Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A statute penalises 'any person who sells liquor, wine, beer or other intoxicating drink near a school'. A shopkeeper sells a non-alcoholic energy drink near a school and is prosecuted on the ground that it is an 'other intoxicating drink'. Which rule of interpretation helps decide the matter, and with what result?

Ejusdem generis applies, so the shopkeeper is not liable. The general words 'other intoxicating drink' follow specific alcoholic items and are limited to things of the same class. A non-alcoholic energy drink does not belong to that class and is therefore outside the penal provision.

  1. AEjusdem generis; the energy drink is not of the same class as liquor, wine and beer, so the shopkeeper is not liableCorrect
  2. BNoscitur a sociis; the words are read to include every beverage sold near a school
  3. CContemporanea expositio; the meaning given at the time of the Act is ignored
  4. DMischief rule; every drink is covered because schools need protection

Explanation

Ejusdem generis applies where specific words are followed by general words: the general words are limited to things of the same kind as the specific ones. Liquor, wine and beer are alcoholic, so 'other intoxicating drink' covers only similar drinks. A non-alcoholic energy drink is outside the class, so there is no liability.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Interpretation of StatutesFree diagnostic mock

More Interpretation of Statutes questions