Why Do Judges Go Beyond Material Facts

Furthermore, the ratio decidendi is not just limited to the material facts as Goodhart had suggested. The judges may go beyond the facts; this is seen in Fisher v Bell and Partridge v Crittenden. The material facts of Fisher v Bell, which involved a flick knife with a price tag in a shop window, were deemed to be vastly different in comparison to Partridge. In Partridge v Crittenden, Bramblefinch Cocks were advertised in a newspaper, even though it was in direct breach of The Protection of Birds Act . Both cases shared a similar outcome; there was only an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale. This means that the claim by Goodhart that it is the choice of material facts which creates law is not necessarily accurate because the material facts do not limit the judgements of the judges, even if they are a good starting point.
More recent advancements in the law, after Goodhart, help to explain why his statement is not completely true. As stated, judges may go beyond the material
Ltd. While this case ensured that the court was bound by its previous decisions, Lord Greene MR stated that there were exceptions which allowed for some leeway upon deciding the decision of a case. These were decisions that were per incuriam; a previous court judgement had failed to take certain information into consideration from a past precedent case. Like the Practice Statement, this was restricted through the case Morelle Ltd v Wakeling as it was made so per incuriam could only be used when decisions were made from ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some other binding precedent. Unlike what Goodhart suggests, the material facts are not always used correctly to create law which can make certain ratio decidendi outdated; they will not be binding to future