shortcut to happiness

'Shortcut To Happiness' is an adaptation of the 1941 classic 'The Devil and Daniel Webster. Starred by the gifted and impeccably good looking for a 50 year old, Alec Baldwin, Anthony Hopkins, who by the way still give me the creeps after watching Hannibal, and the beautiful, sultry Jennifer Love Hewitt. This movie tells a tale about the hapless, luckless writer, played by Baldwin, who tries hard to make a breakthrough in the literary world. A failure who only has a dollar fifty in his checking account and whose manuscripts got stolen, hurls a typewriter out the window in a fit of frustration. Baldwin,as desperate as a clingy girlfriend is, reluctantly offers to sell his soul to trade places with his friend who is just about to launch his career. The Beezlebub in this movie is played none other than the bewitching Jennifer Love Hewitt, agrees to make Baldwin a literary success in exchange for a 10-year-lease on his soul.

Baldwin finally gets to be the bestselling author as he has always dreamed of, but is deprived of friends and joy and contentment. After realising that he has made a huge mistake shaking hands with the Devil, he turns to regal publishing magnate Anthony Hopkins, a masterful orator who has battled the Devil and emerged victorious on multiple occasions. As it is clear that Baldwin has breached the contract, a trial is held so that Hewitt still gets her fair share of the bargain. The contract is written in a way that there are no loopholes and Baldwin's signature is clearly forged at the end of the agreement, so it is obvious that Hopkins is going to have to think out of the box to save Baldwin from the evil grasp of Hewitt.

In desperation and out of patriotism, Hopkins states that Baldwin is an American citizen and no American citizen will be forced into the service of a foreign prince. He bellows of freedom and independence and even calls upon an American jury and an American judge. Hopkins persuades by orating on all of the simple and good things of the American life, and how mankind has done wrong, but argues that something new and good had grown from it. He then goes on to saying that 'mankind got tricked and trapped and bamboozled, but it was a great journey, something no demon that was ever foaled could ever understand.'

The jury, in awe of Hopkin's eloquence of speech, finds that Baldwin is not binded to the contract and is a free man. This movie has gotten plenty of bad reviews due to the bad production, but it still provides a good lesson somehow, that there is never a shortcut to pleasantry, and even if you're bound to the Devil, there's always a way out. Eloquence and persuasion will do it.

How Many Lawyers Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb?

* Such number as may be deemed to perform the stated task in a timely and efficient manner within the strictures of the following agreement: Whereas the party of the first part, also known as 'The Lawyer', and the party of the second part, also known as 'The Light Bulb', do hereby and forthwith agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be removed from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed upon duties, i.e., the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of the area ranging from the front (north) door, through the entry way, terminating at an area just inside the primary living area, demarcated by the beginning of the carpet, any spillover illumination being at the option of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and not required by the aforementioned agreement between the parties.
* The aforementioned removal transaction shall include, but not be limited to, the following steps:
1. The party of the first part (Lawyer) shall, with or without elevation at his option, by means of a chair, stepstool, ladder or any other means of elevation, grasp the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and rotate the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a counter-clockwise direction, said direction being non-negotiable. Said grasping and rotation of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be undertaken by the party of the first part (Lawyer) with every possible caution by the party of the first part (Lawyer) to maintain the structural integrity of the party of the second part (Light Bulb), notwithstanding the aforementioned failure of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) to perform the aforementioned customary and agreed upon duties. The foregoing notwithstanding, however, both parties stipulate that structural failure of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) may be incidental to the aforementioned failure to perform and in such case the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall be held blameless for such structural failure insofar as this agreement is concerned so long as the non-negotiable directional codicil (counter-clockwise) is observed by the party of the first part (Lawyer) throughout.
2. Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part (Light Bulb) becomes separated from the party of the third part ('Receptacle'), the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of disposing of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a manner consistent with all applicable state, local and federal statutes.
3. Once separation and disposal have been achieved, the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of beginning installation of the party of the fourth part("New Light Bulb"). This installation shall occur in a manner consistent with the reverse of the procedures described in step one of this selfsame document, being careful to note that the rotation should occur in a clockwise direction, said direction also being non-negotiable.
* NOTE: The above described steps may be performed, at the option of the party of the first part (Lawyer), by said party of the first part (Lawyer), by his heirs and assigns, or by any and all persons authorized by him to do so, the objective being to produce a level of illumination in the immediate vicinity of the aforementioned front (north) door consistent with maximization of ingress and revenue for the party of the fifth part, also known as 'The Firm'.

