Although this could be viewed as a loophole in the statute it was not up to him

Although this could be viewed as a loophole in the

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 6 pages.

Although this could be viewed as a loophole in the statute, it was not up to him as a judge to supply for the omission, as that was under the power of the legislature. Lord Parker distinguished the present case from Keating v Horwood . In that case, a baker’s van contained bread that was under weight, contrary to the Sale of Food Order 1921. However, it was observed that in that case the order plainly contained the words “expose for sale” and there was obviously an exposing for sale in that case. Therefore, the question of whether there was an offer for sale was irrelevant in that case and the principles of general contract law were never referred to in that case. Hence, Lord Parker was of the opinion that he could not take this case as an authority for the proposition that the display of flick knife in a shop window in the present case was an offer for sale. Downloaded by Adli Hakim ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4226454
Image of page 4

Subscribe to view the full document.

Lord Parker also distinguished the present case from Wiles v Maddison . The justice in that case referred to the putting of an article in the shop window as exposing the article, instead of making an offer. From the cases that he cited, Lord Parker was unable to find argument in favor of the appellant, since the order in Section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 only contained the words “offer for sale”, of which there was not any in the present case. The lack of the words “exposing for sale” in the Act means that only a true offer would be an offence under the Act. Hence, the respondent was not guilty of the offence with which he was charged. Evaluation of the case: In this case, the judges applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation in interpreting Section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. However, the application of literal rule of statutory interpretation does not always result in a fair outcome and can sometimes lead to absurd decision.
Image of page 5
Image of page 6
  • Fall '18

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern

Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask ( soon) You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes