Statutory Interpretation - Case Study Example

Alec took a pecuniary advantage by deception of Vera to gain more money from the woman by dishonestly selling to her a computer that is worth 1000 for 2000. When he supplied the computer to her, he insisted that the computer is worth every penny of the 2000 given to him by Vera. There was no reason as to why the old woman would have thought the computer in question was not worth 2000 and we can not say that he was reckless to the representation of the computer. Alec knew very well the actual cost of the computer since they sold the machine at 1000 but she took advantage of the old woman and charge her double the amount the computer is worth.

This act is a criminal offence under s 15 Theft Act 1968 for acquiring extra money from Vera dishonestly from the sale of the computer. For this case, Alec if convicted is liable for imprisonment of a term not exceeding ten years. This Theft Act was brought about to protect ordinary citizens from exploitation by people who want to obtain property from them in a dishonesty manner by deception. 1 For the case where Brian, an employed IT technician obtained services by deception is liable for criminal offence under the s 1 Theft Act 1978. . Brian was a cousin to Bryan and since they share the same surname, there is no way as to why Wendy would have doubted the representation.

Brian held both the season ticket that belonged to Bryan and his driving license and since they share the same surname, we can not say the Wendy was reckless to the representation and he failed to verify the two documents. For this case, Brian if convicted is liable for a criminal offence under s 1 Theft Act 1978. The Act was enacted to bring to book those who dishonestly obtain services by deception. Brian deceived Wendy, the gate attendant to believe that the services of attending to the football match has already been paid for and he was entitled to watch the football.

For this case, he obtained services of watching football match by deception hence he is liable for criminal offence under s 1 Theft Act of 1978. 2 For the case where Alec advertised for a post of a qualified IT specialist who was to be graduate of BSc degree in IT but he ended up recruiting Brian who had faked that he was a graduate. Brian obtained pecuniary advantages by deception to be hired by Alec where he pretended to have graduated with a Bsc. Degree in IT where else he was using Bryan degree certificate.

There is not way Alec would have noted that Brian was not a graduate since he had a degree certificate. The name Brian and Bryan looks similar and one would not note the difference between the two names and this led to Alec being deceived by Brian and recruited him to the position of a qualified IT technician believing that he was a BSc. Degree graduate. Brian was dishonest since he knew very well that he was not a BSc. Degree graduate and yet he went ahead of applying for position of a qualified IT technician with a fake degree certificate. For