11. ...It is well settled, however, that no general rule can be laid down as to whether a provision in a statute is absolute or directory. It was ruled by Lord Campbell, L. C, in Liverpool Borrough Bank v. Turner 30 L. J. Ch. 379 (1860) that " no universal rule can be laid down as to whether a mandatory enactment shall be considered directory only, or obligatory, with an implied nullification for disobedience: it is the duty of Courts of Justice to try to get at the real intention of the Legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed. To the same effect, are the observations of Lord Penzance in Howard v. Bodington 2 P. D. 203 (211) (1877) and of Griffith, C. J., in Chanter v. Blackwood 1 Com. L. R. 39 at p. 51. When the object of the statute has been determined, if the statutory provision is not based on grounds of public policy, and is intended only for the benefit of a particular person or class of persons, the conditions prescribed by the statute are not considered as indispensable and may be waived, because every one has a right to waive, and to agree to waive the advantage of a law or rule made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity, and which may be dispensed with without infringement of any public right or public policy. This rule is expressed by the maxim of law, quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se introducto; any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit [Broome's Maxims, 7th Ed., page 531 and Hughes on Procedure, Vol. I, page 353, Ramsay v. N.E.R. Co. 14 C. B. N. S. 649, Calcdonian R. Co. v. Lockhart 3 MacQueen 808, 822 (1860)]. As was pointed out by Lord Westbury in Hunt v. Hunt 4 DeGex. F. & J., 221 at p. 233 (1862) the words pro se were introduced into the maxim, " to show that no man can renounce a right of which his duty to the public and the claims of society forbid the renunciation." [Park Gate Iron Co. v. Coates L. R. 5 C. P. 634 (1870), MacAllister v. Bishop of Rochester 5 C. P. D. 194 (1880), Shutte v. Thompson 15 Wallace 151, Montgomery v. Edwards 14 Am. Rep. 618, Wilson v. Mcintosh (L. R. (1894) A. C. 129]. "
