The paper 'Rules of Statutory Interpretation - Reckitt Benckiser Pty Ltd" is a great example of a business case study. The Statutory interpretation can be explained as the interpretation and application of legislation by courts. When a statute is involved in a case, then there is a need for some interpretation. This is because the statute could either have direct meaning or could be ambiguous. In a case of ambiguity of the statute's wording, a judge is involved in order to resolve. Judges have several tools that they apply in order to find the meaning of the various statutes applied. These tools include the legislative purpose and history, statutory interpretation of the traditional canon.
This interpretation is helpful in case there is arising of complexity on a certain section of the statutes. To highlight a few of the instances where statutory interpretation is required are; where drafting error occurred, the legislation omitted some specific points, the term used is broad, also vagueness where the term used in the statute has more than one meaning thus resulting in different interpretations of the word in the statute.
A number of rules that apply to the statutory interpretation. The literal rule is one of the rules that apply statutory interpretation when applying the literal rule; the natural meaning of the words in the statute is used. This implies that the words in the statute have a literal meaning and have no other meaning. Therefore, the literal rule cannot be further analyzed for more meaning. This rule is mostly applied by the judges who feel that they should firmly apply the laws directly as enacted by the parliament. The Golden rule is applicable where the plain meaning rule bears an outcome where there is an avoidance of applying the parliament's intention.
It helps in the prevention of absurdity while one interprets the law literally. The mischief rule; the judges are involved in the determination of the intentions of the legislator. This rule sets out a question; what are the "defects and the agitations" that the act intends to correct? It also set out a ruling that would be effective in the implementation of the remedy. Unlike literal rule the purposive rule is flexible; the literal rule is known to take a literal meaning of each word while the purposive rule is much broader such that it does not take into consideration of the literal meaning of individual words. Australian law prohibits corporations from misleading consumers.
This doctrine adopted by the Australian law is meant to protect the consumers of various commodities from oppression and misleading on the quality and components of the products. The law restricts any person engaged in a trade from misleading the customers. This section of the law also prohibits some conducts that are likely to deceive the consumers. The doctrine does not clearly state the social class of individuals that should be put into consideration while determining whether the conduct in question is misleading.
In this case, the courts consider what the individuals know and also what they ought to have known about one another. Therefore, the supportive approach cannot be important while the term deceptive conduct is interpreted. The doctrine should, therefore, state the class of individuals, it should also be in a position to isolate an individual in that specific social class and be in a position to apply to test to the isolated individual.
The other limitation is that there are certain individuals who make assumptions which are more extreme and are not protected. Others do not take reasonable care and thus not entitled to protection. In that connection, therefore, the court has to consider the context itself whether it was misleading or not.
Bellamy, Sheila, Clive Morley, and Kim Watty. "Why business academics remain in Australian universities despite deteriorating working conditions and reduced job satisfaction: An intellectual puzzle." Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 25.1 (2003): 13-28.
Kaye, Bruce N. "Codes of ethics in Australian business corporations." Journal of Business Ethics 11.11 (1992): 857-862.
Latimer, Paul. Australian Business Law 2012. CCH Australia Limited, 2012.
Ramsay, Ian. "Enforcement of corporate rights and duties by shareholders and the Australian Securities Commission: Evidence and analysis." Australian Business Law Review 23.3 (1995).