In the UK, this is called the golden rule. This is sometimes called the soft and clear rule of meaning, where the law is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result is cruel or absurd. See, for example, Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892). Even the most virulent proponents of textualism and the simple meaning rule were prepared, under certain circumstances, to transform the simple “strict” meaning into a simple “soft” meaning; see e.B. United States v. X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting): The literal rule is a rule used to interpret laws. This rule explains what the law is instead of explaining what the law means. When interpreting a law, courts generally apply the literal rule before applying other rules of interpretation. In the literal rule, the words of a law have their clear, ordinary and literal meaning. In the application of the literal rule, the law is read word for word and without deviating from its true meaning.

The clear meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of the three rules of legal construction traditionally applied by English courts. [1] The other two are the “rule of nonsense” and the “golden rule”. In law, strictly literal interpretations of laws can lead to seemingly absurd results. The doctrine of absurdity states that interpretations of common sense in such cases should be preferred to literal readings. Under the doctrine of absurdity, U.S. courts have interpreted laws against their clear meaning in order to avoid absurd legal conclusions. [5] [6] [7] It is juxtaposed with literalism. [8] Opponents of the simple meaning rule argue that the rule is based on the erroneous assumption that words have a fixed meaning.

In fact, the words are inaccurate and cause judges to impose their own biases to determine the meaning of a law. However, as few things other than the theory of alternative discretion are offered, the simple meaning survives. Proponents of the clear meaning rule argue that it prevents the courts from taking sides on legislative or political issues. They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do not have extensive access to secondary sources. It is the oldest of the building rules and is still used today, mainly because judges are not allowed to legislate. Since there is always a risk that some interpretation will be equivalent to the law, some judges prefer to stick to the literal wording of the law. The use of the literal rule is illustrated by Fisher v. Bell (1960). The Offensive Weapons Restriction Act 1959 made it a criminal offence to offer for sale certain offensive weapons, including folding knives. James Bell, a Bristol shopkeeper, showed off a pistol of this type in his window in the Arcade of Broadmead. The Divisional Court ruled that he could not be convicted because Mr. Bell had not offered the knives for sale because he gave the words of the act a narrow literal meaning.

In contract law, placing something in a storefront is not technically an offer to sell; it is simply an invitation to treatment. (An invitation to treatment is an invitation to others to make offers, para. B example by displaying goods in a shop window.) It is the customer who makes an offer to the store when he offers money for an item for sale. The court confirmed that the merchant had not made an offer to sell in the literal sense of the offer and was therefore not guilty of the crime. Parliament then amended the law to clarify that showing a folding knife in a shop window was a criminal offence. IP COMPLETION DAY: The Brexit transition period ended on 31 December 2020 at 11pm. At that time (referred to as “Intellectual Property Completion Day”) in UK law, the transitional provisions came to an end and significant changes came into force throughout the UK legal system. This document provides guidance on the issues affected by these changes. Before continuing your research, read Practical Note: What Does IP Closing Day Mean for Public Law? That cannot have been Parliament`s intention. However, the literal rule does not take into account the consequences of a literal interpretation, but only if the words have a clear meaning that makes sense in this context. If Parliament does not like literal interpretation, it must amend the law. The “plain text rule” has sometimes been applied to the interpretation of contracts, particularly in conjunction with the parol rule of proof.

Such use is controversial. [11] The literal rule has both advantages and disadvantages. Constitutionally, it respects parliamentary supremacy and the right of parliament to enact all laws it desires, however absurd they may seem. It also promotes accuracy in writing and ensures that anyone who can read English can determine the law, which promotes safety and reduces litigation. However, some disadvantages can also be recognized. It does not recognize that the English language itself is ambiguous and that words can have different meanings in different contexts. The application of this rule can sometimes lead to absurdities and flaws that can be exploited by a ruthless adversary. Judges tended to place too much emphasis on the literal meaning of legal provisions without giving due weight to their meaning in a broader context. The emphasis on the literal meaning of words presupposes a perfection inaccessible in the art of drawing. After all, he ignores the limits of language.

Under this rule, the judge considers what the law actually says, not what it might mean. To do this, the judge will give the words of the law a literal meaning, that is, their simple ordinary everyday meaning, even if it leads to a result that might otherwise be considered unfair or undesirable. The literal rule states that Parliament`s intention is best in the ordinary and natural sense of the words used. As the democratic legislative part of the state, parliament must be understood as wanting to implement exactly what it says in its laws. If judges are allowed to give the words of parliamentary law an obvious or non-literal meaning, then the will of parliament and therefore of the people is contradicted. Lord Diplock once remarked: An explanation of the rule was given in the Sussex Peerage case (1844; 11 Cl & Fin 85). “The only rule for the interpretation of acts of parliament is that they must be interpreted according to the intention of the parliament that passed the law. If the terms of the Statute themselves are precise and unambiguous, then nothing more may be necessary than to explain these words in this natural and ordinary sense. Words alone best explain the intention of the legislator in such a case. The clear meaning rule states that laws must be interpreted with the ordinary meaning of the language of the law. In other words, a law must be read word for word and interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless a law explicitly defines some of its terms differently or the result is cruel or absurd. Ordinary words acquire their ordinary meaning, technical terms acquire their technical meaning, and local cultural terms are recognized as applicable.

The plain text rule is the mechanism that prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political cases. [2] Moreover, it is the mechanism that underlies textualism and, to some extent, originalism. In inheritance law, the rule is also preferred because the testator is usually not nearby to indicate which interpretation of a will is appropriate. Therefore, it is argued that extrinsic evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used by the testator or their meaning. This can help ensure consistency of interpretation. Judges usually impose a limit of absurdity on this rule, which states that a law cannot be interpreted literally if it leads to an absurd result. In Chung Fook v. White (1924) marked the beginning of the more flexible American rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text. However, the application of the literal rule may nullify Parliament`s intention. For example, in Whiteley v.

Chappel,[10][10] the court reluctantly concluded that Whiteley could not be convicted because he posed as “any person entitled to vote” in an election because the person he portrayed had died. To be understood literally, the testator was not a “person with the right to vote”. The Perpetuity and Accumulation Act 2009 effectively enforces the rule against eternity of future servitudes granted on or after April 6, 2010, so that a reporter no longer has to worry about setting a period of eternity. Any restriction on the exercise of servitude To avoid ambiguity, legislators often include sections of “definitions” in a statute that explicitly define the main terms used in that statute. [3] But some laws omit a definition article altogether or (more frequently) do not define a particular term. The simple meaning rule is intended to guide courts faced with disputes over the meaning of a term not defined by law or the meaning of a word in a definition itself. Common sense approves of Pufendorf`s [sic. Puffendorf] that Bologn`s law which stated “that whoever drew blood from the streets should be punished with extreme severity” did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person who fell into the street during a seizure […].