Arresten

Introduction to Common Law - Case Law Summary

Name: Introduction to Common Law - Case Law Summary
SKU: doc_732823
Rating: 4.00 (1 reviews)
Author: cjjmm

1 beoordeling

4 keer verkocht

Instelling
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)

This document contains a summary of all case law you should know from the first five lecture weeks of the course Introduction to Common Law (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2019/2020), with facts and ratio decidendi provided (facts only when relevant). Using this case law summary - in combination with...

[Meer zien]

Laatste update van het document: 4 jaar geleden

Voorbeeld 3 van de 13 pagina's

Bekijk voorbeeld

Geupload op 6 juni 2020
Bestand laatst geupdate op 18 juni 2020
Aantal pagina's 13
Geschreven in 2019/2020
Type Arresten

case law
common law
introduction
case law summary
introduction to common law
summary

1 beoordeling

Door: kkwiatkowska2209 • 4 jaar geleden

Volgen

cjjmm Lid sinds 8 jaar 77 documenten verkocht

€2,99

Ook beschikbaar in voordeelbundel v.a. €5,49

In winkelwagen

Opslaan

100% tevredenheidsgarantie
Direct beschikbaar na je betaling
Lees online óf als PDF
Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten

Ook beschikbaar in voordeelbundel (1)

Lectures and Case Law Summary - Introduction to Common Law

€ 7,48 € 5,49

9x verkocht

2 items

1. Arresten - Introduction to common law - case law summary
2. Samenvatting - Introduction to common law - summary
Meer zien

Introduction to Common Law – Case Law Summary

Inhoud
Weeks 1 + 2: origin and nature of English law........................................................................................3
Fisher v Bell [1961]..................................................................................................................................3
National Society v Scottish National Society [1915].................................................................................3
R. v Allen [1972].......................................................................................................................................3
London Street Tramways v London County Council [1849].....................................................................3
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co [1944].......................................................................................................4
Swift v Tyson [1842].................................................................................................................................4
Erie Railroad Co v Tompkins [1938].........................................................................................................4
Week 3: constitutional law........................................................................................................................5
R. v Jordan [1967]....................................................................................................................................5
Factortame I & II [1990 & 1991], or R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport....................5
Ellen Street Estates Ltd. v The Minister of Health [1934]........................................................................5
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002]..............................................................................................6
Bulmer v Bollinger [1974]........................................................................................................................6
Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope [1842].................................................................................6
A-G v Fulham Corporation [1921]............................................................................................................7
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal [1852]......................................................................................................7
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948].........................................7
Weeks 4 + 5: criminal law.........................................................................................................................8
Hill v Baxter [1958]..................................................................................................................................8
R. v Curley [1909].....................................................................................................................................8
R. v Instan [1893].....................................................................................................................................8
R. v Pittwood [1902]................................................................................................................................9
R. v Miller [1983].....................................................................................................................................9
R. v Moloney [1985].................................................................................................................................9
R. v Cunningham [1957]...........................................................................................................................9
R. v Caldwell [1981]...............................................................................................................................10
R. v Adomako [1994]..............................................................................................................................10

,R. v Latimer [1886].................................................................................................................................10
R. v Pembliton [1874]............................................................................................................................11
Alphacell v Woodward [1972]...............................................................................................................11
R. v Thornton [1991]..............................................................................................................................11
DPP v Newbury [1977]...........................................................................................................................11
R. v Turner [1971]..................................................................................................................................12
R. v M’naghten [1843]...........................................................................................................................12
R. v Gotts [1992]....................................................................................................................................12
R. v Dudley and Stephens [1884]...........................................................................................................13
R. v Clegg [1995]....................................................................................................................................13

, Weeks 1 + 2: origin and nature of English law

Fisher v Bell [1961]
Literal rule of interpretation

Facts:
A shopkeeper put a flick-knife in his window with a price tag on it. The Restriction of Offensive
Weapons Act 1959 made it a criminal offence to ‘offer’ such flick-knives for sale. Did the shopkeeper
‘offer’ the flick-knife for sale contrary to the statute?

Ratio decidendi:
No, the knife was not offered for sale, since the word ‘offer’ was not defined in the Restriction of
Offensive Weapons Act 1959. It therefore had to be given the meaning attributed to it in the ordinary law
of contract. Thus, the Court applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation.

National Society v Scottish National Society [1915]
Literal rule of interpretation

Facts:
After his death, a Scotsman left his money to a beneficiary which he called the National Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children, meaning the Scottish National Society.

Ratio decidendi:
The Court applied the literal rule and defined ‘the National Society’ as the British National Society.

R. v Allen [1972]
Golden rule of interpretation

Facts:
The defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy (marrying twice). The statute states: ‘whosoever
being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of
an offence’. The defendant tried to argue that under a literal interpretation of the statute, it would be
impossible to commit the offence, since a second marriage will not be recognized in civil law and is
therefore invalid and technically not a marriage. This would make it possible to marry twice. However,
this was an absurd result.

Ratio decidendi:
The Court applied the golden rule and held that the word ‘marry’ in the statute should be interpreted as ‘to
go through a marriage ceremony’.

London Street Tramways v London County Council [1849]
Ratio decidendi:
The House of Lords (now: Supreme Court) is bound by its own previous decisions.

 Except where the previous decision had been made per incuriam (through lack of care): when an important
case or statute was not brought to the attention of the Court when the previous decision was made.
 The doctrine of binding precedent was later abolished by the House of Lords through the Announcement of 16-
7-1966.

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.