Intersting things to know about the Law

Had a class on Law of Contract today and found out how to have a legal contract. One of the main criteria is that the parties making the contract have to be legally able to make a contract. To be legally able the person has to be a major - ie over 21 in Singapore and also mentally sound (these being the basic criteria). It just hit me at that point that last year when my friends and I signed a tenancy agreement for our appartment none of us were 21 (especially me since I was the legal signatory). We asked our lecturer about it and he said that yes we could have breached any part of the agreement and we wouldn't have been held liable for it as the contract (tenancy agreement) becomes void. Now if only we had know this at that time as we had some problems with the appartment - we could have just walked off and not be held liable to pay for damages or anything.
Hmm doing law is actually good in that sense because at this stage in my life I am coming across a lot of things that require the knowlege of law in daily life. For example Intellectual Property in my lab, tenancy agreements, loans, employment contracts etc. It is useful to know what parts of the things we sign are actually legally allowed so that we dont just sign and follow blindly.
Another part that is useful is from employment contracts. A clause which is generally found in most contracts these days is "Restraint of trade" clause- what this essentially states is that in the even of you leaving this company you cannot work with a competitor for some period of time. This clause is generally illegal hence you can contest it (whew good thing too). But sometimes if it is reasonable say if it says u cannot work with a competitor in the same town for another 3 months it might still be valid. Some employers now merge it with confidentiality clauses but still it can be contested if it is unreasonable (note - this is for Singapore - might not hold world wide)

A Most Depressing Movie

Recently went to see the film Osama. I won't bother to give an outline of the story here as it can be found on the site, Im just going to put down my impressions/interpretations of the film.
It turned out to be the most depressing movie i have seen - at least to my recollection. Though im saying its a good movie in terms of art/cinematography etc, the story and potrayal of events left a very saddening impression. The movie's potrayal of despair and helplessness was very overwhelming. It was like nothing could be done, whatever path the main character took she would end up with some horrible fate.
One particular point where she is discovered to be a girl and all the other children (boys) turn on her to help arrest her showed that the innocence of the childhood in these boys had been replaced by so much hatred - its like the hatred for her as a girl overcame their thoughts of her as a child and one of them in that sense. If these children could be so cruel then one can imagine the extent of thegrown men. Through-out the movie where the girl is in desparation she imagines/or is seen skipping rope something I guess she longed to do had all the cares had been removed from her. Another point that struck me was there didn't seem to be much options available to the women - though at some points in the movie I was longing for her to kill the man and run away, it just wasn't practical for her to do that because all the other wives would come into the situation that forced her to diguise herself in the first place. Another part which disgusted me were the potrayal of atrocious acts commited in the name of God. It seemed like a justification.
Though I know of events potrayed in the film being based on past/present reality it was still very disturbing. Those who are ignorant of these realities would probably be extreamly shocked. I have read critics who say that maybe it is propagandaish or using the film to twist the minds of people towards something, that is one opinion but mine is that it will serve as a good eye opener to some people.

Prenuptials

Well heard about this pretty recently and the concept is basically an agreement (whether it is legal or not depends on the country), made before two people get married which states what each of them can and cannot ask/get, and how the assets will be separated in the eventuality of a divorce.
Hmm I find this a crazy concept - maybe its because of my culture and background - but anyway if a person is so concerned about what will happen at the time of divorce (ie he/she is already thinking about divorce) - maybe it is the marriage that should be reconsidered. The argument for a prenup is that it thwarts gold diggers - but if you already consider your to-be-spouse a gold digger why marry the person?
Well my conclusion is that i don't understand this topic and maybe what isn't suitable for one person maybe suitable to another in a different situation.

Girls eat salad!!??

We had an excercise in class today where a group of guys were asked the question "If you woke up tomorrow morning and found out you were a girl what changes would you have in you behaviour?". The girls were asked the opposite, while another group of guys was told to become forty two year olds.
Of course the guys that became girls saw some obvious things like change of dressing and things you would do in your free time or with your friends but the most outlandish one was we would eat salad!! - now where did that come from? Other changes that were argued were the type of music listened to (which some people said were more subjective than a genealization) - again the guys made a funny generalization in saying that we listened to boy-bands - unfortunately for them the two boy-bands they quoted none of the girls knew about!!
The bunch who were 42 year olds made the next set of bloopers - saying that the religion would be different because those who are free thinkers would probabaly adopt a religion because they were closer to death; females of that age wouldn't wear high heels because it is "dangerous" (causing the lecturer to examine her shoes); capping it all off by saying that they would probaly be living in an old age home - at which point the lecturer asks where they are refering to forty-two or 82 year olds!
One thing we realized were that although these stereotypes were made funny in class they have serious implications because we would tend to carry them along when dealing with others thus causing potential conflict situations.

Always a minority

A thought that hit me a few days ago when a bunch of were going out for movie was that "hey for once we are going to be in the majority!" The "we" I referred to here was girls. That particular day by some freak of nature we had 6 girls vs 5 guys - generally it has hardly ever been more than 3 girls and now thinking about it sometimes it has just been me alone. And I wonder why it was difficult to drag the group away from the cars and video games! I don't notice it generally except at times like this when I sit and actually think about it.
I remeber the time when one of the guys came shopping alone with us - he gave up and sat on one of the benches and said he'd wait till we were done! But I don't recall feeling that way when they jump into game stores and spend hours in there. Maybe it is because i've gotten so used to going out in such outnumbered groups for a long time now. And even when im not going out to spend time I find myself in outnumbered groups. Take my A/L class that was approx 20 to 2, and my batch at uni 100 to 15!! Inevitably I end up being the only girl in project groups too!