Jokes: Laws on Girls

1.If u think a girl is beautiful, she’ll always have a boyfriend to confirm that

2. the nicer she is…the quicker u will be dumped!!!!!

3. The more the makeup, worse the looks…

4. “99% of the girls in this world are beautiful. Remaining 1% would always be in your company.”………… …..100% true

5. The guy standing next to a beautiful girl can never be her brother.

6. If by any chance the girl you like , likes you too, she will let you know in about 10 years from now ,when you are committed..

7. The more you ignore a girl, the more she’ll want to be friends with you.

8. Theory of relativity.. ….

The more u run towards a hot chick….the more she goes away from u…

9. Rule 1: Even if you got her out alone… just when you are about to let her know about your feelings…she will spot a long lost friend( I guess from Kumbh ka Mela)

Corollary to rule 1: The more desperate you are to tell your feelings to a girl on a private chat, the more probability the long lost friend she discovered is a handsome superman, who beats you in everything 9:1

Axiom 1: The more dedicated you are to the girl, the longer it takes before things work out, but ultimately it will (somesmile for the guys)

10. the day the chick you really like comes and speaks to you will be the day when-

1. You are dressed badly
2. You forgot to brush your teeth for the first time in your life
3.Have a bad hair day

11. all the good girls are either nuns or married .the rest go around with u and ruin ur money,health and leave u a total wreck.

12. the more seriously u like a girl…the more seriously her dad will hate u

13. the love you shower a girl with is directly proportional to the number of bullets her dad will be showering at you

Speculation Case: Condom

This is merely an exercise for myself to debate. Anyway, as mentioned in the previous post is that, Axe Effect do not even say the percentage. As with condom packs, they state clearly that there is no method that prevents 100% from pregnancy, or any sexual transmission diseases.

But usually, with those qualifications and branding that yes this condom can provide you a certain protection, Durex may be the one that is meeting the requirement, and thus, more costly compare to the market.

So the question is like this, if some countries produce their own latex condom and mentioned the same exact same thing that Durex mentioned, and say they could not 100% from pregnancy and etc. So does it mean that when someone contracted the disease or got pregnant after using the condom, they are not allowed to sue the defendant (the company) in whatever way, since they already quoted no 100% guarantee. This may sparks more discussion which I may entail further in later learnings, but to one extent, does it mean condom company are very well on the safe side?

The Axe Effect - Funny Case but Worth Learning

After watching the above video, kindly read the below case.

Unable to attract even a single girl, frustrated man sues Axe

New Delhi. In what could prove to be a major marketing and legal
embarrassment for Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), a 26-year-old man
has filed a case against the FMCG company, which owns the Axe brand of
men grooming products, for ‘cheating’ and causing him ‘mental
suffering’. The plaintiff has cited his failure to attract any girl at
all even though he’s been using Axe products for over seven years now.
Axe advertisements suggest that the products help men in instantly
attracting women.

Vaibhav Bedi, the petitioner, also surrendered all his used, unused and
half-used deodorant sprays, perfume sticks and roll-ons,
anti-perspirants, aftershaves, body washes, shampoos, and hair gels to
the court, and demanded a laboratory test of the products and narcotics
test of the brand managers of Axe. Vaibhav was pushed to take this step
when his bai (maid) beat him with a broom when he tried to impress her
after applying all the Axe products.

No girl ever asked Vaibhav to call her

No girl ever asked Vaibhav to call her

“Where the **** is the Axe effect? I’ve been waiting for it for over
seven years. Right from my college to now in my office, no girl ever
agreed to even go out for a tea or coffee with me, even though I’m sure
they could smell my perfumes, deodorants and aftershaves. I always
applied them in abundance to make sure the girls get turned on as they
show in the television. Finally I thought I’d try to impress my lonely
bai who had an ugly fight with her husband and was living alone for over
a year. Axe effect my foot!” Vaibhav expressed his unhappiness.

Vaibhav claims that he had been using all the Axe products as per the
company’s instructions even since he first bought them. He argued that
if he couldn’t experience the Axe effect despite using the products as
directed, either the company was making false claims or selling fake
products.

“I had always stored them in cool and dry place, and kept them away from
direct light or heat. I’d always use a ruler before applying the spray
and make sure that the distance between the nozzle and my armpit was at
least 15 centimeters. I’d do everything they told. I even beat up my
5-year-old nephew for coming near my closet, as they had instructed it
to keep away from children’s reach. And yet, all I get is a broom
beating from my ugly bai.” Vaibhav expressed his frustration.

