Lawya fo Lyfe

March 25, 2017


Not everyone who graduates with a Law degree ends up being a lawyer but knowing how to think like a lawyer never goes to waste. Legal training is fun and helpful in all sorts of ways; you can argue your way out of a parking ticket pretty well, for instance (ummm, excuse me, no, I don't believe I WAS given sufficient notice of that flashing, fluorescent sign signalling that I now need to purchase a ticket to park in your carpark, actually) and it never hurts to throw in a mention of the Australian Consumer Law when your flat white isn't quite up to scratch. 


And, as Elle Woods said, using legal jargon in everyday life can be fun. Who doesn't like to 'adjourn a dispute' with your spouse sine die (not that I know anyone who does that, obviously), ask the hairdresser to 'expedite' your cut and colour because you're in a rush or 'reserve judgment' on your friend's new jacket? 


Being a lawyer is handy when you're a parent too. You spend a fair amount of time reading books to your kids and your legal training can bring a fresh, new dimension to that task.  You might be thrilled that the Rainbow Fish learned to share, for instance, but you’ll also want to ponder the flagrant disregard for occupational health and safety legislation displayed by the other fish. And consider the Wiggles. ‘Moving your hips' like Wags the Dog? That may all be well and good in the studio, Wags, but try that on the street and I'm pretty sure that's how you end up in breach of s203(1) of the Western Australian Criminal Code. 


It's not just Wags who gets on the wrong side of the law, either. Jeff, the Purple Wiggle, keeps falling asleep at the wheel and is arguably in breach of s62 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). I'm not even sure he should still have his license. What's more, he owes a duty to other road users and, in the event of an accident, would be well and truly in breach of that duty - let's hope he's got comprehensive insurance. And it doesn't stop there. The frankly wilful blindness of the other Wiggles in letting Jeff continue to drive the Big Red Car is maddening. If they get hurt in the inevitable accident, their damages WILL be reduced in proportion to their contribution to the accident as determined by the court. SURELY THEY KNOW THE RISKS. Can't one of the others drive for a while? What on earth is wrong with these people?????


As I said, it's a fresh, new dimension. 


A warning though: you might want to keep your legal analysis to yourself otherwise your children will start picking up on it. I knew I was in trouble when my daughter broke an ornament and told me it wasn't an 'accident', it was an ‘unwilled consequence'. Which was a big concept for a 2 year old … but it got worse when she reminded me that I was unlikely to be able to prove breach of s441 of the Criminal Code beyond a reasonable doubt.  Kids, eh?? 



Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload