consequences and a conditional statement. These parts constitute a natural and
inevitable structure that resides in law. Consequently the task with micro
analysis is not so much to create the structure as to identify and articulate it.
This natural structure
for law provides the template for the micro analysis of
law. Organising law in this way constitutes an essential part of the process of
using law in litigation and transactions. It also delivers major benefits for the
tasks of reading and learning law. How it can do these things will be better
understood when the three components –
elements, consequences and a
conditional statement have been analysed and explained.
Elements
To change the world a legal rule has to apply to some part of the world. This
is the task of the elements. Elements of a legal rule delineate that part of the
world, the facts, to which the legal rule applies and which it therefore regulates.
To perform this task an element delineates a category or type of fact,
55
so that
the relationship of an element to a fact that fits or satisfies the element is that of
the general to the particular. In short, an element describes a required type of
fact for the rule to apply.
56
Taken together the elements of a rule mark out a composite set of facts made
from a combination of the specific classes of facts designated by each of the
elements. This composite set of facts is the target for regulation by the rule. It
is the part of the world that the rule seeks to change.
Elements are labelled Element 1, Element 2, and so on. The list of elements for
any rule consists of Elements 1-n.
Elements as Ingredients of a Recipe
There is a good comparison between the elements of a legal rule and the
ingredients of a recipe for a dish. Assume that a recipe requires one each of
five ingredients. We can label these Ingredient 1, Ingredient 2 and so on so that
the full lists constitutes Ingredients 1-5. Ingredient 1 is saying that there needs
to be one item of foodstuff of a certain kind to make the dish, Ingredient 2 is
55
Justice McHugh expressed this in Kingston v Keprose Pty Limited (1987) 11
NSWLR 404 at 421 in the following way: “"A rule of law enacted by statute
consists of a proposition which gives rise to legal consequences when the act or
omission of some person falls within the factual outline delineated by that
proposition”. His Honour's analysis in this judgment was referred to with
approval by a six person joint judgment of the High Court in Bropho v Western
Australia (1991) 171 CLR 1 at 20.
56
As Lord Diplock explained it in Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232, 242-243, a
cause of action is “simply a factual situation the
existence of which entitles one
person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person.”
 |
 |
 |