Geoff Pullum has pointed out two putative examples of badly written laws, both, not coincidentally, based on columns by Dennis Rockstroh in the San Jose Mercury News. I wouldn't want to claim that laws are always beautifully written, but I'm afraid that in both these cases the fault lies with the journalist rather than with the lawmakers.
The first example concerns the law governing gift certificates. In his column Rockstroh writes:
For example, it says in section 1749.5 of the California Civil Code that any gift certificate sold after Jan. 1, 1997, is redeemable in cash for its cash value. Then in Section 1749.6 of the same code, the law says, "This section does not require, unless otherwise required by law, the issuer of a gift certificate to redeem a gift certificate for cash." Confused? Me, too.The problem is that Rockstroh has mis-stated the meaning of Section 1749.5. Here is the actual text of Section 1749.5(b). I've highlighted the crucial bit that Rockstroh missed.
Any gift certificate sold after January 1, 1997, is redeemable in cash for its cash value, or subject to replacement with a new gift certificate at no cost to the purchaser or holder.His restatment of Section 1749.6 (c)(2)(a) is accurate. It says:
(2) This section does not require, unless otherwise required by law, the issuer of a gift certificate to: (A) Redeem a gift certificate for cash.I don't think that this is confusing at all. 1749.5(b) says that the gift certificate must be redeemed either with cash or with a new gift certificate. 1749.6(c)(2)(a) says that the redeemer need not give cash. There is no contradiction. The effect is to make the choice that of the issuer rather than that of the recipient of the gift certificate.
The second example is Rockstroh's statement:
The law says: that nothing "shall be so designed and installed that it cannot, even in cases of failure, impede or prevent emergency use of such exit."He appears to be quoting Section 3215 (d) of the California Code of Regulations. Here is what it actually says:
Any device or alarm installed to restrict the use of an exit shall be so designed and installed that it cannot, even in cases of failure, impede or prevent emergency use of such exit.Notice that there is no nothing in the original text, and indeed that in Rockstroh's quotation his nothing lies outside of the quotation marks. The law is perfectly sensible. The problem was createdby Rockstroh's insertion of nothing into a clause that originally contained any.