The Divine Comedy (Cont’d)

I realised my knowledge on the different readings of The Divine Comedy has faded away and so I won’t attempt to show how it can be interpreted in a literal, allegorical and figurative way.
However, do still intend to show how Dante ‘tailors’ the punishment to the sin.
An example would be the purging of the sin Avarice in Purgatory. Avarice is love of worldly things, and in this tier of Purgatory the sinners are made to look constantly at the ground. Worldly things are as dust (the connection that we are made of the dust of the earth is triggered here) and so, rather appropriately, the sinners are punished by exactly the same ‘mode’ they used to love so much. In some cases the punishment is equivalent to the sin (ie similar, as in this case), in some just the opposite is recommended as the remedy – for example, in the ‘tier’ for purging Sloth, the sinners run (activity as opposed to inactivity).
Another interesting aspect of Purgatory is that Dante uses the opportunity to propagate his philosophy – Love is the root of all sins, just as it is the root of all salvation. Purgatory is divided by the seven deadly sins, purged by the seven cardinal values. How is love the root of all sins? Love in its perfect sense not, of course, but if you look at the following illustrations you would probably be able to understand his categorisation, although you might not buy into it: Greed is love diverted from the real aim (God) to something else, Wrath is love of justice (righteous anger) perverted.
Another aspect of Purgatory is that the sinners, one will soon realise, never want to venture out of their punishment. They willingly stay in their torture chambers, the best illustration I can give being the ‘tier’ where Lust is purged by fire (lusty people lack purity, and the image of fire purifying gold thus becomes an apt sort of punishment, if viewed from this angle) – Dante walks on the outer rim of the concentric circle of mount Purgatory at this point in time, but the sinners in the fire, though curious and extremely willing to make his acquaintance, take pains not to overstep and remove themselves from the realm of the fire.
Why? It seems incredulous but if one looks at this as a narrative prop to introduce a philosophy (something that seems to appear in medieval literature pretty often) Dante is merely trying to expound the view that Purgatory, unlike Hell, is for purging, not punishing, and that the sinners are, though subject to like pains, not that mindful and in fact willing. The key difference? Attitude. Also, sinners do not have a fixed time at each tier in Purgatory. Even more interesting is the concept that they are released from each tier when they themselves feel that the sins are purged. Dante’s philosophy is that God feels that we are purged when we ourselves feel that we are purged. He is not asking for an absolute, He is asking that sinners are really and truly repentant.
So if fundies and ‘moderate’ (pardon the misnomer, I don’t mean lukewarm) Christians ask, what is the point of Dante’s philosophy? I recall a church history class where Dante’s writings were attributed the blame for much of the medieval Church’s misconceptions regarding the afterlife, especially with regards Purgatory, and the division of Hell into many different sections according to the differing severity of each sin. Granted, sins are sins alike. There probably is no distinction of sins for Pure Goodness. But I appreciated the unusual and rather enlightening links that Dante provides in his writing. Apart from entertainment (I confess, I never grew out of nursery rhymes and fantasy) from his visions of Hell and Purgatory, Dante’s view of sins, whilst most probably not reflecting the true view that God takes of them, can prove to be a startling reminder to us about the severity of sins that we tend to neglect. Take Avarice. Avarice – love of dust. Dust! How does that sound to you? It is a sore and oft needed reminder that our obsession with worldly riches is but a weak addiction – onwards, the kingdom of heaven: gold and riches – these too will pass.

