Quote:
Originally Posted by whocares123
"It also helps to give a practical application of a law."
I have no idea what that sentence means. Sounds like something my prof would say as a hint that would just leave me completely dumbfounded. Care to explain?
|
Statutory law is often not precise enough to be applied to the letter to everyday cases. I can't think of a way to explain what I mean in a concise definition, so I'm going to have to use a long winded example (in fact, the case I did my last essay on,
Elitestone Ltd v. Morris [1997])
Basically:
- Owners of land (Elitestone Ltd) divide land into 27 plots used for allotments
- Several tenants put prefab Chalets on their allotments
- Years later, owners want to get rid of all the allotments and develop the site
- One tenant (Morris) claims that his Chalet is a legit dwelling, and the rent he has been paying for the allotment is rent for a dwelling, and his tenancy is therefore protected under the 1977 Rent Act (he can only be evicted if he stops paying rent or abuses the property)
The court has to decide if his Chalet is a legitimate dwelling & essential to the land use (fixture) or a shed for the purpose of enjoyment (fitting).
The law says that both the degree of annexation (degree of physical attachment) and the purpose of annexation (essential to land use or for the purpose of enjoyment) have to be considered in order to define it as either a fixture or fitting. The legal presumption is anything attached to the ground by bolts, screws or concrete is a fixture, and anything resting by it's own weight is a fitting. The prefab Chalet was not attached in anyway other than its own massive weight onto a concrete base. However, the weight and structure of the Chalet made it impossible to be moved from the property without damaging it (it would pretty much have to be demolished), and therefore it had to be considered a permanent structure which was part and parcel of the land (a fixture).
Nowhere in the statutory law is it written
"any prefab Chalet, which although not held in place by bolts screws concrete, is considered immovable because it could not conceivably be removed without causing irreparable damage to it is considered a fixture". However the
stare decisis (which would essentially say the above) would provide a practical application for the statutory laws regarding fixtures and fittings, and could be cited by other tenants with prefab Chalets.
Actually, after all that typing I think I've thought of a better way to put it: Basically statutory law is often not precise enough to be applied to the letter to everyday cases, and so it is the courts job to apply the written law to real world cases. The
stare decisis is the judges rationale for how he has applied the law, and gives a practical yardstick for others to follow.
Importance of precadent and stare decisis?
Linear Mode
