Thread: Statutory Interpretation

Excerpt from "definitions" of a new fictitious statute designed to regulate transactions involving mountaineering equipment.

A prescribed transaction” comprises any transaction involving the mountain sporting equipment sector, including transactions dealing in the sale of winter clothing (including footwear); and “prescribed business” is a business that regularly engages in such transactions....

Do you think that a prescribed transaction would also include the hire of skis?
The company concerned sells mountaineering equipment and also hires goods but the majority of its business is selling so would it be a prescribed business?

Anyone got any views?

In relation to hire of skis -

Hire would be within the ordinary meaning of transaction under the literal rule. This would not be absurd so the golden rule would not apply. Transaction is an ambiguous word as it covers many different situations and therefore the mischief rule could be applied. Contracts of hire may well be within the mischief the Act was aimed at.

However, the definition of transaction specifically relates to contracts of sale. Under the expressio unius est exclusio alterius rule the express mention of one thing excludes all others. However the statutory definition states that the meaning of transaction includes sales which suggest the actual definition is wider and not exclusory.

Skis may not normally be considered footwear under the ordinary meaning. However, when read in context with sports wear it may well be considered within the mischief of the Act when considering the ejusdem generis rule.

As the main part of the business is sales, it would regularly engage in contracts of that kind. Again there is no exclusivity suggested in the statute. Therefore it is likely the business will be a prescribed business.

More details on statutory interpretation here:

Statutory interpretation