Law of Interpretation & Theory | Assignment
Added on 2020-03-16
12 Pages2269 Words52 Views
Running head: LAW OF INTERPRETATION AND THEORYLaw of Interpretation & TheoryName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
1LAW OF INTERPRETATION AND THEORYIntroductionThe relevance of the interpretation of legislation is developing in the Republic of SouthAfrica. It is recognized all over that the fiscal legislation is vital and it affects the lives of thecitizens of Africa including the taxpayers of the Country.The evaluation of this fiscal legislation is carried along with the balancing of thecompetitive interest. The rule of interpretation is applied only after considering the constitutionof legislation. The source of appeal in the Supreme Court in the legal system of South Africa is apart of the legislation1. The current approaches to the interpretation have impact on the taxpayersand have impact on the residents of the Republic of South Africa. The Supreme Court hasinterpreted the statutory legislation and has adhered to the regulation.In the recent case which has been taken up in the matter of Supreme Court Appeal whichrelates to a case between the appellate herein referred to as Novartis South Africa (Pty) Ltd andthe defendant Maphil Trading (Pty) Ltd.Citing of the Case: Novartis v MaphilPassing of the Order of Appeal: The High Court of Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg(Boruchowitz J)21Affinito, Letizia, and John Mack.Socialize Your Patient Engagement Strategy: How SocialMedia and Mobile Apps Can Boost Health Outcomes. Routledge, 2016.2Baum, Lawrence.The Supreme Court. CQ press, 2015.
2LAW OF INTERPRETATION AND THEORYJudgment: In this case the question which is to be answered is an appeal or a contract betweenthe parties Novartis South Africa herein called the appellant and Maphil Trading (Pty) Ltdreferred to as the respondent3. In this case the appellant was guilty of the repudiation of thecontract and the respondent would be entitled for the damages occurred.The appellant in this case is Novartis which is a subsidiary company of thepharmaceutical company which is based in Switzerland. The company had its division in SouthAfrica and it supplied medicines to hospitals. They came up with a strategy that the businessmanager had put a logo that the packaging on the medicines. In this contact the company treatedNovartis contract as a repudiation of contract and claimed a suit or action against the damagesfor the breach of the contract.In this case the appellant Novartis met with the respondent Maphil and decided that boththe companies will enter into an agreement or a arrangement where Maphil, the respondent willreceive a marketing fee of 3.5 million since they put the Sandoz branding on the which was to besupplied by the respondent Maphil.There was a marketing agreement which was accepted byMaphil4. The facts presented by Maphil, the respondent are important for understanding of the3Conde Gutiérrez, Carlos Augusto.Access to Genetic Resources and Intellectual PropertyRights: Opportunities and Perils for Developing Countries Rich in Biodiversity and thePharmaceutical Industry. Diss. University of Sheffield, 2015.4Dugard, Jackie. "Testing the transformative premise of the South African Constitutional Court:A comparison of High Courts, Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court socio-economic rights decisions, 1994–2015."The International Journal of Human Rights20.8 (2016):1132-1160.
3LAW OF INTERPRETATION AND THEORYjudgment. In respect of the agreement between Novartis and Maphil, the Maphil products bearthe Sandoz logo. The respondent confirmed the details of the marketing logo.Later Novartis, the appellant told Maphil, the respondent stating that there was nocontract between both of the parties and the appellant will not be paying to the respondent theamount of invoice raised by the respondent. Thus the respondent created Novartis action as arepudiation of contract and then the respondent instituted an action against the appellant andclaimed for the action and the damages for breach of the contract.The statutory provision interpreted by the Supreme Court of Appeal:In this case the Court has held “the interpretative process is one of ascertaining theintention of the parties”. In this case the Court considers the circumstances evolving around thecontract and also determines the intension of conclusion of the agreement.In this case Sandoz confirms to the marketing activities which was challenged withlitigation5. The Judge Boruchowitz J had read the contract thoroughly and found that the contractwas proved by both the parties. The appellant had from the findings of the appeal and contendedthat the Court has not given the direction in assessing the evidence. It is seen that the Court havenot applied the rules of interpretation of contract.Firstly, in the interpretation of the Case and in deciding the contact Novartis must haveused the words and construe them objectively. The case relates to the integration rule where it is5Dukes, Graham, John Braithwaite, and James P. Moloney.Pharmaceuticals, corporate crimeand public health. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.