It is guessing, not interpretation, that altogether departs from the letter.

Explanation

While liberal construction is favored, it has a limit: an interpretation that abandons the written text entirely is mere speculation and must be rejected. (Duplicate maxim — see also 10.3.12.)

Where this applies

• Their interpretation has nothing to do with the actual words of the law.
• The court is reading something into the statute that isn't there at all.
• You can't call it interpretation if it completely abandons the text.

See also

• 10.1.1 Liberal constructions of written instruments are to be made, on account of the simplicity of the common people, so that the thing may have effect rather than perish; and words should serve the intention, not the intention the words.
• 10.2.10 From the words of the law there must be no departure.
• 10.3.12 It is a guess, not interpretation, which altogether departs from the letter.