Can you argue against a civil law if someone is using it for a purpose for which it was clearly not intended?

Question

--I guess this would be the theory of "statutory abuse". Or "technicality asshol-itas". Or something.

Answer 1

There is a doctrine under which one can argue that the conduct in which you engaged does not fall within the conduct that the law prohibits or was designed to limit. However, the law itself is presumptively valid, absent some proof to the contrary. Arguing against the law won't get you far, unless it's unconstitutional.

Answer 2

You can generally argue that the law is being mis-used or abused, and that the courts should clarify that the law wasn't intended to cover those types of situations -- that's arguing statutory abuse -- but it wouldn't be arguing against the law itself, just the manner it was being used.