Exit to Index Question 1 of 149

AILET 2013 Question Paper with answer key for online practice

Show Paragraph  Hide Paragraph 

Directions (Q. 1 - 6):
The questions in this section is based on the passage. The questions are to be answered on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. For some of the questions, more than one of the choicescould conceivably answer the question. However, you are to choose the best answer; that is, the response that most accurately and completely answers the question.
Although the legal systems of England and the United States are superficially similar, theydiffer profoundly in their approaches to and uses of legal reasons: substantive reasons aremore common than formal reasons in the United States, whereas in England the reverse istrue. This distinction reflects a difference in the visions of law that prevails in the two countries.In England, the law has traditionally been viewed as a system of rules; the United Statesfavours a vision of law as an outward expression of community’s sense of right and justice
Substantive reasons, as applied to law, are based on moral, economic, political and otherconsiderations. These reasons are found both “in the law” and “outside the law" so to speak.Substantive reasons inform the content of a large part of the law: constitutions, statutes,contracts, verdicts, and the like. Consider, for example, a statute providing that “no vehiclesshall be taken into public parks.” Suppose that no specific rationales or purposes were explicitlywritten into the statute, but that it was clear (from its legislative history) that the substantivepurpose of the statute was to ensure quiet and safety in the park. Now suppose that a veterans’group mounts a World War II jeep (in running order but without a battery) as a war memorial ona concrete slab in the park, and charges are brought against its members. Most judges in theUnited States would find the defendants not guilty because what they did had no adverseeffect on park’s quiet and safety
Formal reasons are different in that they frequently prevent substantive reasons from cominginto play, even when substantive reasons are explicitly incorporated into the law at hand. Forexample, when a document fails to comply with stipulated requirements, the court may renderthe document legally ineffective. A Will requiring written witness may be declared null andvoid and, therefore, unenforceable for the formal reason that the requirement was not observed.Once the legal rule - that a Will is invalid for lack of proper witnessing - has been clearlyestablished, and the legality of the rule is not in question, application of that rule precludesfrom consideration substantive arguments in favour of the Will’s validity or enforcement
Legal scholars in England and the United States have long bemused themselves with extremeexamples of formal and substantive reasoning. On the one hand, formal reasoning in Englandhas led to wooden interpretations of statutes and an unwillingness to develop the commonlaw through judicial activism. On the other hand, freewheeling substantive reasoning in theUnited States has resulted in statutory interpretations so liberal that the texts of some statuteshave been ignored

Question : 1

Jump to Question: