Question 1 a. A judge must bring place 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 antecedence. 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 bray in Malaysia) decided that a minor is not unresistant under contract. If a minor is sued in the High wreak for not fulfilling his obligation in a contract, the High approach leave alone follow this previous decision of the Federal Court. When a Judge hands down a decision, he likewise has to moot the reasons for his decision. This means we get the point of law (the pungency 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 t ake up to write a report which explains why they disagree. Although this nonage fantasy doesnt have any binding power, it top executive be very persuasive in the future case. The advantages of: * thither is conclusion in the law.
By looking at living precedents it is viable to forecast what a decision will be and see accordingly. * at that place 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 precedents and this enables the system to change and to! lodge to sensitive situations. * Judicial precedent is practical in nature. It is ground 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 well(p) essay, aim it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper