1.2 Objectives and Kinds of Interpretation of Statutes

The objectives: (1) to ascertain the legislative intention (the enactment's purpose — the court's primary duty); (2) to resolve the ambiguity (the meaning's clarification); (3) to fill the gaps (the casus omissus discipline); (4) to harmonise (the provisions' coherence); (5) to adapt (the law-to-life application — the progressive craft); (6) to ensure the rule of law (the predictability: the like interpretation for the like text). The kinds (the exam's list): Literal vs liberal interpretation — the words' plain meaning followed vs the spirit's generous reading; Strict vs liberal (the penal statutes' strictness vs the beneficial statutes' liberality — the subject-dependent kinds); Grammatical vs logical interpretation — the sentence's natural sense vs the scheme-and- purpose's reasoned sense; Doctrinal vs functional — the concept's internal meaning vs the provision's working-effect; Originalist vs evolutionary (progressive) — the enactment-time meaning vs the present- day reading; Extensive vs restrictive — the wide sweep vs the narrow confinement; Primary vs authoritative interpretation — the scholars'and-courts' interpretations vs the legislature's own authentic interpretation (the legislature's declaratory Acts — the interpretation's "official" kind). The kinds' craft: no interpretation-kind is universal — the STATUTE's nature selects the method (the penal-strict; the beneficial-liberal; the constitution- progressive) — the course's map.