That is really a wild thing. A culture of legal belief based on precedent. It's as if one is joining a club that has rules of business conduct clearly documented.

That is basically how the entire common law system works in North America. Except in the places not using common law

That doesn't seem wild at all. Laws are written by humans, and, as such, there's inherent ambiguity.

Given that, would you rather have a case tried in a court that has only tried a handful of other cases, or would you rather be in a court that has handled a mountain of cases, with lots of information as to what the law really means, as it has played out in real-life scenarios?

Being tried under a legal regime where there is a ton of past history seems a lot easier to reason about than one where there isn't much.

> It's as if one is joining a club that has rules of business conduct clearly documented.

Well, yes. The law is the law, sure, but the "documentation" is much more than just the law, as written.

It's wild because the obvious choice to me would be to incorporate in the state or commonwealth where the primary work is done. Choosing to incorporate in state that is nothing more than choice of court system to be bound to me is not obvious.

Many people in this thread cite most court systems are the same yet some people choose to incorporate in Delaware. I happen to be incorporated in Massachusetts because that is where I live.

Is it any more wild than a system where ambiguity is decided at random by whichever judge you happen to have?