Odd Laws - Iceland
Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • January 31, 2025

Odd Law - Iceland

In either 999 or 1,000 CE (the records conflict) the meeting of the makers of the Laws in Iceland met. These meetings, which had been going on for about 70 years already, occurred each year and were called “Althing,” Some scholars consider this the oldest Parliament.


At these meetings, the chiefs of the sundry family groups would sit outside (so we can assume it was in the Summer) in a circle. Sitting in front each of the group leaders, facing each other was a warrior of the chief and behind him, at least two counselors. This may well signify that for every battle to be fought, there were two voices, in addition to the chief himself, considering the wisdom of the fight.


During the meetings, the “Speaker of the Laws” (alternatively the “Knower of the Laws”) would recite each and every law the nation had. Each law was, one by one, considered by the assembly. Should they continue having this law? Could it be altered if it was not meeting its goal or were there unforeseen consequences which could be avoided by a modification. Should that particular law be removed from the society totally?


For those scholars among you, this might sound a lot like James Madison’s belief that every law, including the Constitution, should expire at the end of 19 years, to be revisited. Well, the Icelandic peoples did just that.


The Althing of 1, 000 (or, maybe 999) was of a different character though. The law makers were trying to decide if they should accept Christianity as their religion, divesting themselves of the older pagan religion, worshiping the Norse gods of Odin, Thor, Loki, Frigga and the rest. (You all know that Thursday is named after Thor and Friday is named afer Frigga, right?) 


There had been several violent bouts with Christians wanting the change and about half of the population were, by that time, Christian themselves, whether by spiritual conversion or conversion by the sword.


The leaders were much divided among themselves and, after much negotiation, agreed to let one man make the decision for the entire nation. This man, reasonably enough, was the Speaker of the Law, Thorgeir Thorkelsson (friends all just called him “Thor”).


He isolated himself for a long while and came back with his pronouncement:


Iceland would be Christian....with a couple of exceptions:


1. They would continue to eat horsemeat (outlawed by that particular branch of Christianity - Roman Catholicism in 732 CE - don’t know how the Eastern Orthodox thought of it);


2. They would continue to be able to “get rid of their unwanted children” (usually considered to be exposing babies who were not the desired gender for the time or were misshapen in any way); and

3. You could still have your pagan religious ceremonies in private; and, most importantly,


4. Don’t get caught doing any of the first 3.


This was eventually named the kristnitaka.


Share this article

The time for using unregulated Lady Bird Deeds might be ending.

By By Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • September 24, 2026
The time for using unregulated Lady Bird Deeds might be ending.

MY MOTHER, THE GRAMMAR TEACHER, WOULD BE SO PROUD: We Have Our Own "Comma" Case

By Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • July 22, 2026
One of the most absurd things for law students to grasp in that all-important first year, is the idea of what can be considered "ambiguous." (Ambiguity is "an uncertainty of meaning or intention, as in a contractual term or statutory provision.") If language is deemed "ambiguous," what happens next depends on where this ambiguity is found. The ambiguity can be subject to interpretation of a Court - if it is in a statute. If the Court has to use interpretation, there are several tools they can use to derive meaning and intent from the writers of the statute. This search for "Legislative intent" is sometimes easy if there is a part of the statute stating specifically what the Legislature was trying to do. Without that, however, judges will look at what the plain and simple language would mean. If that does not help, then they can look at the surrounding language, the other terms, what might be excluded, what would make the language harmonious with the other laws on the topic... All kinds of factors are examined to determine what the law is trying to say. However, if the ambiguity is found in a contract, the options are different and depend on whether the ambiguity is an obvious mistake ("Art is the Buyer" and then, later "The Buyer, Bert" is written in the same contract) or whether it is a more sneaky ambiguity. Here is where the comma comes into play. The Tariff of 1872 misplaced a comma, resulting in fruits not being subject to the tax. The tariff was trying to say that fruits and fruit plants would be subject to the tariff, but, by placing a comma where it did not belong, fruits become tax free and only fruit-bearing plants were subject to the Tariff. Another is a case where there would be no overtime payments for work done for "...drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution" of foods. Because there was no comma between "shipment" and "distribution," the Court found it questionable if "shipment and distribution" were one joint act or two separate ones. The result? Workers got their overtime payments. Now, we have a case, decided July 22, 2026 by our appellate court, that a comma found between "construed according to the laws of the State of Florida" and "with venue in Collier County," created an ambiguity allowing venue to be set in another County (Martin). The comma controlled and there is an ambiguity, allowing the action to be filed in Martin County, rather than Collier. The benefits of filing in one county verses another, well, that would be an entirely different article.  Just remember: Watch those punctuation marks folks! Ambiguities may be found everywhere!