You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘contract’ tag.

Alright, I’m all better, but my interwebs are not. They are still super dodge. But I managed to get on here to update you all, so enjoy or else!

Contract is always a fun place to be… Not so much.

See, we have this fabulously weird lecturer. I’ve mentioned her before. She talks a hundred times faster than my fastest pace, which is intense and probably causes time to go into a vortex and spin backwards which is PROBABLY why our lecturers always seem to drag on forever. She’s also always late, and it’s the kind of late that you look at your watch and reckon she won’t show… BUT THEN SHE DOES! It’s freaky. I reckon she has some kind of sick grasp upon the universe. I wish I had her skillz.

One time, our lecturer – who, is a hoot, I must admit – accused the law of being an ass. Well, lecturer lady, I didn’t know the law was a donkey, I always thought that was one of the American political parties. But ok, if you tell me the law is a donkey, them I’m sure it looks a little like this:

Photobucket
figure 7: Judge Ass? Oh wait, she was already like that before this poor attempt at photoshopping happened…

(Just FYI: That’s Judge Judy, for all you failures who have never tuned in to bad day time tv! Quit your job and learn to bum! Seriously.)

Anyways, back to my lecturer, and her crazy vortex-controlling antics.

Two days ago, when my interwebs was still all down in the dumps and so was my whirly stomach, I was sitting in Contract, as I do for a good three or so hours each week. (I know, it doesn’t seem like alot of time, but if you actually tell me to stop whinging, I’ll take you along and you won’t ever EVER cross me ever again in your life!)

And our lecturer PROMISED us, after about a billion very boring, very lifeless, very selfish cases, that’d we’d enjoy the next one. Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation.

Single. Most. Boring. Case. Ever. (and I’m not just saying that for the sake of this post)

ANYWAYS! The point of all this was: we were discussing very very boring and ridiculous caes about people suing those travel planner companies because they “didn’t enjoy” their vacations. Like, whatevs, get off your big fat ass (see above) organise your own goddamn holiday!

And it got me thinking… If people can sue holiday planners because they don’t enjoy their trips… can I sue my lecturer for promising me that I’d enjoy the case that I happened to have found to be as boring as batshit? Something to ponder there…

In other news, you should all go check out my Twi-blog: HERE! It’s not getting nearly enough love.

Over and out!

Uni recommenced today, for me. Yesterday for everyone else. I don’t do Mondays.

HAPPY TUESDAY!

I currently reside in Contract Law – the most deathly of death classes that you could possibly take. Infact, it’s so deathly that if I talk about it any longer, death might just appear in the form of the GRIM REAPER and take me away to death land. Then I’d have to find my way out of hell, Bill & Ted style.

Having said all that, that does sound kind of:
Photobucket
figure 6: Bill & Ted & Georgia’s Most Excellent Adventure/Bogus Journey!

Anyways, as I have previously stated, I truely do not understand contract law. At all. End of story. Ok?

But hey, I had politics earlier. That was fun.

DVM (aka the most superior lecturer ever) discussed justice and how we create the most ideal ustice system. Apparently, if we sit behind a “veil of ignorance”, according to some philosopher man, Rolls, (he’s a-rollin’-rollin’-rollin’), where we don’t know our gender or race or class or talents or anything, we can think up the fairest justice system possible. This is because we don’t know where we stand in society so we have to decide what the best system is that will suit us, no matter where we end up.

The whole idea of this ‘veil of ignorance’ is that the most ideal form of justice will be created because we want to be in an ideal position no matter where we end up when we come out from behind thie ‘veil’.

Really, the whole thing just makes me think of Sirius Black from Harry Potter, falling through that veil in Order of the Phoenix and subsequently dying.

Do we die behind the veil of ignorance? Well, I believe so. Because our individual selves cease to exist, we don’t know who we are, what we’re capable of, we just know that there’s potential that we’ll come out the other side and fit in somewhere and we’ve got to work out the best system that will suit us no matter where we come out. Daunting, truly daunting.

And creepy how I can draw parallels between politics and Harry Potter. Man I’m a Potternut.

Anyways, I’m not convinced. I don’t think we can just work out the most ideal justice system if we are ignorant to ourselves. Cos we might potentially be ignorant to others then – which means we might be ignorant to all the possibilities of places we might end up, and then we’d just be screwed.

Alas, I must run. Places to do, people to go and things to see. I mean… whatever. I don’t know what I mean. xoxo.

Today I cycled to uni. Stupidest idea ever. Did you know, just before UWA, there is this HUGE eff-off hill that I will have to cycle up to get home? Did you know that I am like the most unfit person ever? Did you know I might just catch the bus home and leave my bike here until dad gets home and then I’ll go pick it up with the car? Did you know I just ate a whole cakes worth of icing straight?

Bet you didn’t know that!

Contract again, sitting next to Sally (who just had a freak out cos she was looking for her callus on the wrong hang) and Bronwyn who is definately fitter than I am.

We’re discussing total failure consideration and how to recover monies paid/damages. Sally is so bored she’s staring at my screen, yeah that’s right. THAT’S HOW BORING THIS CLASS IS!

Luckily, I write the most exciting and thrilling blog on this entire planet, maybe even universe, that during the next hour of contract she will be entertained as she will be able to read this post. Yeah, you know it. 😛 I bet she agrees.

Apparently, if there is not TOTAL failure of consideration, (ie there is only a little failure of consideration), then there’s no claim for damages for your side of the contract. Or something like that. I honestly don’t understand this class and if anyone would care to enlighten me, that would be fabulous.

Honestly, what on earth does that mean? Does the lecturer realise that she is speaking at twice my fastest talking speed and she is the lecturer and not me? Does she realise that if she is speaking faster than me then there is no way in hell that anyone less than a superhero would be able to comprehend what she is rambling about?

lolg1

Lecturer is now asking us a question I didn’t hear, which means I can’t answer it and whoever answers it correctly won’t make any sense to me either. Should I pay attention? Well, maybe, but it doesn’t make a difference – this lady truely makes no sense, even though I have copied down all her notes and everything she writes and all major points she mentions. SLOW DOWN CRAZY LECTURER LADY!

Man this post is below par, sorry little choo choos (my followers), I hope I haven’t let you down too much!

I shall now return my focus to the crazy lady at the front of the lecture theatre – hopefully I’ll learn something.

Farewell my little choo choos!

p.s. Sally & I hae numbuts. We’re numbats. Haha. What a pun. Poor effort.