How Is Precedent Superior To Legislation?

The principles of the courts are higher than the morals of the politician. Politicians are always influenced by admired passions and are responsible for sometimes making bad laws. On the other hand judges decide cases in a cool environment and can afford to clutch the balance even between the opposing parties. They carry out their functions neutrally and boldly.

The case law enjoys greater litheness than edict law. Edict law suffers from the fault of inflexibility. Courts are bound by the letter of law and are not permitted to close their eyes to the same. In the case of precedent analogical addition is permitted. It is true that legislation as a tool of improvement is necessary but it cannot be denied that precedent has its own meaning as a constitutive part in the making of law although it cannot abrogate law. In the case of England the courts of fairness played an important part in justifying the rigors of normal law by means of precedents.

The law does not become more unsure when it is based on precedents than when it is founded on enacted law. Although French law is codified, it is still far from being unsure. The doubt of English law is nothing when compared to that of France.