Original intent is a theory in law concerning constitutional and statutory interpretation.
One example of original intent is in Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc., [2012].
In 2008 they sued Quicken Loans arguing that that respondent had violated Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Section 2607(b) by charging them fees for which no services were provided.
The plaintiffs supported their allegation by referring to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) policy statement that says that §2607(b) “prohibit[s] any person from giving or accepting any unearned fees, i.e., charges or payments for real estate settlement services other than for goods or facilities provided or services performed.” Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the court that RESPA Section 2607(b) was not violated by referencing that RESPA included a directive that HUD make a report to Congress regarding the need for further legislation in the area, so the original intent was to pass new legislature if it was needed, so the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant.
[4] In Canada, the predominant school of thought for legal interpretation is the living tree doctrine, under which interpretations can evolve along with the society, to deal with new conditions that were different or did not exist when the Constitution was framed.