Ok so I've decided to make a regular occurrence of my legal lessons. I will teach you a legal principle and then apply it in a relatable way via the fun topic of relationships. This particular topic was running through my mind when I was about to fall asleep and all of a sudden, I started thinking of Onion. I realised that I missed him a teeny weeny bit but then I started to wonder whether I missed HIM or just the comfort/regularity of my communication with him [there is a big difference btw]. I couldn't figure out which it was and that made me angry. Why oh why is this dude still robbing my precious time even though physically, he is no longer about?? Then I turned to the law [which oddly enough has become an unusual source of comfort for me] and I began to wonder if theoretically, I could sue him and so it began...
How would I sue him? In tort? In contract? If so would I make a claim for damages? Promissory estoppel? The possibilities were endless
How could I possibly bring such a claim you say? There is no contract...this is a sham....outrage....horror..well au contraire my little outraged minds. I have long since learnt that the law can be moulded in anyone's favour and I am here to assert that there was indeed a contract, albeit a verbal one. Yes, these are more difficult to prove in court, however, we are officially in the lumberjack courts of justice [LCJ] and I am judge, jury and claimant so my rules really do go. Shall I proceed? Yes you say? how kind....anyhoo, for a successful contractual claim, the claimant must show that there was a breach of contract, causation, loss and that the claimant had mitigated [attempted to make less severe] their loss. So with this in mind, my claim is as such:
Onion had contracted to enter into a relationboat with me [he made the offer, I accepted and the consideration was both financial and measurable in time], he breached that contract on 13/02/2011 and as a result of this breach, I suffered a loss of:
1) Theatre tickets
2) A trip to the Hills
3) Lessons on the intricacies of trading
4) My bloody time -both past and future
5) My ability to trust/respect men...thus setting me back on any progress I had so far made.
The only thing that had me stumped, is the point of mitigation. I mean I did try to mitigate my loss by my several attempts to rescind the contract, which he continued to dismiss with bold proclamations of the certainty of his feelings.The way I see it, the only other way to mitigate the potential of loss in a relationboat/ship is to have several back up suitors so that in the occasion of breach, there would be someone in place to prevent such a loss. Now it is my turn to be shocked. Is this really the answer? Is the only way to prevent losing in the relationship battle to not keep all your treasure in one pirate's ship?? Is this the only thing keeping me from being the first woman to sue for the loss suffered in a 'break up' [for want of a better term] - the fact that I didn't mitigate my loss by keeping my options open?
It makes sense right? Once again ladies, the law has done it. It has proven a lesson that the universe has long since been trying to teach us. Learn to mitigate your loss by keeping a spare man about. It is where I have been epically failing my whole life. My inability to play the field could be the sole cause of me losing my claim against Onion. *Sigh*...I guess I better put away my Claim form and particulars of claim then.....
I may not be suing this time, but I will keep this in mind for the future. I THINK this is a more refined version of the point that Blu Cantrell was trying to make via the song 'hit em up style'...I call it 'mitigate your loss and then hit em up legal style'
Disclaimer: I am student not a teacher/practitioner of the law. Please do not try to sue anyone in reliance upon my blog posts. This is simply how I express myself; with a smooth blend of knowledge and humour. The end
No comments:
Post a Comment