s18 of the BENJI ACT 2006 - Benji Interpretations
(1) One may assume the correct meaning of expressions exhibited at any time
(2) This section may only be applied where:
- it may be reasonably believed that such requirement is necessary
- an intent to do so has been brought to the notice, whether imputed, constructive or implied of Benny
- an assumption may not incriminate or bring undue injustice
(4) This section will not provide relief from meanings derived with a non-malicious intent through mutual understanding
Correct is defined as "a meaning that is reasonably expected in respect to the circumstances"
Expression "include verbal and physical forms"
Necessary is defined as "requiring to override mischief"
Benjied is defined as "a composition arrived through hybridising multiple languages together in one word, phrase or sentence"
"Correct" has been illustrated in the case of Ethan v Benny (No 1), where Benny indicated to Ethan to "turn left in the right lane" in a state of extreme tiredness when he in fact meant the opposite. Ethan may rely on s18 to question the accuracy of such a statement and reverse its meaning.
In Benny v Ethan (No 2), the multiple definitions of PASSIONFLOWER were considered. Benny had inadvertently remarked about PASSIONFLOWER, thus changing the meaning of the word. It was held that s18 will reinforce meanings that do not unduly provide injustice to either party. However, the Court upon qualification of s18(2)(a) necessity and s18(4) held that the inadvertent meaning remains operational. The Court said that s18(4) is a substantial limiting factor upon interpretations derived where an understanding has been reached and implicitly accepted.
"Benjied" and "reasonable belief" have been illustrated in the case of Jen v Ben (No 1), where Ben deliberately Benjied two discrete words 'hotpot' and 'steambot'. Jen raised "fob alert". The Court held that in these circumstances it was reasonable to believe that the heading was a deliberate Benji of the words due to its provocative prominence and the consistent use of the single words in their "correct" form throughout. It was held that s18 did not remove the effect from such trickery or play of words in context.
"Necessary" can be seen in Mags v Benny (No 1), where during the course of conversation words would become Benjied constantly. The Court held here that necessity is a subjective consideration involving an assessment of their level of Benji. It was held in this case that s18(2)(a) necessity did not arise as mischief did not arise. A lower standard is expected in the electronic media. This case reinforced Jen in that s18 did not remove deliberate trickery on words.
In the landmark case of Pang v Benny (No 1), it was held that the enactment of s18 is no express admittance of honkiness, but merely an interpretative mechanism.
jenfa
benny
benny
Post a Comment [6 comments]
HAHA! What a funny bugger!
I don't think non law people will get it dood.. lol
But yeah.. GODDAMN! You got awesome BULLS#!TTING skills, talkin outta ya ass haha
No wonder you kill exams and essays hahaha =p
lol Can you imagine if we talked like this in the real world?
OMG Can you picture if we talked like that in real life? It'll be like Dawsons Creek but at a higher level haha =p
|
Monday, June 19, 2006 10:36:00 pm
lol I'm applying s5 to that last comment of yours =P
And damn, they don't get the true beauty of that essay of an entry man! I mean, I offered my own statutory provisions and case related scenarios >.<
They just don't realise the revolutionary importance of s18!
Ethan, just watch and learn from the master of law bullsh*tting... you can't go wrong with me lol Let the master guide you.
benny |
Monday, June 19, 2006 10:58:00 pm
umm appeal..?
u have a tendency to screw up ur english so i'm sorry for failing to realise that your "benji-ing" was "deliberate"
(btw ur lawspeak is tres difficile to understand..)