Dante’s The Divine Comedy

Dante Alighieri was an Italian poet of the 13th century. His Divine Comedy was an ambitious bit of poetry where he starred as the central character, himself, who, stumbling into Hell, becomes the extraordinary living soul who goes through Hell, Purgatory (a Catholic concept – at least in his time) and Paradise where he meets the love of his life Beatrice.
He is the most borrowed source that authors in English Literature like to borrow from, according to a preface of his book or a critical commentary on him that I read. So why is he so popular? He merged 2 popular narrative concepts of his time together – in those days people were probably rather unimaginative – that of the lover braving hell to find his lady (soppy as it seems) and that of a portrayal of the three different realms of the afterlife.
A second reason, that will probably appeal more to modern tastes, is that his portrayal of the three realms is just unsurpassed.
I couldn’t get The Divine Comedy – Hell in the copy that I wanted with critical notes and a glossary and all that, so my understanding of Hell is not as good as that of Purgatory’s.
Dante described Hell to be a funnel-shaped place from the ground of the earth at one point (I think it was directly opposite Jerusalem on the globe) leading down to the core of the earth. In this funnel that is Hell the place is divided into a system of concentric circles, and each circle is the torture chamber of sinners for a particular sin. As one gets deeper and deeper into Hell the sins are worse and worse and, accordingly, so are the punishments.
The brilliant thing is that Dante organises his circles of torture, there is an (I think) 3+3+3+1 structure for Hell, each number, say 3 concentric circles, form a group. So it’s first tier, 2nd tier, 3rd tier and the last tier for the most horrible sinners. There is reason behind his organisation, so that, even in these small things, there is a wealth of treasures (if, like me, you like symbolism) to explore. A critical analysis of Dante’s writings will show why he ordered the tiers such. I can’t say much of Hell, more for Purgatory. In Dante’s day (I don’t know about now, my knowledge on Catholicism is very limited) there was a belief that before souls that are redeemed by the Saviour Jesus Christ went to heaven after they died, they had to first purge (cleanse) themselves of all the horrid sins that they had committed before in their lives, and Purgatory was the place where they suffered all sorts of torments to be cleansed.
Purgatory is divided according to Dante’s own ordering of sins, just as Hell is. In Purgatory a philosophy that Love is the root of all sins is expounded, some examples will include how Wrath is love of justice perverted, Greed is love misdirected (instead to God, it is directed to earthly things) and so on. The order of Purgatory is such that the ‘lesser’ sins are at the top of Mount Purgatory (whereas Hell is a hollow into the ground, Purgatory is a mountain reaching to Paradise – see the symbolism?) – Dante puts Lust at the top, because Lust is Love misdirected to other persons, whereas Greed is, I think, the 3rd sin from the bottom, because it is not as ‘noble’ as Lust, when it is misdirected to earthly things, not other eternal souls. You might not agree, but the point is, Dante’s ordering actually follows a particular logic, and is not haphazard.
Another feature of Dante’s writings is that he likes to borrow from both Classical (Greek mythology), Christian (biblical) and current (his day, not ours) times. How so? For example, in Hell, there are the rivers Charon and Styx, from the Greek notion of Hell, and these rivers are manipulated to fit Dante’s own vision of Hell because he uses them conveniently to divide the different tiers in Hell. In Purgatory, in each tier (Purgatory is divided according to the seven deadly sins), there is a bridle and a whip of each type of sin to be purged. The bridle comprises examples of the opposite virtue of the sin; for example, in the tier where sloth is to be purged, the bridle will comprise examples of virtue taken from the Bible (usually from the life of Mary mother of Jesus) and Classical mythology, and the whip will be examples of sloth taken from the Bible (or Church history) and Classical mythology. So everything, yes, virtually everything, has a meaning to it.
Late now, will continue another day to discuss the standard structure of each tier in Purgatory and how Dante’s Comedy can be read on different levels: literal, allegorical, figurative etc.

Contract Law (continued)

11. What are the rules as to mistake of the identity of the person with whom the contract is made? Discuss with reference to decided cases.

Answer:
– identity of the person has to be material
– person contracted with knows he is not the one intended to be contracted with
– case: Fraud claiming to be famous person and sold an expensive good. As I remember this case was about some Fraud claiming to be a particular celebrity and hence was sold an expensive watch on credit. The cheque bounced. The watch company could not sue for the money back based on mistake of identity because it was held that the salesman was not purely intending to contract only with the particular celebrity mentioned – the identity of the person was immaterial – ie, so long as the person had the means to pay, whoever he was didn’t matter, and the contract was only entered into on the part of the watch company because the mention of that celebrity was an assurance that the person contracted with could pay for the watch.

12. Define a misrepresentation, and distinguish between fraudulent and innocent misrepresentation.

Answer:
– Definition: An untrue statement of fact, that is made to induce another to enter into a contract, which the other does upon the misrepresentation.
– Fraudulent misrepresentation: made with knowledge of the untruth but still deliberately made
– Innocent misrepresentation: is obvious so I didn’t write it down
– Negligent misrepresentation:
– careless but not dishonest
– difference compared to innocent misrepresentation: if it (the negligent misrepresentation) had been liable if made fraudulently, then the party made liable would be so unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe (in the misrepresentation)

13. Distinguish, with examples, between contracts made as a result of duress and those effected by undue influence.

Answer:
– Duress – threats of violence to / imprisonment of person / family
– Undue influence – influence under which no independent will is seen to make the contract

14. Enumerate contracts which are illegal (i) by statute (ii) at common law.

Answer:
– statute: (certain) gaming, wagering contracts, moneylending etc (nb please take this with a pinch of salt, I didn’t think much of this section so my notes were skimpy)
– common law:
– to commit a crime/tort
– sexual immorality
– freedom of contract
– champerty and maintenance:
– maintenance: third party abetting party to take action against another
– champerty: similar, but third party shares in recovered damages
– injure public service
– trading with the enemy
– in restraint of trade

15. In what ways may a contract be discharged? What is meant by the statement ‘a contract may be discharged by frustration’?

