Interpretations of Statutes

timmy_mallet

Genuine question, not too sure about this.

Will a judge use his interpretation of a statute or will exactly what's stated in the book be used?

For example:
If a person is required by the statue to undertake a certain action, and they don't as per the statute.
Instead a course of action is taken which is mildly similar to the text in the statute - can it be considered that the law applies?

Sorry for the vagueness...

mari2222

timmy_mallet wrote: »

Genuine question, not too sure about this.

Will a judge use his interpretation of a statute or will exactly what's stated in the book be used?

For example:
If a person is required by the statue to undertake a certain action, and they don't as per the statute.
Instead a course of action is taken which is mildly similar to the text in the statute - can it be considered that the law applies?

Sorry for the vagueness...

It depends; if not undertaking the exact action could have harmed somebody else, there would have to be strict interpretation. You ned to think about why the requirement to carry out the action was originally in the law, and whether the similar action fulfilled the same purpose fully.

timmy_mallet

My opinion would be that the origianl text of statute (from ~2001, I think) is present to ensure that a claim of responsibilty can not be made against a person without their knowledge of entering into an agreement (if you understand me?!?).

However, if the party uses an alternative method of entering into said ageement (not exactly the text in the book, and an action that could be made by anybody at all, still without knowledge of the party) would it still be enforceable?

There are other factors which may be considered to constitute entrance too, though - could a judge use these?!?

Kosseegan

timmy_mallet wrote: »

My opinion would be that the origianl text of statute (from ~2001, I think) is present to ensure that a claim of responsibilty can not be made against a person without their knowledge of entering into an agreement (if you understand me?!?).

However, if the party uses an alternative method of entering into said ageement (not exactly the text in the book, and an action that could be made by anybody at all, still without knowledge of the party) would it still be enforceable?

There are other factors which may be considered to constitute entrance too, though - could a judge use these?!?

Give up that freeman nonsenseI You might then ask a sensible question that has a chance of being answered in a coherent way.

timmy_mallet

timmy_mallet wrote: »

My opinion would be that the origianl text of statute (from ~2001, I think) is present to ensure that a claim of responsibilty can not be made against a person without their knowledge of entering into an agreement (if you understand me?!?).

However, if the party uses an alternative method of entering into said ageement (not exactly the text in the book, and an action that could be made by anybody at all, still without knowledge of the party) would it still be enforceable?

There are other factors which may be considered to constitute entrance too, though - could a judge use these?!?

Kosseegan wrote: »

Give up that freeman nonsenseI You might then ask a sensible question that has a chance of being answered in a coherent way.

I don't think that's necessarily a Freeman argument Kosseegan, although I really couldn't tell you what it is if I was being honest.

Avatargh

timmy_mallet wrote: »

My opinion would be that the origianl text of statute (from ~2001, I think) is present to ensure that a claim of responsibilty can not be made against a person without their knowledge of entering into an agreement (if you understand me?!?).

However, if the party uses an alternative method of entering into said ageement (not exactly the text in the book, and an action that could be made by anybody at all, still without knowledge of the party) would it still be enforceable?

There are other factors which may be considered to constitute entrance too, though - could a judge use these?!?

None of this makes any sense. Even as a matter of English, none of this makes any sense.

Victor

What act?

What book?

234

Give more detail or read the Interpretation Act 2005. The default psition when interpreting tatutes is the literal interpretation. A purposive interpretation will only be taken where there is uncertainty as to the literal meaning.