ethics-
(a). Harveston asserted that Narnia’s service was invalid in part because “the return of service states that process was delivered to “JoAnn Kocerek” and did not show that she “had the authority to accept process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissioner.” Should such a detail, if it is required, be strictly construed and applied? Explain why it should not apply in this case? Explain
eqwe
In order to answer this question, we need to understand the concept of "strict construction" and its application to this specific case.
"Strict construction" generally refers to interpreting a law or rule according to its literal and precise wording, without considering any implied meanings or intentions. It means adhering strictly to the text of the law, without making any further interpretations.
In this case, Harveston argued that the return of service, which stated that process was delivered to JoAnn Kocerek, did not prove that she had the authority to accept process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissioner. Harveston is suggesting that this detail should be strictly construed and applied, meaning that if the return of service did not explicitly show JoAnn Kocerek had the required authority, then the service should be considered invalid.
However, it is important to consider the context and purpose of the service of process. The main goal of serving process is to provide notice to the defendant or the relevant party involved. The requirement of strict construction should be applied judiciously, considering the intended purpose of the service and the overall fairness of the process.
In this case, if the return of service clearly indicates that the process was delivered to JoAnn Kocerek, it can be argued that it fulfills the basic requirement of notice. While the exact wording of the return of service might not explicitly state JoAnn Kocerek's authority to accept process, it does indicate that the process was delivered to her. This can be considered sufficient evidence that the recipient was informed of the lawsuit.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the strict construction approach should not be applied blindly and rigidly. Courts often consider other factors such as practicality, reasonability, and the underlying purpose of the law or rule. This allows for a fair and just interpretation of the requirements, rather than a strictly literal one.
In conclusion, while a strict construction approach may have its merits, it is important to consider the overall purpose and fairness of the process. In this case, the fact that the process was delivered to JoAnn Kocerek, even if it does not explicitly state her authority, can be considered sufficient for providing notice. Strictly construing and applying such a detail may not be necessary or reasonable in this particular scenario.