Judicial Precedence

Question 1 a. A judge must fare either decision made by a high beg in a case with similar real facts. These decisions ar made dustatically according to the doctrine of binding precession. This doctrine of binding precedence of stare decisis in Latin, is a scheme where previous decisions if superior court bind another(prenominal) courts in subsequent similar cases. For example, if the Federal tourist court (Superior coquet in Malaysia) decided that a minor is not susceptible under contract. If a minor is sued in the High wanton for not fulfilling his obligation in a contract, the High tourist court result follow this previous decision of the Federal Court. When a Judge hands down a decision, he likewise has to get through the reasons for his decision. This means we get the point of law (the border we have to follow) as well as the facts and other things. If (in the appeallate courts) a judge disagrees with the majority decision, then they will also run up to write a report which explains why they disagree. Although this minority fantasy doesnt have any binding power, it major power be very persuasive in the future case. The advantages of: * in that respect is conclusion in the law.

By looking at active precedents it is viable to forecast what a decision will be and see accordingly. * there is uniformity in the law. Similar cases will be treated in the same way. This is important to give the system a sense of justice and to make the system satisfactory to the public. * Judicial precedent is flexible. There are a repress of ways to avoid precedent s and this enables the system to change and ! to alter to sensitive situations. * Judicial precedent is practical in nature. It is found on real facts, unlike legislation. * Judicial precedent is detailed. There is a wealth of cases to which to refer.If you want to get a enough essay, aim it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper