fredfertang

Haha, Ironically, the principle applies and it goes against me.

The actual proposition says that the direction was passed by the high court stating that it had the effect of statutory law till legislative regulations are in place and my client filed a writ petition to the supreme court claiming the order should be quashed as it violates his fundamental rights.

Orders by the high court do not have retrospective effect but that kills my case as because my contract, which was formed prior to the law, is not affected, my client is not personally aggrieved and therefore cannot approach the supreme court under that provision. Just conveniently ignoring it and proceeding with proving how my client's fundamental rights are violated for now.

Really ****ed up problem tbh.

That's brilliant, thanks. Will go over to the library, get a statutory interpretation tome and look at the applicability of that principle in India. If it is indeed applicable, That seals it, then. Can't thank you enough.

Thanks again for your time.

Thanks man. Yeah, the problem implies that the law applies retroactively, which is why my client is approaching the court for relief. Yeah, It's a tricky one with no definite answers. I think my best shot is to argue about how this contract is a highly unique one and therefore it would not be in resonance with justice, equity and good conscience to consider it frustrated due to supervening illegality and all precedents relating to that concept are not applicable in this matter. The contract was formed with consensus ad idem between the surrogate mother and X and that would be violated if the contract is not allowed to complete due to a technicality and the baby is thrust upon the surrogate mother.

close to identical*

It's a moot problem and I'm on the side of X vs Govt of Ethopia, I'm already making arguments about equality before law etc. but I was wondering if I could bring that argument in and contract law in England and India is identical iirc.

Cheers mate.

Hello Fred, I have a contracts doubt, understand if you cbf but would greatly appreciate help.

X is a citizen of Utopia and is married and wants to have a surrogate child, He goes to Ethopia where it at the moment legal for non-citizens to pay surrogate mothers for the same function. He gets into a contract with Y to rent her womb for the purpose. 7 months into the contract, a new law comes into place in Ethopia that at-least one of the parents have to be a citizen of Ethopia to get into a surrogacy contract.

Now my question is, Is that direct frustration of contract and X does not get the baby or can I make an argument about it being an ex post facto law or something similar and hence the contract being valid as it was formed before this law was in place.

LessgoPFC?

One feels we will share a similar vision, but I see no harm in it.

Haha.

I expect the first draft on my desk by 9am.

Seasons greetings, Tangy.

What are your fees? I need a ghost writer to write my autobiography.

Merry Christmas you old bastard

I daresay so. The problem is though, that the coffers will be empty by the time I have polished off the master's, and so this leaves me in a bit of a tight spot. The only way I'll be able to do the LPC is if I apply for a training contract with the magic circle firms who'll cough up the cash for me to do it, not sure how likely that is. More realistically, I will apply to do a PhD somewhere or some other graduate job.

Cheers lad. Any advice you might have on how to get ahead with anything legal related will be much appreciated. I am indeed doing my masters at the moment, and am going to be applying for X Y and Z in the immediate future. However, lack of professional qualifications are making somewhat nervous, not really sure what the best course is...

Apologies for starting the last message with "I honestly am to be honest". It's a bit late.

I honestly am to be honest. Whilst I am rather going about obtaining a rather extensive level of education, I would not be opposed to working in for a high street firm at all. Almost all of my experience comes from the lower realms of the criminal law and it's the area I really do have the most interest in. Both parents worked in these sorts of positions as well, so I'm well acquainted with the goings on. Also despise the "city slicker" types of people/environment, not to mention the fact that I have no desire to work 18 hour days or whatever. You sound surprised though!

I won't be doing it forever!

C'mon Fred, whaddaya say?

Give sledger a job at your firm ASAP

Hmmm. I really didn't expect them to go to jail, it seems the British legal system is a lot harder to blag than the ICC. What does it mean to say that the judge didn't accept his guilty plea?