It seems to me that statutes can be either struck down after interpretation or continue to be enforced. If someone challenges the statute, it could travel all the way to the Supreme Court to be interpreted. The Supreme Court can provide a decision whether that statute is being applied in a constitutional manner. In the passage we read, the state tried Johnson with a statute that eventually was struck down because it was inconsistent with the translation of the First Amendment. So, statutes can be amended or changed if not acceptable.
Despite this, it is stated that following precedent too rigidly may cause an injustice. It is important that the law adapts with the times and judges in the Supreme Court may depart from a previous decision when 'right to do so'. However, the Practice Statement also recognises that it is important to be careful when departing from precedent as it may cause more injustice than if left alone. The first practical application of the Practice Statement was seen in Herrington v British Rail Board 1972 when the then House of Lords held that "any person bringing a dangerous animal on to their land must bear full responsibility"
During his reign, Henry II developed the writ system. Nowadays a writ is equivalent to filling in a claims form. A writ was a royal command or letter to attend court and it had the effect of centralising the jurisdiction of the courts. At an early stage in English Common law a writ was necessary to have a case heard at a royal court. If a person wished to start an action it was necessary to obtain a writ from the King’s Chancellor.
In the case of Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse  ECR 1 however, the ECJ conceived the doctrine of direct effect in relation to Treaty articles. As a result of this case it was possible for an individual to enforce rights provided by the EU law directly, in cases where the Treaty provided for those rights. Nonetheless, Storey and Turner (2011) stated that the ECJ restricted the scope of direct effect to provisions which were adequately precise and unconditional. Because directives are not directly applicable, as well as being directed solely at Member States, despite the direct effect of Treaty articles being fairly well defined there was some doubt as to whether Directives would be subject to direct effect. Moreover, Directives rely upon the Member State giving effect to them,
The decisions of the Divisions of the Court of Appeal do not form a binding precedent on each other. The decision of each Division only persuades the other such as in the cases of R v Ireland and R v Burstow 1998 and Re A (conjoined twins (2001). Both Divisions are generally bound by its past decisions by the doctrine of stare decisis. The case of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd 1944 emphasised the points above, as well as establishing three exceptions in which the Divisions are not bound by their previous decisions, these are: * Where there are conflicting decisions in the past, the Court of Appeal can choose which one it will follow and which one it will ignore. The one they follow will then become the binding precedent as in Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd 1974 avoiding Law v Jones 1974.
Legal issues may not coincide with the legalities of the company. To address this, the parties bound by contract must state clearly in the contract where each party stands. To address ethics when taking legal action, there are many differences in culture and religion that may arise; if a conflict regarding ethics arises reasonable consideration must be made to uphold ethical standards. Resolving legal disputes internationally involves complex handling of transactions. Contracts
The issue to be dealt with in this problem is misrepresentation. It is therefore necessary to advise SkyReach Ltd. on the possible courses of action regarding misrepresentation. First, the ability of SkyReach Ltd. to rescind the contract on the grounds of ‘ innocent misrepresentation,’ based on the fact that Holgers statement regarding planning permission, was not a factual statement but a statement of opinion made prior to the contract. Also the possibility of a claim for damages based on the fact that Holger’s statement was non fraudulent. Each claim will be examined separately.
The Supreme Court role is important in the United states system of government. The Constitution is the main source that gives it the power to check the actions of the President and Congress. The Supreme Court is the one who is responsible for interpreting the U.S Constitution and to ensure that any federal and state law abide by the constitution. The drafters of the Constitution ensured the protection of it by creating a balance of powers among the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. They are very important to balance the powers between each other but at times it can become very difficult to maintain it because they each have boundaries.
Some argue that this rule encourages precision of drafting, however a counter argument is why would anyone be deliberately careless? Statutory interpretation also grants law making powers to judges, which defeats the point of parliamentary supremacy. In addition, the question of what is absurd or immoral and therefore allowing the plain words of a statute to be ignored is by necessity a subjective one, and so the interpretation will vary with the judge's background, upbringing, education, and beliefs; which will inevitably differ greatly from the mean at least some of the time. In Whitley v. Chappell (1868), it was illegal to impersonate any person entitled to vote. A dead person who was not entitled to vote, so therefore was acquitted.