Vaibhav claims that he had to do go a lot of mental suffering and public
humiliation due to the lack of Axe effect and wants HUL to compensate
him for this agony. An advocate in Karkardooma court, who happened to
mistake Vaibhav for some deodorant vendor when he entered the court
premises with all the bottles, has now offered to take up his case in
the court. HUL has been served a legal notice in this regard.

HUL has officially declined to comment on the case citing the subject to
be sub judice, but our sources inform that the company was worried over
the possible outcomes of the case. The company might argue that Vaibhav
was hopelessly unattractive and unintelligent and didn’t possess the
bare minimum requirements for the Axe effect to take place. Officially
HUL has not issued any statement, but legal experts believe that HUL
could have tough time convincing the court.

“HUL might be tempted to take that line of argument, but it is very
risky. There is no data to substantiate the supposition that
unattractive and unintelligent men don’t attract women. In fact some of
the best looking women have been known to marry and date absolutely
ghoulish guys. I’d suggest that the company settles this issue out of
court.” noted lawyer Ram Jhoothmalani said.

The worth pursuit of this case is that, from the advertisement, and from Axe Effect is trying to give every impression in everybody's mind is that, if you use Axe, there should have girls to approach you. However, if you think in Mathematical and Probabilistic approach combine with some Law Elements, there are no definite or a certainty that this will work. They did not state out the percentage that you will be in which category. In fact, even Hand Sanitizers that promise 99.9% killing of germs can argued that you are the odd 0.01% to be infected.

Thus, in this case, and in every Axe Effect ads, you can actually see is that, they are again attracting you, but it is Invitation to Treat. It is never an OFFER in that way. Because, in an OFFER, the plaintiff can say YES or NO! The ads did not prompt to you whether is YES or NO for you. Thus, this became very debatable by the poor young guy to sue Axe for the Axe Product. Thus, the acceptance is again, NOT ABSOLUTE making this contract not legally binded. So sorry to say to Mr. Vaibhav.

Tutorial 2: Legal Framework of Multimedia

In Tutorial 2, dated 8th February, we are discussing part of the Contract of Law topic. During that scope, we entail only whether the agreement or contract has the rightful elements in it. As such, one of the most important question in every legally binding contract will be, is there an OFFER made?

Offer recording under Section 2(a) of Malaysian Legal System questions, whether is there offer made by one party to the another. Just like if I'm offering to sell my phone but at the same time, this can be misleaded with INVITATION TO TREAT. Whereby, someone who wanted to sell the phone is just testing the market and do not wholly wanted to sell the phone as for example. With that, the next step under Section 2(b) will be ACCEPTANCE. With regard to that, we are taught to understand, upon an offer, is there any acceptance made and from there to conclude whether the agreement is on or not.

As for the scope thus far, I will review back one of the group activities that me and my friends did regarding the story of Jay.

The excerpt is as below;

One day, Jay saw a banner hanging in front of her favourite cassette outlet in Alamanda which reads: "BIG SALE! LATEST TOO PHAT'S ALBUM IS UP FOR GRAB 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 case(s)

As this is the first time for us to do such activity, we were rather do not where to start. Our lecturer mentioned that for every justification you made, you have to argued with reasons (as usual), justification from previous cases (Stare Decisis) and according to the Malaysian Legal System. Thus, I suggested we come into a role play to debate the situation.

Jay: Hi I will like to purchase the Too Phat's album at that stated price.

S/Owner: I'm sorry, it is now selling at normal price already.

Jay: Why is it so, come on, you guys put up the ads and you should be responsible for that?

S/Owner: (Thinking) Actually we did write Limited Stock.

Jay: Then since the stock is finished, you should just take the banner down

S/Owner: (Thinking) Yea, I was just about to take off the banner

Jay: (rather not satisfied) How many amounts of stock is your limited stock? 10? 5? 1?

S/Owner: This is up to our company's discretion and definitely it is Privacy and Confidential.

Jay: Does it mean PnC which include selling only 1 as limited stock?

S/Owner: This is truly our company policy to fix the amount, so we cannot disclose it.

Jay: I can sue you regarding this you know, it is like a con case already.

S/Owner: We will try our best to maintain minimal level of insecurity for your side, but this is not within our reach.

Thus, from our debate we imagine ourselves in that situation, feeling pissed and angry at such situation. But does LAW sides on our side?

