I began the year full of hope and enthusiasm.
I knew it would be a challenge because the university let me concurrently enroll in the first year core law courses as well as two second year courses.
I would later find out that these 200 classes, Contract and Crimes, were two of the hardest.
In fact, Crimes was notorious for being the most difficult.
I had confidence that my journalistic writing skills, advanced degree and high GPA would easily put me in the top of the class and make me a candidate for the prizes awarded to the best student in the 101 and 110 classes.
I now realize I was being insufferable and only hope I managed to keep it to myself.
"Comeuppance" would be an excellent word for what I received.
There were many difficulties.
Legal writing is nothing like journalistic writing.
It was my first time learning about New Zealand governance and Parliamentary functions.
The 200 level courses presupposed that one had already learned the foundations of law.
My test scores were mostly in the B range which shocked me. My Contract midterm earned a C. My second exam in 101 also earned a C.
I began the downward spiral of self doubt.
I cried, got angry, felt like an intellectual fraud and contemplated quitting.
I talked to other students who were going through similar experiences and felt a little better.
My academic adviser told me a PhD student who had switched to law had recently sat exactly where I was sitting and bawled her eyes out because she was struggling as well.
I went to the library and read up on legal writing skills.
I attended a talk by a visiting law professor from Cambridge named Graham Virgo. He told me many of his students who were former journalists thought they could ace legal writing and how he had to work with them.
"Well," I thought, "If some of the Cambridge kids are struggling..."
I worked hard and earned an A- on my next 101 exam.
I earned a B on my Crimes midterm and felt proud.
I wrote a lackluster paper on the topic of Consideration for Contract and earned a C+.
While my academic performance in Contract Law wasn't stellar, something extraordinary happened during this period that gave me a huge confidence boost.
My partner owns a small building company and through him I've come to learn that non-payment for work is rife in his industry.
We had just discussed the Disputes Tribunal in one of my classes and how it can adjudicate cases of up to $15,000 (or $20,000 with the agreement of both parties).
I am a huge fan of the Tribunals because they meet the need of many people who cannot afford lawyers and court fees.
They place both parties on equal footing by making them prepare their own statements and evidence. Lawyers are not permitted in the hearing unless there are special circumstances like representation of a minor child.
One person represents each party and gives their side of the story to a mediator. The mediator then issues their decision and it is binding on both parties and enforceable at court.
Nick agreed to let me put together the facts and represent him at the Tribunal. Actually, he said if he went himself he would just get into a fight with the other guy and probably take a swing at him. I encouraged him to refrain from assault and instead let me "beat the guy up" using the law.
I spent the next few weeks reviewing Nick's contract, bank statements, email correspondence and the existing legislation.
I had to anticipate the other sides's arguments and what they might counter argue.
The day of the hearing I sat across from an arrogant, foul-mouthed twat waffle who was obviously used to getting his way.
He stood over me and the female mediator and adopted aggressive postures to try and intimidate us.
He continued to make biting personal remarks about Nick and say the whole hearing was "a fucking waste of time." He questioned who I was within the company and hinted that Nick was a coward for not coming to the hearing himself. He mumbled sarcastically whenever I spoke and attempted to talk over me.
I tried to take the high road by looking off into middle distance and ignoring him but he was relentless and I finally reached a breaking point.
While the mediator was out of the room making copies of supporting documents, the twat waffle again tried to engage me and said that, "the whole hearing was a fucking joke."
I had observed before that he had rather prominent front teeth with a large gap between them.
I decided it was time to throw off the appearance of passivity.
I said he obviously didn't have reflective surfaces in his home and that if he wanted to see a fucking joke he should look into one.
At these words he fell silent and blinked several times in disbelief.
I had just spat out, "coming in here with your fucked up teeth," when the mediator returned with our copies.
We both turned our attention to her, smiled warmly and thanked her in sugary tones for our documents.
I would later recall that a microphone had been placed in the middle of the table to record the proceedings and that our little tiff would likely be reviewed by the mediator and possibly some of her coworkers.
Our faux civility would fool no one
Basically, the twat waffle tried to say that he had already paid for the outstanding amounts by providing a copy of bills for scaffolding and a foundation modification.
