News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Uber app taxi row referred to London's High Court. Parent comment

Re:Uber app taxi row referred to London's High Court by peteretep on Thursday May 29, 2014 @06:00AM (#7815494) 

    > "They are deferring to the High Court to gain a binding
    > ruling based on the spirit of the law."

    > "Maybe the rules should be updated, maybe not, but that's
    > not for the High Court to do!"
Who, other than judges, would you rather was interpreting the law?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber app taxi row referred to London's High Court by pjc50 on Thursday May 29, 2014 @08:36AM (#7815877)
They aren't entitled to "interpret" the law in ways that contravene the text; a phone running the Uber app may well be a taximeter, but it's not fitted to the vehicle.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1907/55/pdfs/ukpga_19070...

(Also, the law says that the Secretary of State gets to define what constitutes a taximeter).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber app taxi row referred to London's High Court by peteretep on Thursday May 29, 2014 @10:02AM (#7816233) 

    > They aren't entitled to "interpret" the law in ways that
    > contravene the text
Of course they are. That's sort of the point of common law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber app taxi row referred to London's High Court by ZenPro on Friday May 30, 2014 @02:43PM (#7823325)
Are you simply ignoring every binding legal precedent ever?

Of course the law is open to interpretation and Judges not only disagree with each other they also overrule each other depending on the court and case in question.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber app taxi row referred to London's High Court by eyko on Thursday May 29, 2014 @06:31AM (#7815569)
People with a dose of common sense and technological literacy.
[ Parent | on HN ]