The situation goes like this , first of all, if this things is brought up to the court or consulting a lawyer, the first question is, is there an OFFER made? The answer is NO, what the banner states is merely an INVITATION TO TREAT. Invitation to treat is not an ofer, it is sort of preliminary negotiation to buy something. You will be surprised that, Goods displayed in the shops with price tag, advertisement in the newspaper and auction sale and tender. Although Jay accepted that deal, but that wasn't an offer making the acceptance not ABSOLUTE.

In refer to the previous case, it will be Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd Case whereby an ads by the defendant (the company) stating that whoever who takes the medicine and do not recover, will be given 1000 English pounds. However, when Carlill the plaintiff, who did not recover from her influenza sued the company, this case was brought up and results in saying that as INVITATION TO TREAT. (CASE LIKE HYDE AND WRENCH CAN BE JUSTIFIED AS WELL)

Thus, from there, we get to know that with Advertisement flaunting our minds and heart, we should be aware that an offer and acceptance is the initial steps to make every legally binding contract. Lessons Learnt!

Contact Me

As I'm a finance student, majoring in Financial Engineering, completing in one of my subject in the course structure namely Business Law BBL2214, under the guidance of a lecturer, who is a Doctorate of Law, but name shall not be disclosed due to privacy and confidential matter.

I may not be good in law, and probably had offended some of readers or viewers in my views and opinions in this blog, and if this blog caused any discomfort to your side and you wish to advise, discuss or consult me, kindly contact me through email by sending the mail to ericseah_rkg@yahoo.com.

I will respond ASAP, thus, do no worry!

About Me

I'm a normal person with no extended power, unlike those in HEROES..just a normal person hoping to live a normal life..and just to blog around to share my experiences and thoughts..come on..blogging is one's liberty to talk..bla..

Yeap, that is how I used to put it in my blogger place. However, in this very blog, I'm showing the different side of me, which in what I'm pursuing as a Financial Engineer, the tendency to speculate. Thus, in LAW, however, it may not happen that way, but I'm doing that.

A New Layout

Hi guys, I've changed my blog template to a newer URL and template as my previous one is my personal blog and it is quite complicated with the some of the content seem unrelated. Thus, after much consideration and time of selecting the best template, I've chosen this template.

I was looking for a template that give the perception of Law, Politics or Justice, but unfortunately, most of them did not meet my criteria. Thus, I'm using this to show that, I'm the writer of this blog, with my ideas and opinions on LAW and speculate on it. Thus, the name and the design is as it is now. However, maybe more enhancements will be put up as well.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis

The Doctrine of Stare Decisis is perhaps one of the most important studies in the field of law that was practise ever since from 1820s in the Supreme Court of England. In fact, from our lecturer, this is one of the most interesting area that cramps all the law students very much.

Adapted from Wikipedia,

Stare decisis (Latin: [ˈstaːre deːˈkiːsiːs], Anglicisation: [ˈsteɹɪ diˈsaɪsɪs]) is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the Latin phrase Stare decisis et non quieta movere, "Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established".

In the United States, which uses a common law system in its federal courts and most of its state courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

In fact, this Doctrine as mentioned by my lecturer is that, most British colonised country will probably practise this doctrine. The easier understanding of this doctrine is that, "judges are bound to follow the decision made by other judges before them in dealing with cases with similar facts, whether is horizontally or vertically". Horizontally applies whereby the decision is bounded by earlier judges with the same level as the one using it. Vertically is like a superior to subordinate, whereby the one practising now is folowing the decision from a higher court or superior court.

And probably Stare Decisis is the one that makes law really hard, as they truly need to memorize and research a lot whenever they are going for a legal suit. And probably this makes two statements fairly accurate.
One will be by George Santayana, "Those who don't remember their history, are condemned to repeat the same mistake again".
Second, "The more research, just like any fields that you made, the more meticulous and trustable your information are".

Back to the topic, although Stare Decisis may meant that way, it is not as easy as is seem. Learning from my lecturer and also my law friends, not all the cases are the same and they varies, due to generation differences, technology and lots of evolvement. Thus, a lot of justification must be made as similar as possible to the case that is brought forward. But truly, it is not that easy, not just in pointing out the similarity, but to convince people that every information delivered makes hell of a sense.