I countered that he had not, in fact, originally budgeted for scaffolding and that Nick had quoted him a price to use his scaffolding that was well below market value and had therefore given him a good deal.
I explained that men working without scaffolding was a violation of health and safety laws and could have caused the twat waffle to be fined or have his work site shut down.
I also pointed out that he had paid the bill immediately with no word of complaint or protest and that this is what is known as "acceptance by conduct" in Contract Law.
I next explained that the foundation work had to be modified because of the type of soil the house was being built on. The quoted price had become more expensive than expected because of this unforeseen fact. This had given rise to a variation of contract (another term I learned in Contract Law) and was even noted by the twat waffle in his bank payment.
I also pointed out that if the foundation had not been corrected the whole project would have been held up as the further construction of the house would be impossible.
I noted again how he had paid for the variation immediately and registered no complaint about doing so.
He finally claimed that since Nick and his workers had walked off site and refused to begin work on the other phases of their contract they had forfeited any previous claims to payment.
I then drew his attention to the fact that his own contract stipulated this was not the case and that section 24 of the Construction Contracts Act 2002 made it clear that suspension of work for non-payment of previous work did not prejudice the payment of outstanding bills.
I concluded by saying it was clear that the government never expected construction workers to continue working for free.
In a few weeks time we received notice of the Disputes Tribunal's decision in the mail.
I had won my first case.
Although the repayment was not immediately forthcoming, we eventually received the full payment of $6,760 and the twat waffle had to pay additional fines to the court for making them get involved and enforce the order.
This experience was just what I needed to convince myself that law was the right career choice.
I took great pleasure in recounting this story to anyone who would listen; professors, family members, fellow students, an imaginary Ted Talk audience, etc.
I would always conclude on a semi-bitter note by waggling my index finger in the air and proclaiming, "I may only be a middling law student, but by gawd, I can get results in a courtroom!"
So that was a highlight of the year and proof that I could take what I had learned in class and apply it successfully to a real world scenario.
Alas, I have just received my final grades: a C+ in Contract, B- in Crimes, B in 101 and B in 110.
Once again, I am a humbled, reformed character (at least until I win my first mooting competition next year).
I knew it would be a challenge because the university let me concurrently enroll in the first year core law courses as well as two second year courses.
I would later find out that these 200 classes, Contract and Crimes, were two of the hardest.
In fact, Crimes was notorious for being the most difficult.
I had confidence that my journalistic writing skills, advanced degree and high GPA would easily put me in the top of the class and make me a candidate for the prizes awarded to the best student in the 101 and 110 classes.
I now realize I was being insufferable and only hope I managed to keep it to myself.
"Comeuppance" would be an excellent word for what I received.
There were many difficulties.
Legal writing is nothing like journalistic writing.
It was my first time learning about New Zealand governance and Parliamentary functions.
The 200 level courses presupposed that one had already learned the foundations of law.
My test scores were mostly in the B range which shocked me. My Contract midterm earned a C. My second exam in 101 also earned a C.
I began the downward spiral of self doubt.
I cried, got angry, felt like an intellectual fraud and contemplated quitting.
I talked to other students who were going through similar experiences and felt a little better.
My academic adviser told me a PhD student who had switched to law had recently sat exactly where I was sitting and bawled her eyes out because she was struggling as well.
I went to the library and read up on legal writing skills.
I attended a talk by a visiting law professor from Cambridge named Graham Virgo. He told me many of his students who were former journalists thought they could ace legal writing and how he had to work with them.
"Well," I thought, "If some of the Cambridge kids are struggling..."
I worked hard and earned an A- on my next 101 exam.
I earned a B on my Crimes midterm and felt proud.
I wrote a lackluster paper on the topic of Consideration for Contract and earned a C+.
While my academic performance in Contract Law wasn't stellar, something extraordinary happened during this period that gave me a huge confidence boost.
My partner owns a small building company and through him I've come to learn that non-payment for work is rife in his industry.
One business he was subcontracted out to decided not to pay him for completed work and owed him $6,760.00.
We had just discussed the Disputes Tribunal in one of my classes and how it can adjudicate cases of up to $15,000 (or $20,000 with the agreement of both parties).
I am a huge fan of the Tribunals because they meet the need of many people who cannot afford lawyers and court fees.
