In addition, these judges may not be hearing full legal arguments but are concentrating on factual findings. So, it is the higher courts which issue binding rulings and the lower courts must follow them. The reasoning must be a matter pertaining to the law rather than a factual decision. Only the ratio decidendi will be binding. It will comprise the legal principles and rules which are necessary to solve the problem before the court.
Precedent has a very important role in the common law.
It ensures certainty and consistency and logical progression and development in the law. The law is also easier to find and to state and is rationally prospective rather than based on the chance event of litigation, which may give rise to laws based on extreme or unusual situations or unevenly argued cases. For example, here is the offence of murder in US Federal Law. By contrast, the law of murder in England is contained in several cases, and even having read them there may be room for doubt. Nevertheless, the common law does have advantages over codified systems - it is more flexible, it is more practical as it is derived from real life dramas played out before the courts.