The paper "Business Law in Action" is an outstanding example of a Business assignment. The literal, golden, and mischief rule will be used to determine whether Jane (a youth worker), Tony (an antique dealer), and Fola committed an offense by handling a flick knife. The three rules will be applied to produce a result or verdict that satisfies the sense of justice. Justification will be given for the use of the three interpretive techniques in the three cases and indication will be given of the circumstances of when each rule is employed. Rules The pertinent rule related to the three cases is s1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
This statute forbids people to sell, hire or offer for sale, or hire or give to another person any knife with a blade that opens automatically after hand pressure is applied to the spring, button, or other devices attached or in the knife’ s handle. This paper will determine whether Jane, Tony, and Fola's actions contravened this statute. Application In the first case, Jane, the youth worker was not guilty of holding the flick knife; her act cannot be logically described as an act of manufacturing, selling, hiring, lending, or offering the flick knife for sale.
In case the literal rule is applied, Jane would be guilty of the offense as she gave the supervisor a flick knife. Nonetheless, this clearly was not the intent or purpose of her act, and hence following the golden rule she is not guilt. The literal rule takes the words as stated in the act and applies their plain meaning. The rule offers a degree of certainty, hence the verdict is known before it is given.
The golden rule is important in this case as a literal interpretation of the words of the statute leads to an absurdity or to inconsistency or repugnance with the rest of the statute (Wilson, Mitchell, Storey & Wortley 2011). Applying the literal rule would result in absurd outcomes as Jane actually helped by confiscating the knife from the youth member and giving it to the supervisor; it is part of her job to assist the youth members and her act was meant to help the youth.
Adler v George  2 QB 7
Caparo Industries v Dickman,  1 All ER 568
Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562; (1932) All ER 1
Fisher v Bell  1 QB 394
Jones, L 2013, Introduction to business law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Kelly, D, Hammer, R & Hendy, J 2014, Business law, Routledge, New York, NY.
Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marine  1 WLR 1071
Slapper, G 2014, How the law works, 3ed, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon.
Steele, J 2010, Tort law: text, cases, and materials, Oxford University Press, New York.
Whiteley v. Chappell [1868-9] 4 LRQB 147
Wilson, S, Mitchell, R, Storey, A & Wortley, N 2011, English legal system directions, Oxford University Press Inc, New York.