can anybody explain the rules for interpretation of statutes in business law?

[slick crunk-kid]

in business law, there srea statutes that need to be be interpreted either in civil law or in criminal law before judgement is passed. what are these rules and how are they interpreted? why are they interpreted? how many of these rules are there? ------

[Johnny Knoxville]

Interpentation is in the eye of the beholder. It's like the glass is either half empty or half full. And if your talking about law, your talking about a language that is all on it's own. No real person would have made up such words that a mear common man could ever dream of let alone say or write. How many are there? Too many, too many for simple people but for the rich and the unjust the more the better!!! Good day Sir. ------

[Perdendosi]

Statutory interpretation is a tricky subject. Mostly, it goes something like this.(1) You look at the"plain meaning"of the words to determine what the statute means. Sometimes, you may use a dictionary to determine that"plain meaning."(2) You look to the intent of the drafters (the real purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the drafters. Some people, like Justice Scalia, believe that the words of the statute, and cannons of statutory construction, discussed below, are the only true expression of the drafters'intent. Others believe that other evidence can be relevant, such as signing statements by the president, speeches made by legislators, changes in the law and other amendments during the drafting process. How and when to look at this"other evidence"is the subject of much scholarly debate.)(3) Use cannons of statutory construction. These are sort of word game"presumptions"that courts use that have been used for a long time. Many of them have really cool names from Latin. They include;(a) A presumption that criminal statutes are construed narrowly, as people should have explicit notice of criminal behavior.(b) A statute should be read so that all of its provisions have effect; can't overread one provision to effecively strike out another. Specific provisions of a statute overrule general ones. (e.g. Sec.1: Pets are allowed in the building from 8-11 a.m. Sec.2: No dogs are allowed in the premises. Even though section 1 allows pets, section 2 is more specific, prohibiting dogs. Thus, an owner can't say"well, section 1 allows pets, and my dog is a pet!"because the specific provision, section 2, overrules.)(c) When there is a list, that list defines the like items. (E.g. Sec. 1: No person shall remove from Government land any gold, silver, quartz, or other natural resource. Guy 1 removes Copper. Guy 2 removes tree bark. Who, if anyone, is liable under the statute? Guy 1 probably is, because copper is a"natural resource"very much like gold, silver, or quartz--a mineral resource. Guy 2 does not because even though it's arguable that tree bark is a"natural resource,"that term is defined by the examples provided in the statute. It's pretty clear that the authority is only concerned with poaching _mineral-type_ resources, not things grown on trees.)(d) Unless something exists to the contrary, definitions from one section / subsection / provision of the same law will apply throughout the chapter/ section / subsection as appropriate.(e) You interpret a statute narrowly to avoid a constitutional issue, if possibleThere are a whole bunch more, but this gets you going. ------

[Liv]

the courts are now looking towards a more purposeive approach with statutory interpretation. They will give effect to the purpose of the statute which Parliament intended it to have. It would be necessary to look at Hansard for this (see Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593) However, these statutes may have already been subjected to judicial interpretation, in which case, it would be necessary to research the relevant caselaw. Halsbury's Statutes are also useful. ------