WTF Lawyers

Why's that a 'loophole'? The law said that a fine would be paid if you parked on a yellow line, and defined how the yellow line had to be painted. If it wasn't painted properly, there was no fine. That's the problem with anti-loophole general provision clauses - you end up having to define 'loophole'. And one man's loophole is another man's integral part of the law, and so you end up with the uncertainties and ambiguities which the law is supposed to avoid, so that everyone can know what is lawful and what is not.

It's a loophole, because you'd have to be certafiably insane to think that the council's intention in painting a yellow line (even improperly) was anything other than restricting parking. What else could it possibly be? If you don't know what a yellow line is, then you shouldn't be driving; if you do know what a yellow line is then you'd be bonkers to think that its intended purpose has been negated by the fact that it has technically been drawn incorrectly.

I'm aware that this idea is absolutely full of holes and I've chosen a very simplistic example, but I'm sure there are lots of other examples in which a similar test could be reasonably applied.