Legal Reasoning

Legal reasoning is a method of thought and argument used by lawyers and judges when applying
legal rules to specific interactions among legal persons. Legal reasoning in the case of a court’s
ruling is found in the ‘Discussion or Analysis’ section of the judicial ruling.

It is here that the court gives reason for its legal ruling, and it helps other courts, lawyers and
judges to use and follow the ruling in subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the ‘discussion or
analysis’ section must be well reasoned and written.

Precedent and Analogy

The two central forms of legal reasoning are arguments from precedent and analogy. These are
found in many legal systems such as the common law which is found in both England and the
United States.

 Precedent is where an earlier decision is applied in a later case because the two cases are
same.
 Analogy involves an earlier decision being used in a later case because the later case is
similar to the earlier one.

Precedent and analogy do however present philosophical problems. For instance, when are two
cases deemed ‘same’ so as to apply precedent? When two cases are considered ‘similar’ to
justify analogy? In both situations, why should the decision in the earlier case affect the decision
in the latter case?

Inherent within legal reasoning is the acceptance of the law and a leaning towards working
within the existing legal framework. It is true to say that there is a bias towards maintaining the
existing rules. Nevertheless, the bias does not presume the law as it is to be just, fair or practical
and thus immune from change.

Judges have often in the past made use of provisions in the law to avoid applying precedent or
analogy in instances where such an application would result in unfair or undesirable outcomes.

Elements of Legal Reasoning

Legal reasoning reveals why and how the court, lawyer or judge came to their decision or
argument on the case.

There are core elements that must appear and be addressed in the reasoning:

 The question or the legal issue before the court

 The relevant facts of the case
 The legal rule
  Other considerations that may be brought before the court

As such, there is the burden to address the stated elements clearly and concisely. This may be
done using a deductive or analytical reasoning.

Deductive Reasoning
This is a means of drawing out ruling from another judicial opinion, or existing constitution,
legislative provision and applying it in another case. The rule statement is mostly broad rather
than narrow when using deductive reasoning. This approach is mechanical and is therefore
effective only in ideal situations and often unsatisfactory.

The approach faces many challenges among them being:

 Semantic difficulty – due to the various meanings that words hold, it is often impossible
to attribute one particular meaning to a specific word and so to be understood by all
parties
 There may arise unremunerated circumstances that would demand a different legal
treatment
 The occurrence of obstacles preventing the upholding of previous rule statements
 Rules based on ontological principles being insufficient to determine between conflicting
interests

Analogical Reasoning
This involves the identification of the similarities and differences of the facts in the precedential
and the case to be determined. After the identification, then deciding whether the case to be
determined is similar or different from the precedent in the important aspects with regards to the
matter being decided. Following the findings, the case precedent may then be followed or
distinguished.

It is important to note that there are peculiar situations where both of the above methods will not
suffice in determining a case, and the judge may then rule according to personal preference.

Circumstances that may prompt such a treatment include but are not limited to:

 Where the law is obscure: the rules are too fragmentary, imprecise or partial to describe
the present case facts
 Where there are no rules provided
2. Aysha, who is a very good painter, is also a patient in a mental asylum, who, at intervals, is of
sound mind. During one of these intervals, she entered into a relationship with Rana to paint a
picture of his for a specified amount. She, however, asked Rana to pay her the entire amount in
advance. One month later, on the day of delivery of the painting, Aysha refused to perform the
contract saying that she suffers from insanity. Can Rana force performance?

(a) Yes, because Aysha was of sound mind when she entered into the contract.

(b) No, because Aysha had been of unsound mind even while the contract was signed which is
proved by the fact that she was admitted in an asylum.

(c) Yes, because a good painter can paint irrespective of his/her mental stability.

(d) No, because it was silly on Rana’s part to enter into a contract with a mental patient admitted
in an asylum.

Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the
time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to
its effect upon his interests.

4. Syful enters into a contract with Tyful whereby Tyful will supply Syful with 10 grams of
cocaine for a specified amount. Is the contract void?

a. Yes, because the contract is for the sale of illegal drugs.

b. No, because Syful and Tyful have entered into the contract out of their own free will, and
being the citizens of a free country, they have the right to do so.

c. Yes, because drugs are harmful.

(d) None of these.

Principle: If the consideration or object of an agreement is forbidden by law, or is of such a
nature that would defeat the provisions of any law, or is fraudulent, or is injurious to the person
or property of another or, the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy, then the
object or consideration shall be deemed unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or
consideration is unlawful is void.

7. A fake doctor operated on a man for internal piles by cutting them out with a kitchen ordinary
knife. The man died of hemorrhage.

(a) Doctor is guilty of murder.

(b) Doctor is not guilty.

(c) Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder

(d) None of these.

Principle : Nothing which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it
may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any
person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or
implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.
Principles:

A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person without
that person’s consent, moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.

B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending
to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.

C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.

Facts:

Nujhat, an old lady of 85 years, used to live with her granddaughter Keya. Nujhat was ill and
therefore bedridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it
became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Keya hired a cleaner, Momenul, to clean
the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers
which Nujhat had stacked in a corner of her room. Asked Keya if he should clear away the pile
of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Momenul took the pile to the municipality rubbish
dump. While Momenul was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to
find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Keya probably wouldn’t
want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the color was
fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his
bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old ‘masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand
rupees. Before mounting the painting, Momenul pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does
not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional ‘restoration very difficult and thereby
reduced its value by half. Momenul’s neighbour Jillu discovered that the painting belonged to
Keya. With the motive of returning the painting to Keya, Jillu climbed through an open window
into Momenul’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his
house.

11. Has Momenul committed theft?

(a) Yes, Momenul has committed theft of the newspapers and the painting.

(b) No, Momenul has not committed theft because he had Nujhat’s consent.

(c) Yes, Momenul has committed theft of the painting, but not of the newspapers

(d) No, Momenul has not committed theft because he has not moved the painting out of Nujhat’s
possession.

12. Is Momenul guilty of criminal damage?

(a) No, Momenul is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of
the painting.

(b) Yes, Momenul is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the
painting

(c) No, Momenul is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his
possession anymore.

(d) No, Momenul is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.

13. If Momenul had discovered the painting before leaving Keya’s house rather than at the
rubbish dump, would he have been guilty of theft in this case?

(a) Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the newspapers and the paintings.

(b) No, he would not be guilty of theft.

(c) Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting. (d) None of the above.

14. Is Jillu guilty of theft?

(a) No, Jillu is now guilty of theft since the person she took the painting from (Momenul) was
not its lawful owner.

(b) No, Jillu is not guilty of theft since she took the painting only with the motive of returning it
to Keya.

(c) Yes, Jillu is guilty of theft as she took the painting out of Momenul’s possession without his
consent.

(d) None of the above.