Contradictions

It is said that CONTRADICTION is the ruin of the THEORY in which it occurs. The evolution of the interpretation of the law may be due to the fact that:
(a) lawyers first promote an INTERPRETATION that is intended to avoid logical contradictions in theory (e.g. what effect on the contractual penalty is the withdrawal from the contract),
(b) as a result, the judicial practice according to THEORY develops, but detached from economic reality,
(c) after a few years, the Supreme Court changes the practice in such a way that it changes perceptions, but on another issue (e.g. whether a contractual penalty can be stipulated in the event of withdrawal),
(d) the new issue creates a NEW logical contradiction in THEORY, and so on. An example of such a situation is the evolution of the case-law on the above-cited issue of CONTRACTUAL PENALTY.

According to Wittgenstein:
(a) CONTRADICTION and TAUTOLOGY set the limits of logic, but they themselves DO NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT REALITY
(b) tautology and contradiction are not ridiculous, however, because THEY BELONG TO THE SYMBOLISM OF LOGIC as “0” belongs to the symbolism of arithmetic
(c) in the case of TAUTOLOGY, the sentence is true for all possibilities
(d) in the case of CONTRADICTIONS the sentence is false for all possibilities
(e) since CONTRADICTION is an element of symbolism of logic, the appearance in theory of a contradictory sentence by itself does not prove anything about reality.