BUSINESS LAWS

 

SECTION A

This particular legislation can be interpreted in a number of ways. Direct translation would mean that the rule only applies to vehicles that were purchased in the last three years. Thus any vehicle purchased before that specific period of time is safe. This means that the company’s vehicles are exempted from the rule. Then there is the plain interpretation of statute. This means that the interpretation follows the real meaning that was set out by the drafters while drafting the statute. In this case, the statute outlines the rules that would apply to commercial large goods vehicles which in this case must weight a minimum of 3.5 tones. However, the company has no large commercial vehicle what they have is vans that are unlikely to carry goods that would reach 3.5 tones. One the flip side however, the statute has provision also apply to any other vehicles that belong to commercial companies that have to comply with the use of recycled bio-fuel.

 

The company may choose to assume the fact that if the item is not mentioned in the statute then there is no way the regulation is applicable to their case. In this case, the company could assume that the statute mentioned commercial large goods vehicles whilst in their case they have vans which have not been expressly mentioned (Eskridge et.al, 2006, p. 321). On the other hand, commercial large goods vehicles can be interpreted to comprise vehicles that carry goods regardless of their size. Therefore as much as the fact that it has been cited that there is a specific weight requirement does not exclude any vehicle that may fall in this category.

The company should also consider that in trying to interpret the statute, they should consider that in cases where a single word of the statute is likely to be vague, the other part of the statute is likely to further explain that particular word. In this case the fact that the particular minimum amount of load that the heavy commercial goods vehicles depicts the categories that are likely to fall under that category. In this case however, Billy is unlikely to incur any costs. On the other hand the company can determine by examining other legislations that link the word van to commercial large goods vehicles. If there exists such a statute then automatically the same will be applicable in the interpretation of this particular statute (Sullivan, 2007, p.123). Alternatively it can be interpreted that the statute by mentioning or using the word vehicle encompassed all subjects that fall within that particular category up to and including vans. This would mean that the company would have to comply with the legislation as far as the mentioning of the vehicles is concerned, but would also mean that they get a lee way as far as the time limit is concerned.

SECTION B

Small claims courts have been over the years been developed with the sole aim of listening to small civil claims between private litigants. However, unlike major courts, this particular court has a limited jurisdiction. In the UK, these courts are deal with non-personal injury cases and listen to cases that range to ten thousand pounds. In the UK, these courts were first introduced in 1973 and had the jurisdiction to listen to cases up to 75 pounds. The courts and the processes involved were based on the fact that judges had the statutory power to arbitrate cases. The maximum case figure has been rising over the years and as of the year 2011, the figure had gone up to 15,000 pounds in a case. What happens in this case is that the judge listens to both sides and decides on the basis of law who was on the right or wrong.

A district judge in a less formal environment usually hears these claims. This means that unlike in the formal court setting where there are lawyers and strict following of legal procedures, these courts exercise less strict legal measures. In fact a usual guiding rule in these courts is that individuals should to be able to carry out their own cases and represent themselves without lawyers. The rules in this case are relaxed but not disregarded. Expensive court procedure that include examinations and cross examinations are not included in these court procedures (Wolfe, 1980, p.47).

Once any plaintiff decides to take the case to a small claims court they should be ready to waive the right to claim more than the amount that the court will award them. Similarly, the plaintiff is not allowed to reduce the claim. To bring the case to small-claims court, the plaintiff must prove that actual damages are within the court's jurisdiction.

As far as the ruling is concerned, once a judgment has been made, then it is the duty of the parties to honor the judgment. In some cases, where the defendant fails to show up then the judgment is made in favor of the plaintiff (Jasper, 2005, p.16). Billy should understand that winning a case in a small claims court does not automatically mean that they will get paid immediately.

However, where the defendant is willing to pay, the payment may be collected in either wage garnishments or liens. It should be noted that before an individual can file a suit, the judges will encourage the parties to seek alternative dispute resolution. It is also important to note that most cases taken to small claims courts can be appealed to courts with higher jurisdictions

PART 2

The treaty of the functioning of the European Union also applies in a case such as this where a government seeks to ban an item it believes is bad for health. These are provided for under articles 34 and 35 where the law states that quantitative restrictions on imports and exports are prohibited between member states (Chalmers et.al, 2010, p.357). The treaty on one hand describes the prohibition of quantitative restrictions on one hand but fails to describe the Measures having Equivalent effect to a Quantitative Restriction (MEQRs). However case law does explain the instance where the restrictions placed a state as far as the trade of particular items is concerned.

In Procureur du Roi v Dassonville 8/74 [1974] ECR 837, the court described MEQRs as "all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade" which it then went ahead to find was illegal under treaty law (Craig, & De Búrca, 2008, p. 666). This was the courts position also in Commission v Ireland 249/81 [1982] ECR 4005 as well as Commission v UK 207/83 [1985] ECR 1201 cases (Horspool, 2006, p.59).

The court sort to expound on the definition of quantitative restrictions in the case of Geddo v Ente 2/73 [1973] ECR 865 by determined that quantitative restrictions are "measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of, according to the circumstances, imports, exports or goods in transit."

However, article 36 provides an exemption where states can impose restrictions on goods either imported or exported outside the country. Under this article Quantitative Restriction are justified under the grounds of "public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property". However, even if this is the case, the article goes ahead and outlines that the states must ensure that the restrictions do not "constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States". The courts position on the matter was outlined in Cassis de Dijon 120/78 [1979] ECR 649. Here the court determined that there is a presumption that the standards applicable in one member state were mutually recognized by the other member states. Thus, the court found that “Once goods have been lawfully produced and marketed in one member state, they should be free to be marketed in any other member state without restriction.”

In this case the rule is that goods produced and accepted in one country have to be accepted in the other country. This means that it would be unfair for the UK to ban products from Germany while maintaining similar products in their country. Thus, the move by the UK regarding the partial banning of the pesticide products was unfair. On the flip side, the fact that UK banned certain plastics that had also been banned in their country means that they are generally concerned about the environment and the health of their citizens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Chalmers, D., Davies, G. T., & Monti, G. (2010). European Union law: cases and materials. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Craig, P. P., & De Búrca, G. (2008). EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Eskridge, W. N., Frickey, P. P., & Garrett, E. (2006). Legislation and statutory interpretation. New York, Foundation Press.

Horspool, M. (2006). European Union law. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Jasper, M. C. (2005). Small claims courts. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana Publications.

Sullivan, R. (2007). Statutory interpretation. Toronto, Irwin Law.

Wolfe, R. P. (1980). Small claims courts: records management and case processing. [Williamsburg, Va.], National Center for State Courts.