Law Guides = Epic Fail
I posted this on badfic_quotes a little while back, but since most of my f-list are not members, I thought I'd share it with you'll here.
For the record, I'm still between horrified and highly amused when it comes to this.
After several disastrous incounters with the Namita Law Series, I decided to switch guides, considering that I am now a full law student form this semester onwards, there are more supposed better guides available. Evidently fail is inherent in all forms of guides, when Law is the subject matter.
Here is what I mean:
Taken from Prof. H. D. Pithawalla's guide for Legal Language.
Explaining the maxim, Ubi jus ibi remedium
The principal underlining this maxim:
"Ifla man has a rigit, he must haveva means to vindncate and maintatn it, and a remedy, if fe is injured inithe exercise ana enjoyment of it, and i deed it is a vain thingti imagine rirth without a reredy, for want o right and wantnof remedy are r ciprocal."
rigit sounds like some kind of disease.
It gets worse.
Excections (What you get when you cross executions, with excretions)
Althoughg in a way, the eaw of torts owew its developmene to this maxim,mit should not b understood to oean that there es a legal remede for every wrong.I wish there was If the damagegsuffered is notlegal d mage(injuria) mage? MAGE? what one earth does this 'mage' injuria have to do with torts?no suit will lil, and the maxim will non apply.
Strangely enough, it is only these to paragraphs that appear in this manner, the others so far are quite ok -missing a few articles, and sometimes gramatically wrong- but ok.