A long and dreary contract summed up by lawyers just to fix a broken light bulb. Makes you feel like thanking your electrician for his speedy work and no-nonsense attitude, yes? I know I do. Contract laws, however lengthy and a nuisance it can be, does serve a useful purpose, in appropriate situations that calls for a formal agreement. For example, an agreement to change ownership of a piece of land, or to buy an agreed amount of items for an agreed price. You know, the usual ho-hum. It does scare me though, the thought of lawyers on the rise, the over saturation of lawyers. There can only be a limited amount of cases to handle, and only a handful of good ones. Also a raise of hands of those who want to go pro bono. Alright i see none. So what happens to the rest of the unemployed, uncreamed of the crop lawyers? They become your handyman. And once they do be prepared to be slammed with a contract as the above. Lesson learnt? Go create a fiasco and hire a lawyer. Give them an itch to scratch so that your other itch, eg. broken lightbulb, could be scratched by the necessary people at no hassle.

to sue or not to sue?

One day, Jay saw a banner hanging in front of her favorite cassette store outlet in Alamanda which reads: " BIG SALES! LATEST TOO PHAT'S ALBUM IS UP FOR GRABS WITH 50% DISCOUNT! LIMITED STOCK! HURRY, HURRY, HURRY!". After reading it, Jay immediately jumped in the outlet and said she wanted that album at the said discounted price. But to her disappointment, the shop owner said that the cassette is now sold at normal price. Can Jay sue the shop owner for breach of contract? Discuss according to Contracts Act 1950 and relevant decided cases(s).

The issue at stake here is whether an offer existed between Jay and the store owner. At a glance, it may have seemed like the owner had offered to sell the album at half the retail price, and Jay accepted the offer. However, the banner displayed was just an invitation to treat, or invitatio ad offerendum in Latin. It simply means that the owner who was making an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the statement is addressed. Invitation to treat includes the display of goods; the advertisement of a price or an auction; and an invitation for tenders (or competitive bids. Therefore, Jay is not in a position to sue as there was no legally binding agreement between her and the owner. Although she did offer to purchase the album, the owner did not accept. In order for a contract to be legal and valid, it must have offer [Section 2(a) of Contract Act] and acceptance [Section 2(b) of Contract Act] which the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified [Section 7(a) of Contract Act].

A similar case as the above would be Partidge v Crittenden (1968). It was held that where the appellant advertised to sell wild birds, was not offering to sell them. The judge commented that it did not make 'business sense' for advertisements to be offers, as the person making the advertisement may find himself in a situation where he would be contractually obliged to sell more goods than he actually owned.

think like a lawyer!

Miseducation of Lawyers
The professor of a contract law class asked one of his better students, "If you were to give someone an orange, how would you go about it?"
The student replied, "Here's an orange."
The professor was outraged. "No! No! Think like a lawyer!"
The student then replied, "Okay. I'd tell him `I hereby give and convey to you all and singular, my estate and interests, rights, claim, title, claim and advantages of and in, said orange, together with all its rind, juice, pulp, and seeds, and all rights and advantages with full power to bite, cut, freeze and otherwise eat, the same, or give the same away with and without the pulp, juice, rind and seeds, anything herein before or hereinafter or in any deed, or deeds, instruments of whatever nature or kind whatsoever to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding...'"