So from there, we can see two things, the normal two things of advantages and disadvantages. The questioned that was brought up to me, that leaves me mumble something that I understand myself. From the positive point of view, it brings efficiency. Simply, you do not have to waste your time doing the same thing that was done earlier. In another word, REFERENCING. Apart from that will be the stability in law, that through either cultivation or cases from centuries ago, people know what is allowable and what is not. From the sources of Wiki Answers, "...to promote a uniformity of law throughout the country. Different states are free to disagree among themselves as to what laws govern in their states, but since most court made law comes from common law England, many legal principles have the same roots. Courts of different states do try to make rulings in line with other states even though they do not have to."

Although uniformity of law may be seem as both positive and negative. The negative sidepoint will be that uniformity shows that everything that happen will be the same, and there are no OTHERWISE! To rule autocratically is good, but democratically, it may seem absurb. Also, the expectability of the results may seem quite the same. Let's say there are so many cases of raping in Malaysia, and most of them will likely to get the same punishment, and out of probably thousand, only one exceptional case may happen. This simply leads to the restrictions of Judge to command and to open up to new debate. Why? Because let's say, if horizontally, most people will accept the results, but vertically, everyone might be thinking that, is that Judge trying to outrun the law of the Supreme Court, or getting some flashlight for himself. Thus this is not developing the study of law. And as time goes by, back to the 1800, the mentality of people are much different, with humans nowadays slightly more fabricated.

Thus, from that as usual, let's speculate some real case that is happening, in fact TODAY! Back in 1998, one of the Malaysia's most bizarre political scandal that involve the Deputy Prime Minister, accused and found guilty of sodomising a guy. Ten years later, after he was released from the prison of his act in 2004, he is once again being accused in the same story, with his personal assistant as well. For many of us, who knew the true story behind the court, many of us have regretted that incident, simply the media is making a truly bad name of the accused. However, this time, media are so broad and many are well informed that 1998 case may have some slippage of information. But decision have be made, so in 2010, with February 3rd the first day where their case begin, does it mean, it will be using Stare Decisis again?

Children's Court

In Malaysia, we have an hierarchy of courts with different courts serving different purposes before going to the serious one on the top. One of the court that we have is Court for Children. It does not mean that children are running the lawyers and the judge, but logically, the court for children that did some crime.

The reason behind why we are using a children court is that, children are naive, immature and definitely wouldn't know much of the effect of what they have done, even in their adolescent. Thus, the Court for Children are for children below the age of 18. In the range of age below 18, children that commit crimes are given a chance that they might be a future leader, breaking from their past as it may not be their intention.

In the case that involved that was discussed in class is that a boy age of 12, had murdered the daughter of his teacher who is aged 11. The boy was found guilty after stabbing the girl 20 times with a sharp objects and slashing her 4 times. However, he was not sentenced to death. Alright, boo whatever you want and cursed whatever you want. As mentioned, this is not unfair, this is due to they may not know the consequences. Just like now, back when you are just 12 years old, will you know that making love with a girl, although you all are playing, and yet you did an intercourse with her (with her unwilling), is a rape? If you would have know that, do you wish to be granted the chance. Definitely yes, in fact, a life is definitely worth it, and you might think you can sacrifice your production and to continue living.

Back to the topic, it is consider unconstitutional law as it is different from the constitution. After much process, with court of appeal (before is the high court) until it reaches APEX or Federal Court. With the King's pleasure, the kid will be located somewhere, which we usually know is rehabiliation centre like St. Henry Gurney and etc. And we shall pray hard for their improvement in life. Probably you guys can blame the technology and the power of gaming, that caused this effect.

Back to the normal speculation process, so let's bring up a case. As we all know, celebrities are always blame of doing something they didn't do. In fact, toward man to man, they are never afraid. After all, making some payments and etc., or in fact, a good lawyer can give you a win. But when it comes to involving kids, "BOY, YOU ARE GONE!". Yes, yes, let's talk about Michael Jackson. The reason why I brought this things up, it may sound not related but I will let you know my point. Since after his death, the Legendary Pop singer who was accused and found guilty of child molestation, not one but a few. At the end of the day, those who said they are molested came upfront and admitted that, NO, MY DAD FORCED ME TO SAY, HE DIDN'T MOLEST ME.

So the point is like this, I'm a Junior to one guy called A. I'm his beloved son and one day, A was unhappy and having dispute with B. I also know B well, in fact he is like an uncle to me. Thus, A planned out a plot that involves me killing B unintentionally (add: with A not present). By the time B was found dead, with only me on the scene, I'm the only one convicted. With me, saying I don't know what happen and at the end of the day, I was found guilty and send for rehabiliation.
So does it mean that other than me, the other suspect like A who acted don't know, with all the blames on me escaping without having fur laying on his guilty hand?