Module 2

Reasoning from rules: reading closely, the interpretive arguments and arguing both sides

Most legal work begins with a rule written by someone else: a statute, a regulation, a contract clause, a by-law, a code article. The skill is not to find the rule, which is a matter of research, but to read it so that you can say what it requires of these facts, and to give reasons that a court would accept when the words alone do not decide. This module teaches that skill. It starts with close reading, which is where most errors are made, because a rule that looks clear often turns on a single small word. It then sets out the six standard kinds of interpretive argument, which lawyers in nearly every legal system use in some combination, together with the traditional canons of construction and the honest limits of those canons. It ends with the discipline of arguing both sides, which is the best way to test your own position. The example throughout is a by-law that bans vehicles from a park, adapted from a classic teaching problem, and all the people and rules are invented. The module is jurisdiction-neutral, and it says where systems differ in how much weight they give to each kind of argument.

General education on legal reasoning and argument, using invented cases, by-laws and people. It states common principles and does not describe any one country’s law, rules of evidence or professional conduct rules, which differ and change. It is not legal advice, and it does not replace the instruction of a law school or a supervising lawyer.