( Jamesfuqua.com )

This law satire didn't fail to crank me up, and it definitely made my morning. Here we see how the lecturer gets the student to think like a lawyer in a contracts class, verbally writing a contract for an orange. For last week's lecture we discussed that a contract needs to have certain elements for it to be deemed as a contract or else it would be void. We only managed to cover the first element which is offer. Here the student clearly offered the orange to the certain someone by hereby giving and conveying to the certain someone the particular orange. He signifies his willingness to offer the orange according to Section 2(a) of Contracts Act which states that 'when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view of obtaining the assent of that other to the act of abstinence, he is said to make a proposal'. Besides that we can deduce that it is a bilateral offer as it is made to a specific someone. Seems like a perfectly spoken contract to me, although it only fulfills the first element. I just hope the world would not come to this state, imagine proposing a contract for everything we purchase or sell! I'd probably enter a famine state and never come out of it with my slow train of thought.

smoke ball: inhale or puff?

The 1892 case of Carlill and the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company literally set the ball rolling for consumer protection acts. What meant to be nothing more than a marketing means of convincing influenza-stricken people to purchase the smoke ball to cure the flu backfired when a consumer by the name of Louisa Elizabeth Carlill sued the company, when she contracted the flu after faithfully using the smoke ball for 2 months.

The carbolic smoke ball is a peculiar one - it consisted of a rubber ball filled with powdered carbolic acid. The ball is to be squeezed, sending a puff of carbolic acid smoke through a tube inserted through your nose. The idea was to make your nose run and sneeze the cold away.

The company manufacturing the ball advertised it in a few newspaper publications, offering a $100 reward for anyone who used the ball as per instructions but still contracted the flu. They deposited $1000 in the Alliance Bank to prove that the money was there.

A certain Mrs Carlill, purchased the smoke ball in hopes of preventing the last flu epidemic. A strict follower of the instructions, she still managed to catch the virus. Since it was clear cut that it was ineffective, she went to the company to claim the reward. The company refused to reimburse her, claiming that it was an empty boast and they had no obligation to fulfill it. Mrs Carlill, unhappy with the decision made, took the matter to court.

The defendant appealed, arguing that there was no contract binding them to fulfill the claim made in the advertisement. The words merely expressed an intention of rewarding, not a promise. It was also to vague to be the basis of a contract, as there was no time horizon and no means of checking the use of the ball. For example, how long does a person need to use the ball before he contracts the flu in order to claim the reward? What was the reasonable time span? The court however dismissed the fact that there was no way of checking whether Mrs Carlill had been faithfully using the ball as per instructions. It would have been a good argument had it not been dismissed.

Second, they said the advert was a 'mere puff', not meant to have any legal consequences are understood not to by the public. In my opinion, they should have just stopped at claiming it would cure influenza, and exclude the reward part to avoid legal mess. They dug an even deeper hole for themselves when they deposited $1000 in Alliance Bank to 'show their sincerity'. This argument was then refuted by the court because it was obvious that an offer had been made to the world and the company is liable to fulfill the promises made. A contract was birthed when the ball was purchased and used.

Thirdly, they argued that such an offer could not have possibly to be made to the entire world. The court once again refuted this argument by stating that if the offer was clear and to a group, anyone abiding the terms could be deemed to have accepted it. It applied to persons who have used the ball for fortnight prior and after the advertisement was posted in the newspaper. There was no need for those accepting to say who they were when accepting the offer. One of the judges, Lord Bowen, put it like this: "If I advertise to the world that my dog is lost, and that anybody who brings the dog to a particular place will be paid some money, are all the police or other persons whose business it is to find lost dogs to be expected to sit down and write me a note saying that they have accepted my proposal?"

The appeal was then dismissed with Mrs Carlill winning the appeal hands down. This case changed the face of law with the creation of unilateral agreement, and served as a constant reminder to companies to not be vague and deceitful.