They place both parties on equal footing by making them prepare their own statements and evidence. Lawyers are not permitted in the hearing unless there are special circumstances like representation of a minor child.
One person represents each party and gives their side of the story to a mediator. The mediator then issues their decision and it is binding on both parties and enforceable at court.
Nick agreed to let me put together the facts and represent him at the Tribunal. Actually, he said if he went himself he would just get into a fight with the other guy and probably take a swing at him. I encouraged him to refrain from assault and instead let me "beat the guy up" using the law.
I spent the next few weeks reviewing Nick's contract, bank statements, email correspondence and the existing legislation.
I had to anticipate the other sides's arguments and what they might counter argue.
The day of the hearing I sat across from an arrogant, foul-mouthed twat waffle who was obviously used to getting his way.
He stood over me and the female mediator and adopted aggressive postures to try and intimidate us.
He continued to make biting personal remarks about Nick and say the whole hearing was "a fucking waste of time." He questioned who I was within the company and hinted that Nick was a coward for not coming to the hearing himself. He mumbled sarcastically whenever I spoke and attempted to talk over me.
I tried to take the high road by looking off into middle distance and ignoring him but he was relentless and I finally reached a breaking point.
While the mediator was out of the room making copies of supporting documents, the twat waffle again tried to engage me and said that, "the whole hearing was a fucking joke."
I had observed before that he had rather prominent front teeth with a large gap between them.
I decided it was time to throw off the appearance of passivity.
I said he obviously didn't have reflective surfaces in his home and that if he wanted to see a fucking joke he should look into one.
At these words he fell silent and blinked several times in disbelief.
I had just spat out, "coming in here with your fucked up teeth," when the mediator returned with our copies.
We both turned our attention to her, smiled warmly and thanked her in sugary tones for our documents.
I would later recall that a microphone had been placed in the middle of the table to record the proceedings and that our little tiff would likely be reviewed by the mediator and possibly some of her coworkers.
Our faux civility would fool no one
Basically, the twat waffle tried to say that he had already paid for the outstanding amounts by providing a copy of bills for scaffolding and a foundation modification.
I countered that he had not, in fact, originally budgeted for scaffolding and that Nick had quoted him a price to use his scaffolding that was well below market value and had therefore given him a good deal.
I explained that men working without scaffolding was a violation of health and safety laws and could have caused the twat waffle to be fined or have his work site shut down.
I also pointed out that he had paid the bill immediately with no word of complaint or protest and that this is what is known as "acceptance by conduct" in Contract Law.
I next explained that the foundation work had to be modified because of the type of soil the house was being built on. The quoted price had become more expensive than expected because of this unforeseen fact. This had given rise to a variation of contract (another term I learned in Contract Law) and was even noted by the twat waffle in his bank payment.
I also pointed out that if the foundation had not been corrected the whole project would have been held up as the further construction of the house would be impossible.
I noted again how he had paid for the variation immediately and registered no complaint about doing so.
He finally claimed that since Nick and his workers had walked off site and refused to begin work on the other phases of their contract they had forfeited any previous claims to payment.
I then drew his attention to the fact that his own contract stipulated this was not the case and that section 24 of the Construction Contracts Act 2002 made it clear that suspension of work for non-payment of previous work did not prejudice the payment of outstanding bills.
I concluded by saying it was clear that the government never expected construction workers to continue working for free.
In a few weeks time we received notice of the Disputes Tribunal's decision in the mail.
I had won my first case.
Although the repayment was not immediately forthcoming, we eventually received the full payment of $6,760 and the twat waffle had to pay additional fines to the court for making them get involved and enforce the order.
This experience was just what I needed to convince myself that law was the right career choice.
I took great pleasure in recounting this story to anyone who would listen; professors, family members, fellow students, an imaginary Ted Talk audience, etc.
I would always conclude on a semi-bitter note by waggling my index finger in the air and proclaiming, "I may only be a middling law student, but by gawd, I can get results in a courtroom!"
So that was a highlight of the year and proof that I could take what I had learned in class and apply it successfully to a real world scenario.
Alas, I have just received my final grades: a C+ in Contract, B- in Crimes, B in 101 and B in 110.
Once again, I am a humbled, reformed character (at least until I win my first mooting competition next year).
No comments:
Post a Comment