Not guilty Your Honour. Of all the unconscionable things to suggest – I find with the utmost respect that they are far-fetched and fanciful suggestions; pure puffery in my humble opinion.

How’s that…. better?

@considerate band fair said:
I am recently reading “lawyer speak’ in a lot of replies and my eyes completely glaze over as I try to understand the words making patterns on this page.

Ironically, this very week a received a slap on the wrist on the Victoria-specific website (flatchat-vic.com) for referring to the part of my unit that was common property.

The writer rightly said that if something is part of my unti, it can’t be common property (and vice versa).

I could argue the point but you can see how we drift into legal-ese when we try to be not so much politically  correct as strategically specific.

I hate it when we adopt bush lawyerisms, accidentally or otherwise,  and there is no greater foe of hithertos and henceforths than yours truly.

I can only leave it to the timeless words of the Marx Brothers:

Groucho: So the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part.
Chico: Well it sounds a little better this time.
Groucho: Well, it grows on you. Would you like to hear it once more?
Chico: Just the first part.
Groucho: What do you mean, the party of the first part?
Chico: No, the first part of the party, of the first part.
Groucho: All right. It says the first part of the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the first part of the party of the first part, shall be known in this contract – look, why should we quarrel about a thing like this, we’ll take it right out, eh?
Chico: Yes, it’s too long anyhow. Now what have we got left?
Groucho: Well I’ve got about a foot and a half. Now what’s the matter?
Chico: I don’t like the second party either.
Groucho: Well, you should have come to the first party, we didn’t get home till around four in the morning. I was blind for three days.

From A Night At The Opera see it HERE on YouTube