purely for yalan's and rui's amusement
i miss jon lau!!1!!!!1 *sobs sobz sobzZZZzzzZ*
and for everyone else, this i came across in liew kaling v. public prosecutor [1960] 1 MLJ 306.1 (goodness knows why it's '306.1'):
"It is however, only helpful to say that the only standard is that of the prudent man if we go on to say that the prudent man himself applies a variety of standards, a variety of standards that can be almost infinite, to the problems of ordinary life. . . the matter is perhaps not capable of being expressed in words but clearly the standard which a prudent man will apply to the question of whether he should take a box of chocolates home to his wife is something different from the standard he will apply to the question of whether he should take the good lady a valuable diamond ring. He will apply a different standard to the question of whether his butler has helped himself to a little of his whiskey than he will to the question of whether his wife has been seduced by his gamekeeper."
might i suggest that the standard he would apply to the first question is, in the words of sandra leong from last monday's straight talk column, is that of the 4 Cs. cut, carat, clarity and cardiac arrest (when he sees the price tag on the "valuable diamond ring"). only if he fulfils the last one will he know that his lady love will deem him worthy.
me, i'd be happy with a box of chocolates. very dark please.
and i have no answer for the second question. very strange legal system we have - if a judge approves his previous judgement in a subsequent case does that in any way detract from the authority of either as good law?
i miss jon lau!!1!!!!1 *sobs sobz sobzZZZzzzZ*
and for everyone else, this i came across in liew kaling v. public prosecutor [1960] 1 MLJ 306.1 (goodness knows why it's '306.1'):
"It is however, only helpful to say that the only standard is that of the prudent man if we go on to say that the prudent man himself applies a variety of standards, a variety of standards that can be almost infinite, to the problems of ordinary life. . . the matter is perhaps not capable of being expressed in words but clearly the standard which a prudent man will apply to the question of whether he should take a box of chocolates home to his wife is something different from the standard he will apply to the question of whether he should take the good lady a valuable diamond ring. He will apply a different standard to the question of whether his butler has helped himself to a little of his whiskey than he will to the question of whether his wife has been seduced by his gamekeeper."
might i suggest that the standard he would apply to the first question is, in the words of sandra leong from last monday's straight talk column, is that of the 4 Cs. cut, carat, clarity and cardiac arrest (when he sees the price tag on the "valuable diamond ring"). only if he fulfils the last one will he know that his lady love will deem him worthy.
me, i'd be happy with a box of chocolates. very dark please.
and i have no answer for the second question. very strange legal system we have - if a judge approves his previous judgement in a subsequent case does that in any way detract from the authority of either as good law?
No comments:
Post a Comment