| View all free ACCA Paper F4 (English variant) lectures >> | This F4 lecture is based on free OpenTuition course notes, view or download here >> |
Statute Law Part 2
Comments
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Login
Search this site
Technical Support
Are you having problems with downloading notes or watching lectures?
Please visit the support page: http://opentuition.com/support/
Recent Comments
- opentuition_team on The Statement of Financial Position and Income Statement (part a)
- jokha on ACCA Paper P3 Quiz – P3 Model Application Test
- chen753 on Introduction to Income tax computation
- olghi1986 on ACCA F7 June 2010 Question 1 Picant
- dianasolitro on The Statement of Financial Position and Income Statement (part a)
- John Moffat on Multi Period Capital Rationing Example 4
- zahreddine on Sources of data
- hssniqbl on Multi Period Capital Rationing Example 4
- John Moffat on Multi Period Capital Rationing Example 4
- John Moffat on Planning and Operational variances
Testimonials
Recommend us
Advertise here
Copyright © 2013 · Privacy and Cookies · Advertising · Recommend this site · Contact us · Sitemap · Log in
Hi
Statute Law only 2 videos explaing till Interpretation Rules.
How about presumptions, aids to presumption& delegated legislation? Dont we have videos for them?
Thanks so much for these lectures. The lecture is quite verse in his knowledge of these cases (which is rare in my region) AND THIS REALLY HELPS:) THANK YOU!!!!
Due to the materials being updated the page numbers have changed for the cases – therefore I though I might note them as they may help others;
Whitley v Chappell Page 129
Gorris v Scott Page 133
Evams v Cross Page 133
re Sigsworth case,
Dear sir, u mentioned the above case in Golden Rule, about a son asked for money from father n mother but were rejected. Son killed his parents. I checked up sigsworth case n it stated the only son killed his mother, not parent. Which is correct?
The way I tell the stories is in a way that I hope you will remember and not necessarily precisely close to the facts! That’s not what matters in your situation. You need to remember principles – the cases merely illustrate the principles.
Is a mother not a parent? So what’s your grievance – was it only one parent ( the mother ) and not both as I tell it?
if the mother was killed then the house would have gone to the father? so the son wouldn’t have benefited if the father was still alive?
where is aids to interpretation & delegated legislation in lecture? these topics are skiped?
@saudfiaz, I seem to remember recording Rules of Interpretation and a lecture on Delegated Legislation. Neither is a huge topic – could you not maybe read them for yourself from a study text?
@saudfiaz, yes i have noticed that too but luckily i have my LSBF notes.
The notes are actually not set out the same way as mine which makes it confusing.
nice. thanks
Sir, do we have to learn each and every case name to illustrate the different rules involved, as in while answering any question do we need to quote anything from any cases that in past happened and relate to what we are dealing in present?
@qasimraza, read the exam technique note on the site – for both F4 and for General
Hi,
I am a bit confused, I found in many other information on the internet about the case of whitely v chappel as the main example of the literal rule, and not of the golden rule, given that this the decision was literal and therefore the defendat was not guilty.
but I have also seen in other information treated as the golden rule. is there any reason it´s been treated like that?
@sherlyta, ya me also same problem……….Can anyone help?
@sherlyta, The golden rule is applied when the application of the literal rule leads to an absurd situation. So, by applying the literal rule to Whitely v Chappell, Chappell would be not guilty. But that’s absurd! Clearly, it cannot be right that you can vote twice. So the golden rule is applied.
And that is how Whitely v Chappell can be used to illustrate both the literal rule and the golden rule
@MikeLittle, Thank a lot sir…….
@MikeLittle, But surely you can only apply one or the other – “Unless it leads to an absurdity”. As the defendant was acquitted, the literal rule was applied. Had the Golden rule been applied, he would have been sentenced – If the presiding judge(s) didn’t treat it as Golden rule, how can it be an example of such?
I merely put that out in the interest of good debate, but like the others before me, I noted quickly it didn’t concur with other sources, and did feel the need to check!
The lectures are great by the way, they are a great supplement to my chosen study texts, and handy to listen to passively when my attention span is not quite up to sitting down and reading/writing!
Also, just a small point – Surely it’s the Companies Act 2006, not 2005?
@lukedavidizard, I can’t really follow your first paragraph, but what bits I CAN understand suggest that you’re trying to turn the law upside down. IF the literal rule had been applied, he would have been found not guilty, but that would be absurd. So, although the Courts will apply the literal rule, they ignore that rule in situations where the application of it would lead to an absurdity and in those situations they apply the golden rule which allows them to ignore the literal rule.
If I have said Companies Act 2005, I apologise without reservation. Of course it’s Companies Act 2006
@MikeLittle, Thanks.
The defendant was charged with impersonating a dead man to obtain an additional vote in an election. The relevant legislation made it an offence to impersonate ‘any person entitled to vote’. Since a dead man wasn’t entitled to vote, impersonating him couldn’t be an offence. Thus a villain was acquitted.
The literal rule WAS applied, and he was found NOT guilty.
Now the way I understand it is that the literal rule DID lead to an absurdity, but the Golden Rule was not invoked at this time, because it had not been thought of, or developed far enough.
The first case to use the parallel doctrine was 2 years after Whitely and Chappell, in 1870…?
very nice
Great, but where is the rest of Chapter 3?
think you are doing a marvellous job.
@midelite,
i agree
Ensure that you check your study text for the case some of the facts vary slightly from the original.
Where is the lectures for Statutory Interpretation presumptions till end of chapter 3.Is it available…?
I didnt see any faults in this lecture, he was perfect
This is nice
how can we should learn the case names?
This guy sometimes gets the facts, and the outcomes, of the cases wrong! Check each one he quotes!!
You are NOT examined on cases
The stories are ‘colorised’ on purpose
So they are more fun and easier to get the concept behind those cases!!
Got it?
not loading whats happening?
check ur internet