in a jury trial, the jury decides questions of fact, such as: was the driver speeding? who shot the gun at the lamplight and broke it? did the defendant have drugs in his possession? did the merchant breach the contract by delivering different goods than contracted for?
The judge decides questions of law, such as: what is the applicable speed limit? did the partner owe the other partners a duty of care? what is the definition of “negligence”?
So, defining the legal standards is a question of law, whether the facts of a case fall within the law or regulation is a question of fact.
In my experience, it’s far more common for questions of law to be overturned by an appellate court, rather than questions of fact. Can you guess why?