0

Legal validity in the theory of preventive consumer law in digital advertising

By: Dr. Camilo Alfonso Escobar Mora ©

Founder of JURÍDIA – Learning and Research Center for Preventive Consumer Law in Digital Advertising

www.juridia.co

 

 

Introduction

 

The theory of preventive consumer law in digital advertising (created by the author of this article) made (included: created) clarity about juridical (including: legal) validity. Both at a general level and at a particular level for digital advertising that the (commercial) company communicates to the consumer. That is to say: it clarified the juridical validity of digital advertising in the consumer relationship (the consumer relationship is the juridical relationship that is formed when one of its parties is an enterprise —mercantile. Commercial— and the other is a consumer).

 

In theory: validity (juridical validity) is the form of law. The form of the law is validity. It is the way in which (the law) is specified in the case. According to the case, in the case and to the extent of the case (tailored to the case). For that reason: the valid case is the form of the law (to the extent of the case —tailored to the case—).

 

This paper explains that concept (the concept of the juridical validity —the concept of juridical validity—).

 

 

Development

 

There is an illusion (it exists an illusion) of knowledge (including: illusion of clarity) about the concept (including: about creation and about demonstration) of juridical validity. Therefore: the theory of preventive consumer law in digital advertising makes clarity (ie: makes knowledge) about it (including: makes clear about it). Juridical validity does not mean formal validity. Neither does it mean material validity. Because: validity exists or does not exist. So: it’s not only formal nor it’s just material. Therefore: there is validity (it only exists validity) when there are (when there exist) its elements of existence (when its elements of existence exist).

 

The elements of existence of juridical validity are those that make it valid. In fact: these elements are the elements of the existence of law. Because: the law (law) is the form of juridical validity. Then: are the elements that are the basis, the content and the form (including: the background —the fund—) of the juridical validity (of juridical validity). Properly: are the elements of nature, content and scope of validity. That is to say: they are the particular characteristics (including: conditions) that make a being known (including: known as) as validity (juridical) exists.

 

These characteristics are defined in their base elements. That is: the particular and specific characteristics (that is: the elements of existence) of validity are defined in the elements that are its basis (in the elements that are the basis of validity). Therefore: only the harmonic with the basic elements of validity is valid. These elements are: the philosophy of law and the theory of law. So: only the harmonious with the philosophy and the theory of law is valid. Because: they are its structural elements.

 

It is not a subjective philosophy or theory. It is not a philosophy or a theory of law. It is not a school, line or current philosophical or theoretical law. It is not a juridical approach (including: it is not a legal approach). It is not an uncertainty about the law. It is not an obscurantism of law (of the law). It is not a vice of law, on the law or in the law. In short: it is not a particular concept of law.

 

It is about the philosophy and the theory of law. That is: philosophy and the theory of a being called law (the law) that has (objective) particular and specific characteristics. That is to say: the particular and specific characteristics of the being called law (the law) are those that must exist in a being for that being to be law. Therefore: only what has those characteristics is binding. Since what has those characteristics is law (the law). And: the law (law) is binding.

 

Because: being called law (the law) is a being that establishes the duty to be legal (properly: the juridical must be. Juridical must be —the duty to be juridical—). That is to say: the must be (the characteristics —included: the conditions—) that must have (included: that must comply) a being to be valid (juridically). That is to say: it establishes what a being must be to be juridically (including: legally) valid.

 

Then: it is only juridical duty to have what has the characteristics of being called law (the law). And: only that which has the characteristics (the elements of existence) of the being called law (the law) is law (the law). Therefore: both the being called the law and the being that governs (the one that governs the law —being governed by the law—) must have the elements of existence of the law to be valid.

 

Then: the being that tries to be law (be it the being that tries to be juridical must be —that is: the being that tries to be the law— or the being that tries to be harmonious with the duty to be juridical —that is: the being that tries to be valid—) is not law. Only what has the elements of the existence of law (of the law) is law. What is trying to be law is not law (it is not). Therefore: only what is law (the law) is binding.

 

Because: only what is harmonic with the elements of the existence of law (of the law) is law. Then: the being that has the particular and specific characteristics of the law is law. Then: both being called law and being valid are law (the law). Because: in both there exist (there are) the elements of existence of the law. Because: both are harmonic with the elements of the existence of law (of the law). In short: because both manifest the law (law) in their being. Both manifest in their being the law (law).

 

Properly: both manifest in their being the juridical validity. For that reason: what is harmonic with the elements of existence of the law is juridically valid. It is a valid being (juridically). Because: it is harmonious with the elements of existence of juridical (including: legal) validity. And: when there is (when there exists) a valid being there is juridical (including: legal) effectiveness and this means that there is juridical (including: legal) security.

 

Because: when the being (a being) is harmonious with its duty to be juridical —including: the duty to be legal— (that valid being —the valid being—) makes the law (law) effective (in the being —in that being—). Properly: it makes the being effective (makes the being effective). Because: it makes the duties applicable in the being (in the being involved) are fulfilled (at the formal and material level) and the applicable rights in the being (in the being involved) are enjoyed.

 

And: that effectiveness (juridical effectiveness) makes the being juridically safe. It makes the being have juridical security. Properly: makes the being juridical security. Because: makes the being binding by being law —the law— (for being juridically valid).

 

In addition: the elements of content and the form of validity are defined both in those basic elements and in the rules (in general: norms) of the Rule of Law (involved in the case) derived from that philosophy and theory (the philosophy and theory of law). Properly: the elements of the content and the form of validity are defined in the philosophy and in the theory of law (of the law). But: the rules (in general: norms) of the Rule of Law involved in the case specify them (depending on the case, for the case, in the case and to the extent of the case —tailored to the case—).

