One As in the case R v Maginnis

One of those is the case Fisher v Bell 1961 1 QB 394, the goods displayed the
store was described as presented with the invitation to treat of the owner,
since each of those was display with a price. However, such description was later
proved to be inaccurate at the Statute later. In a deeper analysis,
this description was dictated as unsatisfactory and inapplicable. As in the case
R v Maginnis 1987 AC 303 where the defendant was pled guilty under the s.5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, in
using the word “supply”, it did not reflectively and directly describe the situations
of acts that the defendant has had. 
Thus, in any case, the role of the judge would become more important,
who would be capable of examining and judging which words are accurate to be
applied into the jurisdiction, and prejudices or opinions towards
the subject can affect his choices of words in the case. Besides, there can be
separation between various level of power within the English legislation
system, since the choices, considerations, and jus of the words cited into the
case can be different. This made the Parliament to have utmost important role
within this system.

 

The Literal Rule has been the
most popular approach deployed by the judge’s so far, focusing on the plain or
ordinary meanings of the words cited, which can be then compared and applied
under the scope of Acts to create jurisdiction. Strongly linking to the government
of the Parliament, the Literal Rule will be applied with empathized consideration
of the meaning and implications of words cited. The high popularity of this
rule has proved its value in many courts so far. One example of the application
of this rule was the  Fisher v Bell 1961 1 QB 394 case, in which the words
cited was direct used to claim that the defendant was guilty. Similarly, in the
case Whitely v
Chappel (1868)
LR 4 QB 147, the terms “in order to be entitled to
vote” was cited directly and plainly into the justification, claiming that the
defendant was not guilty. Thus, in applying the Literal Rule, the courts can be
more successful in dictating the words recorded to analyse the case, and the jurisdiction
developed upon used to be justified as accelerate and fair. However, there are
also cases that the directness of the Rule was not applicable.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

So far, the English jurisdiction has had a lot
of improvements and advancements in terms of resources for resolving disputes
over employment (Goulding & Vinall, 2010). The
Employment Acts were among those playing the role of the guiding framework for
both the business and the workers to ensure their rights and benefits under employment
issues. However, there are still many gaps and differences at the presumptions,
rules and justifications at courts. Generally, the courts can take among the
four approaches including the Purposive Approach, Mischief Approach, Golden
Rule, and Literal Rule to judge their cases.