Q1

The Golden Rule:

We can defined the golden rule as the rule of statutory or legal document
interpretation which allows a shift from the ordinary sense of as words if the
overall content of the document demands it ( Babylon, 2011).
The example of golden rule is Re Sigsworth (1925) CH 89 case. Sigsworth the
statute implies that the court should issue someone inheritance in certain
cases. A son murdered his mother and then committed suicide so the court
were required to rule on who should inherit the mothers family or the son
descendant. According to the Golden Rule, the court decide that no one
should profit from a crime so using the Golden Rule to prevent an
undesirable result. The court favored the mothers family.
The Mischief Rule:
According to Heydons Case (1584), the mischief rule should only be applied
where there is ambiguity in the statute.
The Mischief Rule for interpreting statutes was based on three factors
according to the Heydons case which are:
1) What the law was before the statute was passed.
2) What problem the statute was trying to remedy.
3) What remedy Parliament was trying to provide.
One of the examples of the Mischief Rule is Elliot v Grey (1960) 1 QB 367
case. The case stated that the defendants car was parked on the road and it
was jacked up and its battery was removed. He was charged with an offence
under the Road Traffic Act 1930 of using uninsured vehicle on the road. The
defendant argued that he was not driving his car on the road which means
that he was not using it. According to Mischief Rule the court held that the
car was being used on the road as it represented a hazard and therefore
insurance would be required in the event of an incident.
The Literal Rule:
The literal rule is dominant in the English Legal System. It states that the
judges should look primarily to the words of the legislation in order to
construe its meaning. Judges should not look outside or behind the
legislation in an attempt to find its meaning (G. Slapper and D. Kelly, 2010).

An example of the literal rule is Fisher v Bell (1961) 1 QB 394 case. The case
stated that the defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window with
a price tag on it. Statute made it a criminal offence to offer such flick knife
for sale. The defendants conviction was quashed as goods on display in
shops are not offers in the technical sense but an invitation to treat.
According to that the court applied and held the literal rule of statutory
interpretation.
The literal rule is strongly criticized by many lawyers. When interpreting a
statute the courts generally applies the literal rule first before applying any
other rule of interpretation because the literal approach (rule) is the
interpretation of legislation applies the general rule that a court is bound by
the words within the statute.

Q2
First of all, we have to realize that mediation has become one of the
important and viable alternatives to the court system to adjudicate and
arbitrate in the legal system. Mediation as used in law can be considered as
a major form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which is the way of
resolving disputes between two or more parties with very concrete effects.
The mediator helps these parties to negotiate a settlement in different
domains such as workplace, commercial and family matter using a many
different ways of negotiations.
According to some researches, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been
championed by the government, academics and the senior judiciary as a
complementary mechanism to litigation (P. Rhone-Adrien, 2009).
In point of fact, most of courts now require some parties to resort to
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) of some type such as mediation. At the
same time some of the senior judiciary has a strong conviction of the use of
mediation to settle disputes. Starting from the 1960s, some courts provided
ADR programs to resolve some cases, and most of the courts require many
different cases to go through some sort of ADR process before judicial
resolution [clare, 2003].
Actually, most of the ADR reside outside the legal system, so to maximize
the benefit from ADR; the culture view of dispute resolution needs to change.
ADR should not be an alternative only to trials in courts; it needs to be an
alternative to the legal system as well. Due to this change, businesses and

citizens should have confidence in those alternatives, which occurs when this
change come from people working outside the legal system.

According to Sir Henry In Mediation (2010), we have to realize that his

experience since retiring as a judge in the field of mediation has been
formidable. Many of the Garden Court Mediation have already the benefit of
his acquired wisdom and the approaches he brings to this new way of
seeking to settle disputes.
One of the cases that help us to evaluate the statement of Sir Henry Brooke
in Mediation in term of ADRs ability as a viable alternative to the court
system is Burchell v Bullard (2005) EWCA 358 case.
According to Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust (May 2004) case, which
issued that the parties believed that their case was unequivocal. This issue
has been applied by the Court of Appeal in Burchell v Bullard case. The case
concerned the original dispute was between a builder named Mr. Burchell
and the Bullard couple, which the deal was Mr. Burchell build an extension for
18300. After the work being done the couple refused to pay the amount and
counter-claimed over 100,000 which is unreasonable for the court. In the
event, the couple only succeeded in counterclaim of 14,300 and the cost of
the case ended by 183,000. So the case is all about who should bare these
cost. The builder first suggested mediation as a way to resolve this dispute
but the couple refused stating that the matter was too complex for
mediation.
The decision by the judges was to penalize the Bullard for refusing to pre
mediated as ADR because their cost of 100,000 is too much and saying this
case was too complex is non-sense.

Q3
First of all, in order to distinguish between the law of contract and the tort
law, we have to realize that both tort and contract law considered as one of
the oldest terms of the English law. Their date back hundreds of years ago to
the roots of common law in the middle age and earlier. They both deal with a
legal enforceable agreement, but they serve different functions. The tort law

is primarily concerned with compensation for damages for civil wrongs

suffered as a result of anothers act and omissions. On the other hand, the
law of contract is totally concerned with the enforcement of duties that one
person has by an agreement [Bound himself/herself to perform for the
benefit of another] (S. Blay, 2012).
The relationship between the parties in the basis for distinguishing between
tort law and the law of contract is when dealing with the notion of
remoteness damage. For example, if the court consider this question, for
how much of damage suffered in a case should the defendant be held
responsible? In this issue, the rules of contract required more than the rules
of tort law.
In point of fact, the distinction in practice is less important and clear than
many fact situations that could give rise to an action in both contract and
tort law. So, in such cases, it becomes very necessary to decide whether to
sue in contract or in tort law. One example of this cases is to be found in the
case of Johnstone v Bloomsbury AHA (1992) 2 AII ER 293.
Johnstone v Bloomsbury (1992) case states that Dr. Chris Johnstone was a
junior doctor in the Obstetric Department at the University Collage hospital.
According to his contract, he was required to be available on call for 48 hours
a week on top of his 40 hours contract. His first claim was that it was a
breach of the duty of care to have a contract which could cause foreseeable
injury. His alternative claim was that the clause allowing him to be so long on
call was contrary to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
The Court of Appeal held that Bloomsbury Health Authority had to pay
damages for the harm to Dr. Johnstones health, and based this decision on
the common law for different reasons.
One of these reasons is that Mr. Stuart-Smith LJ set out that there was a duty
A to be on Dr. Johnstone which is to be available for 48 hours on top of 40
hours, and duty B on Bloomsbury Health Authority to not injure the
employees health. So, since Bloomsbury Health Authority had the power to
make the employee work 88 hours a week on average, it had to be exercised
in the light of the other contractual terms and in particular their duty to take
care for his safety.