must ascertain the meaning of a statute in order to apply it. • Even the most well drafted statute may be capable of more than one interpretation in any particular situation – this is a function of the nature of language and the desire of opposing parties to find interpretations which favour their own case. Additionally‚ some statutes may be inherently ambiguous. • The courts have developed principles to assist them in ascertaining the meaning of statutes. Although some of these are
Premium Statutory law
role in restraining the executive they have no enforceability in court. Therefore as soon as one stops following them they cease to exist. Statutes‚ however‚ are enforceable and hold some of the most important rules in restraining our executive. These are vital if broken and consequences are enforced. In this essay I will be looking at the importance of both statutes and constitutional conventions in our legal system and the importance that they both play in restraining the executive. I will be looking
Premium Law United States Constitution Separation of powers
British monarch as the Australian head of state. Australian independence has been reached through largely informal progress with key moments being legal and political milestones enshrined in the statutes of the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia respectively. Examples of these statutes include the Statute of
Premium Australia United Kingdom United States
When comparing the statutory language of the two different statutes similarities jump out at the reader‚ mainly you are only required to assist in the situation if your involvement does not put you in harm’s way as well. I feel this is a key feature in any duty to rescue statute since the goal of these statutes is to allay some of the dangers that others face‚ meaning legislators do not want others to put themselves in harm’s way in
Premium Morality Ethics Death
History Interpreting statutes is never simple and sometimes even problematic; there are several reasons for this. First is because the United States does not have a generally accepted and consistent applied theory for interpreting statues[1]. Second‚ statutes are written and the texts used to write the statutes are sometimes vague‚ or the text might be outdated and have a new meaning. Finally‚ interpreting statutes are sometimes problematic because the entire statute might have been constructed
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States
When the literal rule is applied the words in a statute are given their ordinary and natural meaning‚ in an effort to respect the will of Parliament. The literal rule was applied in the case of Fisher v Bell (1960) The golden rule Under the golden rule for statutory interpretation‚ where the literal rule gives an absurd result‚ which Parliament could not have intended‚ the judge can substitute a reasonable meaning in the light of the statute as a whole. The case of Adler v George (1964) is a
Premium Statutory law
arise daily. For this reason‚ “every state has a statute that stipulates what types of contracts must be in writing” (Fundamentals of Business Law P196). These statutes are called the “Statutes of Frauds”. “The actual name of the Statute of Frauds is confusing because it does not actually apply to fraud” (Fundamentals of Business Law P197). Specifically‚ this statute determines which type of contracts must be in writing. In other words‚ the “Statute of Frauds” refers to the requirement that certain
Premium Contract Common law Law
special reference to the admissibility and codification of external aids to interpretation of statutes 2 November‚ 2002 D.O.No.6(3)(79)/2002-LC(LS) 8.11.2002 Dear Shri Janakrishnamurthy Ji‚ I am sending herewith the 183rd report on “A continuum on the General Clauses Act‚ 1897 with special reference to the admissibility and codification of external aids to interpretation of statutes”. 2. The subject was taken up in pursuance to reference dated 28.1.2002 from the Legislative
Premium Statutory law Law United States Constitution
the International Criminal Court; this House resolves to introduce a Bill within the next thirty days to repeal the International Crimes Act (No. 16 of 2008) and that the Government urgently undertakes measures to immediately withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court‚ adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on 17th July 1998.’3 The motion was successful‚ though with an amendment to delete the part advocating for the Government to ‘suspend
Premium International Criminal Court Crime Criminal law
illegal remuneration under the anti-kickback statute. This Special Fraud Alert supplements these prior guidance documents and advisory opinions and describes two specific trends OIG has identified involving transfers of value from laboratories to physicians that we believe present a substantial risk of fraud and abuse under the anti-kickback statute. Westhill Healthcare Insurance I. The Anti-Kickback Statute One purpose of the anti-kickback statute is to protect patients from inappropriate medical
Premium Medicine Health care Laboratory