Comment by derefr

Kind of feels like it should be a crime for a private party to attempt to write terms into a contract that introduce punishments justified in terms of law, where that justification is based on an interpretation of law that's already been legally proven to the author of the contract to be a misinterpretation of said law.

It's sort of the crime of "contempt of court", but after the fact: receiving a judge's prescription about how you must interpret a law during a case, but then going right back to using a different interpretation when you leave court.