Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
However, use of the literal rule may defeat the intention of Parliament. For instance, in the case of Whiteley v. Chappel, [10] the court came to the reluctant conclusion that Whiteley could not be convicted of impersonating "any person entitled to vote" at an election, because the person he impersonated was dead. Using a literal construction ...
A strict application of the plain meaning rule can sometimes result in "absurd" outcomes. Examples of the plain meaning rule producing absurd outcomes can be seen in the following cases: In Whitely v Chappel (1868), a statute made it an offence "to impersonate any person entitled to vote". The defendant used the vote of a dead man.
It is featured in Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd ([1960] AC 87), an important English contract law case where the House of Lords stated that "a peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn".
As opposed to the plain meaning rule, the technical meaning rule applies the specific context and rules of grammar that are applied if the term is well defined and understood in an industry setting. To determine if there is a technical meaning, judges will look at whether the surrounding words are technical, and whether the act was directed to ...
In re Wragg Ltd [1897] 1 Ch 796 is a UK company law case, also relevant for English contract law, concerning shares, and the rule that shares should be exchanged for consideration that is in some sense at least sufficient, not necessarily adequate. [1]
In international law, the principle is known as the Lotus principle, after a collision of the S.S. Lotus in international waters. The Lotus case of 1926–1927 established the freedom of sovereign states to act as they wished, unless they chose to bind themselves by a voluntary agreement or there was an explicit restriction in international law ...
In a lengthy “New Rules” segment on Friday on “Real Time With Bill Maher,” the talkshow host laid into Chappell Roan, addressing an open letter to the singer and her political statements.
Violating the perceived intention of the law has been found to affect people's judgments of culpability above and beyond violations of the letter of the law such that (1) a person can violate the letter of the law (but not the spirit) and not incur culpability, (2) a person can violate the spirit of the law and incur culpability, even without violating the letter of the law, and (3) the ...