Answer:
– agreement to discharge by parties involved
– performance of the contract, fully
– breach
– frustration = subsequent impossibility
– operation of law – need to check up on this one

16. What remedies are available at law to a person who claims there has been a breach of contract?

Answer:
– refusal of further performance on the victim’s part
– action for damages:
– aim: restitutio in integrum – to restore both parties to the state at which they were before the contract had started
– breach has to have arisen naturally
– contemplation of both parties – need to read up too
– mitigation in damages (actions must have been taken on the victim’s part to minimise losses)
– action on a ‘quantum meruit’ (to get damages for ‘as much as he has earned’ – as much as has been performed on the victim’s part)
– action for specific performance (the court rules that the other party has to carry out certain actions befitting the contract)
– injunction – negative stipulation: where the court restraints the other party from doing particular things, I imagine this is used where the contract that has been breached must have had something to do with the defaulting party agreeing to be in restraint of a particular act but never followed through
– rescission – just end it, I think.

17. Distinguish between general and special damages.

Answer:
– General: damages that follow specifically from breach (ie the payment of such damages find their cause immediately arising from the breach) and are pecuniary (monetary) compensation
– Special: specially proved, not arising naturally
– nominal – where damages are awarded for a technical point in Law that the party awarded has argued successfully and won
– contemptuous – the party is acknowledged to have won the case theoretically, but in reality it does not amount to much change, so a token damage is awarded, called contemptuous damage
– exemplary – to make an example of, say, the defendant
– liquidated – has something to do with companies I think – need to read up!
– non-liquidated
– penalties (inserted in terrorum)

18. What is meant by ‘an equitable assignment’ of a debt or other chose in action?
– an assignment that does not comply with the requirements of a legal assignment, but can take effect as an equitable assignment

Contract Law

I was attached to a law firm for one and a half months, and besides reading lots of cases and attending several court hearings, when I didn’t have anything else to do I read a book I borrowed from the library on Law. It’s a very basic introduction and cannot match up to those whole textbooks those lawyers have on the different types of Law. But it worked as a starter to the concept.
I found the book’s end questions on each topic most useful to study the topic, so I shall just write out the questions and my answers to them (as found from the book).

1. Define a contract, and state the essential elements of a valid contract.

Answer:
A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties, by which rights are acquired by one or more to acts or forbearances on the part of the other(s) – consensus ad idem (there is a common agreement between the parties involved)
The essentials of a valid contract are:
offer and acceptance
intention to create legal relations
capacity
consent (genuine)
consideration – (nb) I did not note down the legal definition of consideration, but from what I remember, this means some benefit for each party involved that would make it seem possible for them, by common sense, to enter into the contract. The layman’s ‘what’s in it for me?’
legality
possibility of performance

2. Distinguish between an offer and an invitation to treat.

Answer:
An invitation to treat is an invitation to make an offer (eg auctioneer inviting bids / goods at a shop window enticing one to make an offer to purchase) whereas an offer is, well, an offer – a voicing out directly of an intention to purchase or do or whatever… (cripes I’m actually quite scared now, if by any chance a law student or lawyer is looking at this please be merciful and not bash me for the countless inadequacies in my explanation – this is a personal project. I will definitely not write this as an answer in my exams when I eventually study Contract Law.)

3. What is the effect of an acceptance ’subject to contract’?

Answer:
Parties are not bound until a formal contract is prepared and signed by them. The purpose of an acceptance ’subject to contract’ is to give the parties an opportunity to reflect on the matter, and change their minds if need be.

4. Describe the main rules regarding consideration:

Answer:
Consideration:
– must be real / genuine (not vague, either)
– need not be adequate, but must be sufficient (I really like this clause (I mean clause in a linguistic, not legal, sense) but when one thinks more about it one realises it can be a legal loophole – what does ’sufficient’ really mean?)
– legal
– consideration must move from the promisee (not only the one who is promised a right should have consideration due to him or her, but also the one who promises to carry out an act or forbear from it)
– consideration must be possible
– consideration must not be past (ie say your benefactor saved you from nearly getting hit by a car. That’s consideration for you. In return you promise to do something that will benefit your benefactor. That’s not valid in contract law, as it has already passed. Hard isn’t it.)

