An argument drawn from inconvenience is valid in law, for the law will not permit any inconvenience.

Explanation

When an interpretation of law would produce absurd or impractical results, the inconvenience itself is evidence that the interpretation is wrong.

Where this applies

• The interpretation they're pushing would create absurd and impractical results.
• If applying the law that way causes major inconvenience, the interpretation must be wrong.
• The law won't permit a reading that produces ridiculous outcomes.

See also

• 12.1.5 An argument deduced from impossibility greatly avails in law.
• 12.2.1 The cause of a cause is the cause of the thing caused.