Business Law: Interpretation of Statutes and Exclusion Clauses

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Answer 1:
Issue:
Iissue to be discussed here is whether Mary’s entry can be prevented by the Ranger to the
park.
Rules:
Statutory interpretation forms an important part of analyzing any statute after it has been
enacted by the Parliament such that the Act can be effectively implemented (Latimer, 2011).
There are many rules that are followed to interpret a statute (Kavanaugh, 2015). These are
discussed below;
1. Literal rule: In this rule, the provisions are interpreted by considering the plain as well as
ordinary meaning of the words.
2. Golden rule: It is the amplification of the literal rule and is used where literal rule cannot
deal with the absurdity of the terms. Here the court also considers the intention of the
Parliament behind enacting the statute.
3. Mischief rule: This rule allows the judges to use their discretionary power to interpret any
statute. This rule points out the mischief or the gap that is to be covered by the statute.
Moreover, apart from these rules, statutory provisions laid down in Acts Interpretation
Act 1901 (Cth) are there that also help in this regard. Section 15AB (2)(C) states that external
materials can be used to interpret any Act. For instance, if any report or publication is made by
the House of the Parliament or committee of Parliament, then the same must be acknowledged
while doing statutory interpretation. Moreover section 15AA enumerates that the interpretation is
to be done in such a way that will achieve the objective of the Act.

BUSINESS LAW2
Application:
Here it is observed that a new Bill has been passed that provides rules about admission of
vehicles into the park. Based on it, an Act came into effect. Section 5 must be interpreted for
analyzing the concerned issue. In this regard the speech delivered by Minister must be taken into
account.
Application of golden rule, the Minister’s speech when interpreted reveals that the reason
behind the legislation is the allowing continuous enjoyment of the present users by restricting
entry of vehicles inside the park. Since Mary had been cycling for the last 20 years, she is a
present user and her enjoyment cannot be affected.
The literal rule when applied by adhering to the plain simple meaning, it is seen that the
vehicular access has been denied. Hence, bicycle is also prohibited.
Mischief rule when applied reveals that a mistake is present in the said section because it
does not mention clearly which vehicles are mentioned here.
When the said Act is referred, it is seen that the section can be interpreted in the light of
the objective of Act by construing to section 15AA. The main objective is restricting traffic in
the park but whether the bicycle is part of the traffic is not given. However as per section
15AB(2)(c), if comment of Minister is taken into account it says that the Park is enjoyed by the
cyclists which is at stake now. So vehicles are to be prevented. Thus objective behind the Act is
limiting traffic and not disallowing the cyclists.
Conclusion:
Thus, Mary’s entry cannot be prevented to the park by the Ranger.