Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies: Home

Abstract:
The word, �reasonable�, resounds in every aspect of human endeavour. Most actions are judged by their reasoned nature. It derives from the expectation that all humans are rational, and act based on this rationality. If reasonability is based on rationality, the question may be raised and is always raised; what advises mans rational action and the test of the reasonableness in man�s action? In his decisions, the administrator is expected to act reasonably. The adjudicator, bases his adjudication on certain levels of probability, based on his reasonable reasoning. Even the legislature must not present legislations that seek the doing of impossibilities or absurdities; he too must be reasonable. The test requiring every act to be reasonable, lays no rule for determining the standard of the reasonable man. In this paper, we adopt the doctrinal research method which is a legal research approach. The purpose of this research is to establish how the standard of reasonability have been sought to be set; and to bring out the difficulties in applying either a subjective or objective test. The significance of this research is that it questions and brings out the fallibility of the reasonable mans� test. We find that these difficulties stem from legal, as well as sociological factors, which affect the reasoning of man. Finding that these factors are self imposed, this research arouses a quest for how to establish the reasonableness in actions and to find a balance in what humanity is and expects.

Keywords: reasonable, person, actions, adjudication and determination

Download full paper