The paper constitutes an appeal to redefine the concept of the fallibility of final judicial decisions. Its standard understanding, based on Hart's work, is far more problematic than is usually assumed. The author shows that the usual understanding gives rise to a contradiction. Namely, that it is (sometimes) legally correct to do that which is not legally correct. The author then briefly tests three methods of solving the problem. He concludes that none of them speaks in favour of distinguishing between the finality and infallibility of judicial decisions. Accordingly, he re-examines Hart's motivations for embracing that distinction and identifies a misstep in his reasoning