Abstract

Many theorists find it plausible to think of legal rules as universally quantified conditionals attaching normative consequences to the occurrence of some fact or facts. It also seems plausible to think that legal rules may be subject to exceptions. But these two thoughts are generally considered to be incompatible. They cannot both be accommodated, it is usually assumed, by any adequate rendition of the form of legal rules. In a series of recent articles, Richard Holton offered a new account which attempts to discharge both tasks. I argue that his proposal, too, is unsatisfactory.