If I was more excited about my agenda today, I'd be in a coma

[ciroccoj]

1. Property
   • The Commonwealth of Australia v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd.
     
   • United Artists Corp. v. Pink Panther Beauty Corp
     
   • Heffron v. Imperial Parking Co
     
   • Bird v. Town of Fort Frances
     
   • Attorney-General of Canada v. Brock
     
   • Introduction to Real Property
     
   • Adoption of English Real Property Law in Ontario
     
   • 221-231 Mossman text
   
   
2. Contracts
   • Fuller, "Consideration and Form"
     
   • Statute of Frauds
     
   • Deglman v. Guaranty Trust
     
   • Remax Garden City v. 82894 Ontario Inc
     
   • Consideration: The Basic Concept
     
   • Thomas v. Thomas
     
   • White v. Bluett
     
   • Hamer v. Sidway
     
   • Eastwood v. Kenyon
     
   • Roscorla v. Thomas
     
   • Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long
   
   
3. ADR
   • Gregorio v Intrans-Corp
     
   • The Ethics: Theory
     
   • analyze the two cases
     
   • apply the cases and Ethics to 4 hypotheticals
   
   
4. transfer notes to red book
   
5. call Legal Aid re. wills and who can perform marriages
   
6. parking ticket
   
7. Gypsum's Habeas
   
8. Bast's fic
   
9. answer e-mail
   
10. filter out e-mail
    
11. start sewing tunic
    
12. make bread
    
13. make cranberry sauce
    
14. write out interrupting thing for Chris
    
15. print out Promises
    
16. GyneGuy
    
17. clean up Stat Count
    
18. answer e-mail re. Choir

Later Edit: Big hugs to senza, for being you.

Reading your journal is both delightful and depressing. Delightful, because I learn a hell of a lot and get to read the thoughts of somebody who actually uses their brain. Depressing, because I'm often left wondering why the majority of people three times your age don't bother to use their brains at all.

I mentioned to Chris that I'd read something in your journal that I didn't fully agree with, and had responded with my own thoughts on the matter. And as I was telling him about it, I realized that it didn't matter whether I was able to "persuade" you from your position to mine. I knew that you'd read, and think, and decide whether my points were valid to you or not, based on actually thinking. Not just scanning through to come back with some angry retort that boiled down to "Nyah! You're WRONG! Because you just ARE!! And... because I'm RIGHT! Because I SAID SO!!"

And it was astonishingly refreshing to be able to feel that way :) :)

Even Later Edit: Does anybody think there might have been a better way to word this?

Section 6 of the Trade-Marks Act: 6.(1) For the purposes of this Act, a trade-mark or trade-name is confusing with another trade-mark or trade-name if the use of the first mentioned trade-mark or trade-name would cause confusion with the last mentioned trade-mark or trade-name in the manner and circumstances described in this section.

Sounds like some big Monty Python fan was given carte blanche and took advantage of it.

The case is actually pretty neat though - United Artists had trade-marked "The Pink Panther" with respect to movies, music, etc, and another company, Pink Panther Beauty Corp, wanted to trade-mark "Pink Panther" in Canada with respect to hair care products. The US trial judge who heard the case ruled against United Artists at least in part because the words "Pink Panther" were not terribly well-known in Canada.

We don't get Pink Panther movies in our igloos, you see ;)