Saturday, December 09, 2006

Legal Frustrations: Part 1

"Ignorance of law cannot be pleaded" so shouts some legal maxim! It is assumed that every person who resides in the country or who is residing in the country (irrespective of him being a resident of the same), knows the law of the land. So if one is charged for committing a particular act as it is against the law of the land, then he cannot plead on the grounds that he was ignorant of the fact that such an act is not allowed by the law of that State. So law expects each and every citizen of the country to know the law. so every citizen needs to understand the law. But then I look at the bare act and find statements running 10 to 12 lines which can be explained in just a single line. Here is an example:

If I want to state: "I would like to have a cup of coffee, less sugar and more milk"


Then the Indian Restaurant Act, 1901 will quote the same line in such simple words:



19: Rules regarding placement of an order
(23) Less sugar and more milk

a) Coffee shall be any coffee as defined under Sec. 2(35) and cup shall be any cup as defined under Sec. 2(19) or any such vessel that shall have the ability to hold as much volume of liquid that can be held by a cup as defined under Sec. 2(19) and where vessel shall be any vessel as defined under Sec. 2(76) and liquid shall be any liquid as defined under Sec. 2(54) and milk shall be any milk as defined under Sec. 2(23) and sugar shall be any sugar as defined under Sec. 2(17) of the Act.

b) The placement of order where order shall be anything as defined under Sec. 2(12) for less of sugar and more of milk where less shall be anything that can be lesser than the original quantity of sugar that shall be added to the coffee according to the rules of that particular restaurant but which shall not be less than that quantity of sugar which under normal circumstances any competent person would consider necessary and shall not be acting under any coercion or undue influence or fraud or mistake where coercion shall be coercion as defined under Sec. 15 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 for the purpose of this Section and undue influence shall be as undue influence as defined under Sec. 16 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 for the purpose of this Section and fraud shall be fraud as defined under Sec. 17 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 for the purpose of this Section and mistake shall be any mistake of fact as defined under Sec. 19(1) of Indian Contract Act, 1872 for the purpose of this Section and such lesser sugar shall not be lesser than that quantity of sugar which a competent person acting under normal circumstances and not under coercion or fraud or undue influence or mistake shall as per his judgment in normal circumstance shall consider as necessary and more of milk can be anything that shall be more than the original volume of milk which shall be added to the coffee according to the rules of that particular restaurant but which shall not be less than that volume of milk which under normal circumstances any competent person not acting under any coercion or undue influence or fraud or mistake and shall consider it necessary to add to the coffee.

c) If the provisions of the above mentioned clause (b) are not met with then a compensation which shall not be less than the cost of the coffee as per that restaurant menu where menu shall be any such document of contents as defined under Sec. 2(9) shall be paid to the aggrieved customer where customer shall be any such individual as defined under Sec. 2(2).


Yes my dear friends! This has to be understood by a common man! If one fails to understand this then he shall be penalised! Exactly why lawyers are needed, so they simplify this shit and use it as per their convenience to kick their client's ass where client shall be any such individual as defined under Sec. 2(...) :P

(to be continued..)


heh? ok said...

you lawyers make up weird rules and then you justify your profession through these rules, and then you fleece the rest of the world! you're the best example of how people like living in, sorry, that would be doctors.

raghu said...

hahah.. !!
so in the end can i hav my cup of coffee?

Sneha said...

hahah.. thats all i can say.. :D but hey, the laws that we are supposed to be aware of are common-sense type laws :D and you forgot to mention the other half of the maxim---
... then every man would use this 'ignorance of law' as a defence! :D

can't let that happen, can we?

Divya said...

I like it!! I art proud to call you my brother...

All i can say is, undet the sale of goods act, 1930, the sale of coffee has been defined as one of the most insanely complicated and mind boggling transactions in the history of mankind, or indeed- cofffekind.. especially when the consumer act silly enough to tamper with the norms and order more or less of something.. so complicated that whether he finally got the coffee or not, he lay awake the whole night thinking that the whole confusion coulda been avoided if only he had ordered tea instead...

But then again.. i think that unfortunately, the section i speak of was repealed by people with zero sense of humour.. Tsk Tsk.. what a boring world we live in..

:D :D

sun4none said...

@sangy: no sweets.. we do not make any rules.. we just explain them.. and why am i sayin "we".. am not even goin 2 be one o thm :P

@raghu: hehe.. see y i get so frustrated at times whn someone tells me 2 prove my point! :P

@sneha: no sneha.. ths is the complete maxim.. hehe.. i kno ths is necessary.. but my only argument is.. cant thy just talk in simple straight fwd language.. yes.. its important to be specific n not sound ambiguous at all so as 2 erase any kinda doubt.. but bloody.. talk simply.. thats all i scream for!

@div: hahhahhaha.. SOGA never talks of coffee yaa.. shit.. beat ths.. i used the actual sections from contract act.. hehe.. mercantile law rocks.. really! i love mercantile law.. but thts it.. ntn more yaa.. company law's fine to the extent i understnd it.. same wid torts.. crpc n ipc mebbe interesting but really frustrating.. punitive and procedural laws just piss me off man.. punitive cz.. the punishments r ridiculously stupid.. all o thm are bloody so ancient! fine: Rs.50.. not exceeding Rs.500! duh! then penalty of not less than Rs.1000.. grrr.. bail amt never exceeds Rs.5000... wtf! and procedural laws are so so so boring man! yeah! it jst makes our world so freakin boring! :S

abhu said...

lol!!!! clearly shows dat u've just given ur!!!

heh? ok said...

good. don't be a lawyer, or, at the very least, don't be like that ass jethmalani.

Divya said...

Oye idiot.. you're actually soundin like u think i was serious!!! "SOGA never talks of coffee yaa.".. i know that!!!! letme talk nonsense without correcting me na... :S
but u actually used actual sections of the ICA? Wow... u actually studied properly ya.. good good..

sun4none said...

@abhu: yeah woman! exams over! yeeee!

@sangy: nope woman.. no way am bcmina lawyer!

@div: hehehe.. chollee :P

yeah! told ya na.. mercantile law toh mast tha... i loved studyin tht also.. cz its so clear to me.. it was taught 2 me very very well... mebbe thts y!

raghu said...

oye kamenee.. u cant become lawyer.. its not allowed

ViRuS© said...

You guys are making a lot of money fooling innocents techies like us... :D

new age scheherazade said...

wow. that's for real? crazy stuff. no wonder you guys are crazy, as I always say.
Oh and I'd really rather have tea.

another brick in the wall said...

@ raghu: who the hell decides tht eh eh? :P

@ virus: ah well.. some ppl are out there 2 be fooled and some ppl are out there 2 fool others.. so well.. which side are u on? :P

@ ana: tea with sugar or without sugar? how much sugar? be specific plz or i'll sue u jst incase u try 2 sue me for not puttin in the rt amount of sugar :P