 

Of course: the rules (in general: norms) of the Rule of Law are only relevant if they are harmonious with the philosophy of law and with the theory of law. Because: there is only law (the law) when there are (when exist —when there exist—) the elements of existence of the law. That is to say: there is only law (the law) —only exists law. Only exists the law— when there are (when there exist) —the— elements of existence of juridical validity. And: the elements of the existence of law only exist when there is philosophy and theory of law (when exist —when there exist— the philosophy and the theory of law —of the law—).

 

That’s why: validity means harmony. Harmony between the facts of the case and the law (law). Harmony between the case and the law. Harmony between the case and the philosophy of law, the theory of law and the rules (in general: norms) of the Rule of Law involved (in the case). Properly: harmony between each fact of the case with the rules (in general: norms) that apply to it and between the set of facts of the case (of the case facts) and the rules that apply to them (that apply to that group).

 

Because: it only exists validity when its elements of existence exist. That is to say: when in the being there exists the elements of existence of validity (juridical validity). That is to say: when in the being the elements of existence of the being (of the being without having to be juridical) coexist with the elements of existence of the validity —with the validity existence elements— (that is to say: the elements of existence of the duty to be juridical of that being —of the duty to be juridical existence elements of that being—).

 

The elements of existence of the being are the elements of existence of its being without having to be juridical (that is to say: the elements of existence of the being without being related to the duty to be juridical that governs it). The elements of existence of the must be juridical of that being (that is to say: the elements of existence of the must be juridical that governs the being) are the elements of existence of its being with (its) must be juridical (that is to say: the elements of existence of being related to the juridical must be that governs it).

 

So: it is not about changing the being for another being. It is about foreseeing and making that being valid. That is: to make the elements of existence (existence elements) of the being are the elements of existence (existence elements) of juridical validity harmonized with the elements of being that are not elements of existence (existence elements) of juridical validity. That is: to make the elements of existence (existence elements) of the being that are not elements of existence of juridical validity coexist with the elements of existence (existence elements) of juridical validity.

 

Properly: it is about making a valid being because its elements of existence (existence elements) are the elements of existence of validity (including: the elements of existence of the being that in their origin are not of the existence of juridical validity, but that become elements of existence of juridical validity when harmonized with these —with the elements of existence of juridical validity—).

 

Therefore: the valid being is in which there is (in which there exists) clarity of validity. That is: in which there is (in which there exists) clarity of the harmony of being and its juridical must be (including: its duty to be legal). That is: clarity of existence of the elements of existence (existence elements) of juridical validity. So: for that clarity to exist it must be have knowledge of validity (validity knowledge). Properly: it must be know the law (law). The elements of existence of the law (law) must be known. Because: that knowledge makes clarity about the existence elements of validity (validity existence elements).

 

And: clarity about the elements of existence of validity makes clearity about its particular and specific characteristics. What makes to have —makes having— clarity (properly: makes clarity) about the form of validity (validity form). And: the clarity on the form of the validity causes that it has clarity (properly: it makes clarity) on the form to make the valid case. That is: about the form of validity (validity form) in the case.

 

That is to say: on the form of the harmony (harmony form) between the being and its juridical must be. On the form of harmony (harmony form) between being (the being) and law (the law). On the form of harmony (harmony form) between the case and the law (law). On the form of harmony (harmony form) of the case with the law (law). On the form of harmony (harmony form) of the law (law) with the case. In short: on the form of harmony (harmony form) of the case with the juridical validity. Properly: about the form of the law in the case.

 

Then: the valid case (valid case) is the form of the law (law) tailored to the case. It is the form of juridical validity tailored to the case. It is the form of juridical effectiveness tailored to the case. It is the form of juridical security tailored to the case. In short: it is the form of clarity of validity (validity clarity form) tailored to the case.

 

Therefore: in the theory of preventive consumer law in digital advertising the valid case means that the juridical (including: legal) relationship between a company (mercantile —commercial—) and a consumer (relationship that is called: consumer relationship. But: its nature is that of a juridical relationship between those parties and is subject to the juridical profile of each party as well as the link between both parties and, in general, the facts of the case —case facts—) formed based on digital advertising is valid because it is harmonious with the law (law).

 

 

Conclusion

 

In the theory of preventive consumer law in digital advertising juridical (including: legal) validity means the harmony of the case (understood as the union created by the whole of its facts) with the philosophy of law, with the theory of law and with the rules (in general: norms) of the Rule of Law (involved in the case) in a way that makes the being (the case) coincide —makes being coincides— with its juridical must be —including: its duty to be legal— (that is to say: coincides with the way in which the law applies to the case) for the case to make (be) juridical effectiveness and that makes the case have (be) juridical security.

 

Therefore (in this theory): juridical validity makes juridical effectiveness and juridical effectiveness makes juridical security. So: juridical validity only exists when there is (when there exists) juridical effectiveness and juridical security.

 

Therefore: the valid case must be made. Because: the valid case is decisive for there to exist (to be) juridical effectiveness (efficacy) and security. And: the valid case only exists if there is validity in it (if in it exists validity). That is: if in it there is (if in there exists) clarity of existence (existence clarity) of the elements of existence (existence elements) of juridical validity. Properly: if the case has clarity of juridical validity (juridical validity clarity) is clear its juridical effectiveness and security (its juridical effectiveness and security are clear).

 

For that reason: the case is juridical validity when its being (the being of the case) is clarity of validity (juridical validity clarity).