Exam (elaborations)
IOS2601 Assignment 2 QUIZ (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 (777791)- DUE 23 August 2024
- Course
- Interpretation of Statutes
- Institution
- University Of South Africa
100% TRUSTED WORKINGS, EXPLANATIONS & SOLUTIONS
[Show more]
Content preview
IOS2601 Assignment 2 QUIZ(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2024 (777791)- DUE
23 August 2024
100% GUARANTEED
,IOS2601 Assignment 2 QUIZ (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2024 (777791)- DUE 23 August 2024
Question 1 Complete Mark 2.00 out of 2.00 Question 2 Complete
Mark 2.00 out of 2.00 QUIZ Botha is of the opinion that the
interpretation process begins with the reading of the legislation
concerned. In which case didthe court decide that ordinary meaning
must be attached to the words? A. Union Government v Tonkin 1918
AD 533 B. Union Government v Mack 1917 AD 731 C. Principal
Immigration Offi cer v Hawabu 1936 AD 26 D. Principal Immigration
Offi cer v Purshotam 1928 AD 435 Delegated legislation can be
invalidated by court if it does not comply with the requirement
concerning vagueness provided byadministrative law. In which case
did the court lay down a number of guidelines for determining
vagueness in the legislation? A. MEC for Public Works, Road and
Transport, Free State v Morning Star Minibus Hiring Services 2003 (4)
SA 429 (O) B. Matatiele Municipality v President of the RSA 2006 (5)
SA 47 (CC) C. Engelbrecht v Road Accident Fund 2007 96) SA 96 (CC)
D. Sappi Fine Papers (Pty) Ltd v ICI Canada Inc 1992 (3) SA 306 (A)
Grade 50.00 100%)
1. Question: In which case did the court decide that ordinary meaning must be attached to
the words?
o Answer: Union Government v Mack 1917 AD 731 (Option B)
2. Question: In which case did the court lay down a number of guidelines for determining
vagueness in the legislation?
o Answer: MEC for Public Works, Road and Transport, Free State v Morning
Star Minibus Hiring Services 2003 (4) SA 429 (O) (Option A)
You got a perfect score, 50.00 out of 50.00 (100%)!
Question 3 Complete Mark 2.00 out of 2.00 Question 4 Complete
Mark 2.00 out of 2.00 Question 5 Complete Mark 0.00 out of 2.00 In
_________the court reiterated that the meaning of a word cannot be
determined conclusively by its dictionary meaning. A. Santam
Insurance Ltd v Taylor 1985 (1) SA 514 (A) B. De Beers Industrial
, Diamond Division (Pty) Ltd v Ishizuka 1980 (2) SA 191 (T) C. Ex parte
the Minister of Justice: In re R v Jacobson and Levy 1931 AD 466 D. S v
Makhubela 1981 4 SA 210 (B) In ____________ the court stated clearly
that the principle that a meaning should be assigned to every word is
not absolute. A. Secretary for Inland Revenue v Somers Vine 1968 (2)
SA 138 (A) B. Finbro Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Deeds,
Bloemfontein 1985 (4) SA 773 C. Golden China TV Game Centre v
Nintendo Co Ltd 1997 (1) SA 405 (A) D. Volschenk v Volschenk 1946
TPD 486 In Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental
Affairs 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC) Ngcobo J remarked that? A. The starting
point towards interpreting any piece of legislation is in the text. B. The
starting point towards interpreting any piece of legislation is in the
Constitution. C. The discretion lies with the judicial offi cer(s) to ascribe
whatever meaning they want to any piece of legislation. D. The
starting point towards interpreting any piece of legislation is in its table
of contents.
Let's analyze the questions:
1. Question: In which case did the court reiterate that the meaning of a word cannot be
determined conclusively by its dictionary meaning?
o Answer: Santam Insurance Ltd v Taylor 1985 (1) SA 514 (A) (Option A)
2. Question: In which case did the court state clearly that the principle that a meaning
should be assigned to every word is not absolute?
o Answer: Secretary for Inland Revenue v Somers Vine 1968 (2) SA 138 (A)
(Option A)
3. Question: In Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs 2004 (4) SA
490 (CC), Ngcobo J remarked that?
o Answer: The starting point towards interpreting any piece of legislation is in
the Constitution. (Option B)
For Question 5, it appears that the correct answer was Santam Insurance Ltd v Taylor 1985 (1)
SA 514 (A), so you might have selected the wrong option.
Overall, you did well on the quiz, just missing the answer to one question. Keep up the good
work!
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Lela40. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R47,39. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
52510 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now