Look for specific legal evidence, for example applicable court rulings that support a claim, or quotation of statutory provisions. Also look for admissions that legal standards are in flux, when they are. Things that are illegal in Australia are not necessarily illegal in the US, and vice versa.</p>

<p>Especially when a matter depends on "common law" principles, 
legal reasoning relies heavily on identifying analogous cases (applicable precedent). An answer that identifies analogous court rulings has more evidentiary weight than one that doesn't. In principle, there could be applicable US case law coming from adult "meeting" services which obscurely admit that their service is "for entertainment only".</p>

<p>The rules of criminal versus civil trials are set up so that you get a definite outcome. You must decide, and in a civil trial you ask which proposition is best supported. In a criminal trial, the rule is that you ask if a specific proposition is supported to a specific (higher) level. In evaluating scientific claims (including legal science), you can reason to acceptance, rejection or conclude that there is not sufficient evidence for you to decide between alternatives.</p>
