Case Study on Interpretation of Statutes and Contract Terms

Running Head: Case Study
CASE STUDY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

CASE STUDY1
Assignment 1:
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether the Ranger is entitled to restrict Mary’s entry to the Park.
Rules:
There are following three rules for the interpretation of statute (Wendell 1898):
Literal Rule: this is the rule where the court requires the statutes to be interpreted in their simple
and plain literal meaning in accordance with the meaning of the words as incorporated in the
language of the statute. This rule is the primary rule of interpretation because the judiciary does
not have the power to make laws. They are empowered to only interpret it and apply the same in
the facts and circumstances of any dispute and deliver justice to the affected party. As explained
in the Duport Steel vs. Sirs case 1 W.L.R. 142 (1980) it has been explained that the rule of literal
meaning is the basis of the interpretation of the statute to remove any ambiguity in the meaning
of the words incorporated in the language of the statute. The consequences otherwise may be
immoral or unjust because the language of the statute cannot be twisted to bring out the meaning
as favored by that person. However it has been established in Patridge vs. Crittenden 2 All ER
421 (1968), that the rule also has a loophole, like in cases where the law is silent or ambiguous
about a provision, the literal rule may can cause undermining of the public confidence in law and
the system of law.
Golden Rule: this rule was first recognized in Grey vs. Pearson (6) H.L. Cas. 61(1857), and has
been explained as the approach where the intention of Legislature has to be brought into
consideration in cases of ambiguity in the legal provision. In R vs. Allen LR 1 CCR 367 (1872),

CASE STUDY2
it has been established that following the literal rule blindly as the sole rule shall amount to
absurdity and repugnance of the justice and hence, the grammar or the ordinary meaning of the
provision can be enhanced to refer to the intention of the law maker so that the objective behind
the incorporation of such provision can be derived and the same can be applied to the facts and
circumstances of the case. The main advantage of the rule is that the errors of any provision can
be identified and can be amended by implementing modification. However, the scope of the rule
limits where there is no ambiguity or absurdity in the provision of any statute. As held in London
and North Eastern Railway vs. Berriman AC 278 (1946), the widow could not succeed the suit
for compensation because the words of the legislation was explicit and in conformity due to
which the scope of application of Golden Rule was limited.
Mischief Rule of interpretation: this rule was established in the Heydon's Case 76 ER 637
(1584) where in it has been explained that the defect in the provision of law shall be identified
and subsequently, relief should be provided against the same. In other words, the essence of the
rule is that the mischief in the statute should be identified and rectified for just interpretation of
any legislation or statute. However, the rule is a lawful infringement of the separation of powers
as the judiciary has the scope to apply their opinion and decide the error and its applicability
accordingly at their own discretion.
Application:
In the given scenario, applying the literal rule, it can be explained that by interpreting the
words of section 5 of the Act, no vehicles shall be allowed to enter the Park and hence, bicycle
can be considered as one of the vehicles and thus, the Rangers can stop its entry.