so sick of chasing lights.

Under the literal rule, the judge is required to consider what the legislation actually says rather than what it actually means, even if an unjust or undesirable outcome is expected. In order to do so, the judge should assign the ordinary everyday meaning to the words in the legislation. For example in Fisher V Bell, the word "offer" is treated as its contractual law meaning rather than its non-legal meaning.

The golden rule will be used when there are two contradicting meanings to a word or if there's ambiguity in the meaning of the word, which will obviously result in an absurd outcome. The judge will have to prove that there's actually genuine differences so as to lift the literal rule. However, the court is not given the liberty to replace or ignore the legislative provisions simply on the basis that it considers it to be absurd.

The mischief rule allows the court to actually go behind the actual wording of a statute in order to consider the position that it is supposed to remedy. In another sense, the mischief rule is applied to ensure that the legislation actually takes place to remedy what it was supposed to remedy.

p/s: i memorized all the above already wheeeeeee. and its not even 1% -.-
pm i'm cominggggg.


i just know we can't be over,
i can see it in your eyes.

f

12:31 AM

said i'm okay,
but i know how to lie.