Trouble in the "courtroom"

Today's scene in Contract class was exciting. What Ms Meera did was this : she gave us an existing case, Williams v Roffey Bros., without the arguments, without the ratio decidendi, without anything the advocates brought forward, not even the defences - just the facts of the case. That was all.

Within just a few minutes, we had to debate it in class like lawyers and even call our dear lecturer "Your Honour !"

Now, for starters who don't understand what's in that Wikipedia page containing the facts of the case, here are the facts in simplified English :

Suppose a landlord, who has this huge plot of land, decides to hire a bunch of contractors (Roffey Bros.) to build a block of flats. They accept the contract and sign it, and start the work. In the contract is a penalty clause : if they fail to complete the work on time, for every day that they are overdue, they have to pay the landlord a sum of money.

Now, Roffey Bros. get to work and they discover that they can't handle too many things at one time - lighting, electrical works, plumbing, tiling, carpentry. So they subcontract the carpentry to another bunch of contractors (Williams). Those subcontractors get to work, albeit at a snail's pace. Roffey Bros. are already panicking. So, to actually persuade Williams to finish the work on time, they promise a sum of money.

Williams, now motivated by the reward, goes to the extra length of recruiting more workers (part-timers, I presume) to finish up the job. And they don't finish it on time. They finish it RATHER EARLY - about like, say, ten days before the deadline. The contractors at Williams approach the contractors at Roffey Bros. and ask for the money. Roffey Bros. refuses to pay Williams because according to them, "they only did what they were contractually bound to do."

The question here is this : were they doing just that, or were they doing more ?

Here, we had to debate from scratch : our own defences/arguments were brought in.

I had to take the role of the "prosecutor"and defend Williams by saying that they were actually doing more than they should've done. While the defence "lawyer" (well, we aren't lawyers yet) spoke with such professionalism, I threw all professionalism aside and with so much emotion, hammered the defence "lawyer" :

troisnyx* : Okay. Guys. Listen up. You contracted my client the job, and you know full well that you had a penalty clause.
Defence : But the penalty clause is out of the contra-----
troisnyx* : Wait. If you would let me finish.

And after this point, my voice mounted with every word.

troisnyx* : You put your trust in Williams hoping that they would get the case done on time, and when they didn't, you didn't just fire them and hire other contractors for fear of the cost. And you even went to the extent of promising my client a five-figure sum of money just to get the work done on time ! For crying out loud, do you know the hassle my client had to go through just to summon the extra workers and to get the job done early ? Regardless of whether the penalty clause is included in the contract between Williams and Roffey Bros., he has suffered a detriment while you creeps are enjoying the benefit by not having to pay any sum of money to your landlord. Where, then, is the benefit we get in return ? Where, then, is the detriment that you suffered ? Tell me, WHERE ?!

I couldn't hold myself back anymore. I was breathing heavily. My side of the class (as well as those on the side of the "defence" who are close to me) clapped and cheered.

Ultimately, we won. And in the real facts of the case, Williams did win the court proceedings and were entitled to the money promised by Roffey Bros. About the part which talks about "benefit" and "detriment", "benefit" refers to something a party gains while "detriment" is something lost by a party. So in a contract, both parties have to have a benefit and a detriment. I knew from the very beginning that it was a lop-sided contract, and the loophole in the law led me to win this case.

The new girl in class, who was sitting next to me - Nithya - she noticed immediately that there were people against me. I felt uncomfortable and I decided to have a heart-to-heart talk with Ms Meera. Alone. I went to the lecturers' room on the second floor to meet her. And there she was. I wept. But gosh, am I glad that she understood me !

Now, I can really bash DK up if he labels me "eccentric" in tomorrow's class.

It is true that I am emotional and temperamental, no doubt, and I have a constant need to express myself. I may be eccentric - but only at home and with the company of friends - just because I want to make myself feel happy. I used to doubt my personality before, but not anymore.

They say a lack of professionalism is the one thing that won't get me far. They're wrong. And if they say I don't have intrinsic qualities, I know they're wrong too.

The thing about me is that behind these emotions, I have a sense of justice. I don't have to tell anyone this. People have remarked about my simplicity, my sincerity in doing things. All these will get me far - because I do not wish to be like quite a large number of advocates, whose main purpose is to earn more, and that's it. For me, I stand for justice, and hard as it may seem, if that person is bound to lose in court due to judicial precedent, I'm going to make that person save his money and deter him from actually going to court. That sense of justice was made clear when I lost my cool in the "courtroom" and bashed the defence "lawyer" for defending an unjust cause.

I personally look up to Robert Badinter - he is the lawyer behind the abolition of the death penalty in France. His struggle and his voice against revenge and unfair condemnation to the gallows really intrigue me. I spoke in the same tone, with the same emotion as he did in his speech celebrating the permanent removal of the death penalty. Only that at the end of it all, he wasn't breathing heavily - I was.

If Badinter can cause such an impact and inspire others when it comes to the defending of human rights, let me tell everyone in the face now that he didn't do it out of professionalism. He didn't do it because he wanted to earn more. Neither did he do it because he had good rhetoric. He had (and still has) an overwhelming sense of justice, and that's what makes all the difference. DK looks up to Badinter as well (what the hell, he is the law icon of France anyway), but he fails to see the similarity between him and me.

If Badinter can move many hearts around the world, especially the hearts of budding lawyers, with this act and this dedication, I believe I can do the same.

I rest my case.