{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016042780748663103, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035650623885918, 'mean_word_length': 4.758974358974359, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
International Sales and the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973

The case for recognising the qualified defence is probably stronger under the Code than it is in the Australian common law jurisdictions. The very rigidity of the Code provisions requires some mitigation. As the Commissioners remarked, " that there should be only a single step between perfect impunity and liability to capital punishment seems unreasonable." But there is need for a concept of excessive self-defence in common law jurisdictions, even though the operation of the criteria of reasonable necessity and reasonable proportionality in self-defence made that need less apparent. Unfortunately the rules defining the qualified defence seem to destroy its usefulness in those cases where it is needed most. The problem is one of settling on a test by which we can isolate cases where D has gone too far, but not much too far. The attempt to formulate such a test by reference to the question whether D had a right to use some violence, however useful it may be in Indian law. has demonstrably failed in the Australian common law jurisdictions.