One of those is the case Fisher v Bell 1961 1 QB 394, the goods displayed thestore was described as presented with the invitation to treat of the owner,since each of those was display with a price. However, such description was laterproved to be inaccurate at the Statute later.
In a deeper analysis,this description was dictated as unsatisfactory and inapplicable. As in the caseR v Maginnis 1987 AC 303 where the defendant was pled guilty under the s.5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, inusing the word “supply”, it did not reflectively and directly describe the situationsof acts that the defendant has had. Thus, in any case, the role of the judge would become more important,who would be capable of examining and judging which words are accurate to beapplied into the jurisdiction, and prejudices or opinions towardsthe subject can affect his choices of words in the case. Besides, there can beseparation between various level of power within the English legislationsystem, since the choices, considerations, and jus of the words cited into thecase can be different. This made the Parliament to have utmost important rolewithin this system. The Literal Rule has been themost popular approach deployed by the judge’s so far, focusing on the plain orordinary meanings of the words cited, which can be then compared and appliedunder the scope of Acts to create jurisdiction.
Strongly linking to the governmentof the Parliament, the Literal Rule will be applied with empathized considerationof the meaning and implications of words cited. The high popularity of thisrule has proved its value in many courts so far. One example of the applicationof this rule was the Fisher v Bell 1961 1 QB 394 case, in which the wordscited was direct used to claim that the defendant was guilty. Similarly, in thecase Whitely vChappel (1868)LR 4 QB 147, the terms “in order to be entitled tovote” was cited directly and plainly into the justification, claiming that thedefendant was not guilty.
Thus, in applying the Literal Rule, the courts can bemore successful in dictating the words recorded to analyse the case, and the jurisdictiondeveloped upon used to be justified as accelerate and fair. However, there arealso cases that the directness of the Rule was not applicable. So far, the English jurisdiction has had a lotof improvements and advancements in terms of resources for resolving disputesover employment (Goulding & Vinall, 2010). TheEmployment Acts were among those playing the role of the guiding framework forboth the business and the workers to ensure their rights and benefits under employmentissues.
However, there are still many gaps and differences at the presumptions,rules and justifications at courts. Generally, the courts can take among thefour approaches including the Purposive Approach, Mischief Approach, GoldenRule, and Literal Rule to judge their cases.
