5 Principles of Business Governance

RUNNING HEAD: PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
Principles of Business Governance
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author Note

1
PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
Response to Case Study 1-
Issue:
The primary issue regarding the provided case study is whether Ranger has the power to
enforce the restriction to Mary from entering the Park.
Rule of the Law:
Mischief Rule:
Case of Heydon's 76 ER 637 has established the law of interpretation where it is
explained clearly that the fault in the rule of the law shall be recognised and it should be done
subsequently, and therefore there should some relief is given against it. It can be defined in some
other way where the spirit of the mischief rule provided in the said statute should be rectified and
identified for the interpretation of the law and the legislation. This mischief rule is the legal
infringement of power separation as there is a scope in the judiciary for application of their
opinion and taking the decision of the fault and its application at their personal discretion.
Golden Rule:
Grey v Pearson (6) H.L. Cas. 61(1857), the golden rule was recognised and it is clearly
stated in that rule that the approach in which the Legislature’s intention should be considered in
case of uncertainty in the provisions of law. It is blindly stated in the golden rule as this rule is
considered to be sole amounting to repugnance and absurdity in the legal provisions. Therefore
the provision’s meaning can be boosted for referring the purpose of the rule-maker so the main
focus of the integration of the provisions can be drawn and the derived provisions can be used in

2
PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
the circumstances and facts of the case. The advantage of golden rule is stated as the provisional
error can be amended and identified by modifying. But the possibility of the provisions of the
golden rule restrcits where the absurdity and ambiguity are absent in the statute’s provision.
Literal Rule:
It is a type of rule where it is necessary by the court to interpret the statutes in the plain
and simple literal meaning according to the word’s meaning as integrated into the statute’s
language. This literal rule is the basic law of interpretation. It is because the judges cannot
perform the task of making laws. They have been provided with the power to interpret the law
and to apply that interpreted law in the circumstances and facts of any case and delivering the
lawful decision to the party who is affected. In the case study of Duport Steel v Sirs 1 W.L.R.
142 (1980) it is clearly stated that the literal rule means the statute’s interpretation for removing
any uncertainty in the provisions inserted in the Act. The consequence may be unjust and
immoral because of the statute’s language cannot be warped for bringing a change in the
meaning of the provision according to the individual’s favour. There is also a loophole in the
literal rule where the provision of the law is ambiguous and silent; in this situation, the literal
rule can cause decline the confidence of the public legally.
Application:
Now, In the provided case if the literal law or rule is applied the description can be
clearly done by interpretation of provision of the said act stated u/s 5, no vehicle or automobile
will be given permission for entering the estate of the park, and therefore bicycle is considered as
the vehicle and as the outcome of this provision Ranger has the permission for stopping the entry
of the bicycle.

3
PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
In the provided case if the provision of the Mischief Rule is applied it is stated that the
flaw u/s 5 of said Act is recognized as the quietness of the explicit and clear specified categories
of automobiles that cannot or can be allowed and therefore it can be said to the administration to
categorise the section of vehicles by amending the provision. They should mention the
specification of the type of vehicles that are not permissible to enter the park. Since the
provisions are quiet about this specification the legislature’s intention is clear that cycle is
allowed inside the park, therefore Mary will be allowed by the judiciary with her bicycle to enter
the park.
If the Golden Rule is applied in the provided case the legislature’s intention can be drawn
from the lecture of the Minister of Commonwealth that the recreation of the cyclists, bus walkers
and family picnickers should not get affected and it may be decided by the judiciary that cycle
can be allowed in entering the park and Ranger will be no one to stop Mary in entering the estate
of the park with a bicycle.
Conclusion:
Thus it is concluded from the above facts that Mary cannot be restricted in entering the
Park.