If that last statement is true, then you must also believe that Bill Davis either:
- choose to not write that down,
- didn't think it needed to be written down,
- or could not write it down.
Which do you think is most likely?
Praktik's point is that law is interpretation of the events, by someone qualified in the subject, who is guided by precedent.
It's not as hard and fast as D&D rules or something.
Much of what is precedent is not outright stated, (nor does it have to be) but referred to when making a judgement (which is why judges exist, funnily enough!).
The contention by judges (y'know the people schooled in law, and the precedents thereof?) is that Ford is -as Praktik stated- going against how the aforementioned law is currently understood and practised by those
versed in the law; unsurprisingly because he is barely versed in walking and chewing gum at the same time, much less something as dense and complex as provincial law.
It is therefore no surprise that when an amateur like Ford tries to interpret a law to suit himself with the bare minimum of understanding, it gets slapped down by those who understand the law as it stands, given that this
is the entirety of their job.