5. Distinguish between a guarantee and an indemnity.

Answer:
Indemnity means having another responsible for a benefit obtained by you, whereas a guarantee means you are primarily liable, and if you default, your guarantor, secondarily liable, must pay.

6. What is the doctrine of part performance? What are the 4 points that must be proved before the equitable remedy will be applied?

Answer:
(nb) I think I over-estimated my ability to memorise and recall confidently the doctrine of part performance, as I didn’t write it down (I’m copying from my notebook.) So from memory, it means what it says: part of the contract has been dutifully carried out by one party to the contract, whereas the other has not.
In order for a remedy to be applied … (nb an equitable remedy is a remedy that is available in the courts of equity. I am writing from a Common Law viewpoint, the British legal system and its commonwealth beneficiaries’. I confess my extremely inadequate understanding of the concept of equity; as far as my readings have taken me from the history of the Common Law system there were certain conditions or circumstances under which the courts were bound, by what was written in black and white, not to take action even though to do so would be wrong (I will not discuss whether morally or socially or … at present). Thus in response the courts of equity were set up so that these cases could be tried and a fair and judgement would be meted out.):
– the court must be able to compel performance (the nature of the contract has to be such that)
– part performance must be unequivocally referable to the contract
– it would be fraudulent to take advantage of lack of evidence so as not to compel performance
– oral evidence (that there was a contract and it was partly performed)

7. (I didn’t like the question, I suppose, because I struck it off my list)

8. What special rules apply to contracts by corporations?

Answer:
– All corporations are incapable of making contracts of a personal nature (like marriage)
– Chartered corporations are not restricted by charter (that set them up), but may be by law through injunctions, etc.
– Statutory corporations are restricted by statutes
– Registered Companies are subject to powers drafted
– Form of contracts are made under seal in cases where an ordinary person is required to do so.
(NB – as the book that I read happened to be published some time ago, say, in the late 80s, early 90s, content may not be as relevant now. Furthermore, as the book is on the English Law system, I felt sometimes that it didn’t really fit always with the laws of commonwealth countries. So really, take it as an intro. Definitely NOT the real thing.)

9. When will an ‘implied term’ be imported into a contract?
– to give the contract business efficacy:
I wrote ‘Moorcock – river bed’, which refers to an example that the book gave. Apparently it should be quite classic as I saw this example in another book. Can’t remember the exact details. Some company (A) let another company (B) dock the latter’s ship called the Moorcock at their river side docking area (now besides the lawyers I think I’m also offending shipping companies and their mates with my imprecise terminology – can’t believe I work at one now! Ahhhh!) but the river belonged to a third party. The river bed was too shallow for B to dock the ship safely and the ship suffered casualties as a result. B sued A, and it was decided that although the river didn’t belong to A but by claiming to B that B could dock at their pier (or equivalent), A has thus implied that the area was safe for docking and so B can successfully sue A for damages.

10. (It is too late and I have to work tomorrow! So I’ll finish this one and continue on another day) Distinguish between (i) a condition and (ii) a warranty, in a contract:

Answer:
A condition is the key clause in a contract, warranties are secondary.

Whoa. Just by doing this I actually feel rather disappointed at meself for not reading up lately on Law… really want to start on Torts but there’s always so much going on! Dear dear. Glad I like what I’m going to study in future. :)

The preamble before I start again

Lest anyone who reads this should be flabbergasted, I am now going to address my blog, at the same time that I am addressing anyone who might be reading this.
Dear blog, I am finally writing again. It was an unexpectedly long break from posting anything here at 2nd learning journey.
From my time at JC till now I think I have in a sense failed at living up to what I wanted to do in my nine months before university: I wanted to read up as much as I could on all those topics of interest of mine, and blog about them. But there was a twist in the tale and I ended up spending four months away on a working and learning holiday without easy internet access.
I now return to blog about what little I have learnt in those four months, mainly on contract law, Dante’s Hell and Purgatory, a career-finding manual called What colour is your parachute and some similar tips from a book on how to write one’s resume. I learnt a lot more in these four months about other things on Life, but I guess I ‘compartmentalise’ my life too much and this is my blog, on academic knowledge, and reflections on them.
Dear blog (dear myself rather), after my four months out there learning from the greatest teacher (save from God) called Life, I have decided that, whilst I love blogging about whatever I’ve learnt on paper, I’ve since come to appreciate learning life skills and applying them in the real world. Therefore please pardon if I’m not going to be writing as regularly as I envisioned I would at the end of 2006.
Now on to the real thing.