The Models’ Rights Canon

Do not interpret an ambiguous rule in such a way that would take away a substantial right that has been granted by other rules.


1. R.F.C. v. Prudence Securities Advisory Group, 61 S.Ct. 331 (1941):

“Ambiguities in statutory language should not be resolved so as to imperil a substantial right which has been granted.”

2. Peck v. Jenness, 48 U.S. 612 (1849):

“One portion of a statute should not be construed to annul or destroy what has been clearly granted by another.”

© 2009-2011 The Rules Lawyers Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha