My friends, I long to see you so that I my export unto you some mind-boggling offering to make you strong and healthy.

I am obligated to both the enlightened and the sceptics, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to elucidate the tort also to you.

I am not ashamed of the tort of lunchmaking, because it is the power of fun for all who believe. For in the tort a silliness from sanes is revealed, a silliness that is by incredulity from first to last.

After a period of reflection and soul searching, I am finally in a position to bring forth to you, most noble and learned judges, a line of reasoning which I humbly and respectfully implore you to consider.


1. The matter of the ‘Brought Made Lunch’
Recently I was bestowed the privilege of reading the opinion of my most admirable and virtuous comrade Choo J, regarding the definition of a ‘made lunch’. Her wise words were as follows:

1. It must have been physically put together in some way prior to consumption, not necessarily at one's place of residence. However it must also have been manipulated by either the person consuming the lunch or someone whom the consumer has not purchased the lunch from.
2. It must not exist in the same physical form as it did when purchased from the shops, i.e. Something must be altered.

Such words do indeed achieve a major advance in the symmetry of the tort of lunchmaking. However, being less persuaded that they strengthen the utility or the justice of this branch of the common law, I am constrained to offer an approach which, although derived from concepts to be found in this opinion, would lead to principles different in some respects. Naturally I am diffident about disagreeing in any respect with comrade Choo J, but, alas, such assistance as I may be able to give in her deliberations could not consist in mere conformity and deference.

Firstly, it is important to understand that the legal and social principles should at all times be in unity with one another. The law is an instrument of justice. The principles of justice are fundamentally based upon social morals and standards. Accordingly, the law should also develop in agreement to these standards.

Now that we’ve got that clear, let us consider a cheese sandwich, made at home in the morning, with an intention to eat it at around noontime. Morally and ethically, such a thing would undoubtedly be considered a ‘made lunch’. In today’s capitalist society, the ‘sandwich from home’ is indeed a socially acceptable form of ‘made lunch’. In fact, many have come to know this thing of wonder as the ‘Great Australian Cheese Sandwich’, a cultural icon to our nation.

However, as we probe further into the conundrum, some disturbing truths confront us. Although the sandwich is ‘put together’ by placing a slice of cheese between two slices of bread, the cheese and bread themselves have not in any way changed in form. I am honest when I say that it still remains the same two slices of bread and a piece of cheese. Nothing is altered.

We are therefore ruthlessly forced to come to the undeniable conclusion that, if we, caretakers of the legal system, maintain that food materials must change in form during the process of ‘making lunch’, then we are effectively denying the possibility of anyone being able to ‘make’ a cheese sandwich for lunch.

Now how silly is that.

In light of this, I will like to tentatively suggest that my most rational and reasonable colleague Choo J has perhaps erred in asserting that the physical form of the food materials in a ‘made lunch’ must differ from that of which it was before it was ‘made’.


Obiter Time
As a bit of comic relief in between such serious matters, a bit of obiter for you: the development of the law must be coherent and rational.


Back to Serious Matters
Now let us get back to the serious matters.

Think about a cornthin.

Cornthins are an excellent idea for lunch. Authoritative sources, such as the front of the bag, declare that “cornthins are really good for you”.

However, according to Choo J’s definition of a ‘made lunch’, it seems that if I bring a cornthin for lunch, I cannot consider it to have been ‘made’ because as well as being in the same physical form as it was when purchased, it has also not been put together with anything else. Alas, it is ‘merely’ a cornthin.

But consider three cornthins.

There are no sensible differences between three cornthins and a cheese sandwich when it comes to ‘making lunch’. A cheese sandwich is two slices of bread with a slice of cheese whacked in the middle. Three cornthins also consists of two slices of cornthins with a slice of cornthin whacked in the middle. So if a cheese sandwich is ‘made lunch’, of which it undoubtedly is, then so too is a cornthin sandwich. Therefore it is rational and coherent to deduce that three slices of cornthins constitutes a ‘made lunch’.

Now let us think about one cornthin again.

It stands to reason that whether a lunch is ‘made’ or not should not be dependent upon the quantity of the food materials in question, but rather the quality. It is therefore absurd to maintain that while one cornthin is not a ‘made lunch’, a meal of three cornthins is.

And since one cornthin can be recognised as a made lunch, so too should one banana, one mandarin and other similar beverages. Doing funky stuff to the food like peeling and wrapping is not a requirement for it to be a ‘made lunch’ – that is just a bonus which allows you to have greater joy in the process of ‘making lunch’.

In view of this logic, I will like to thoughtfully suggest that my most revered and highly valued elder Choo J made a boo boo in stating that a ‘made lunch’ involves food materials that have been physically put together in some way.

Therefore I propose that, so far, upon consideration of the above reasoning, a ‘made lunch’ is anything that adheres to the following definition:
1. It is lunch that is brought.

But wait, there’s more. Much more.


The matter of the ‘Bought Made Lunch’
But first, a little bit more obiter for you: The fear of floodgates is a silly excuse.

Now back to the issue at hand.

I know that you are thinking that this definition is too narrow. And I agree with you. But remember, just because a cat is an animal and a cat is not a dog, it does not mean that a dog is not an animal. In the same way, just because a ‘brought lunch’ is a ‘made lunch’ but not a ‘bought lunch’, it does not mean that a ‘bought lunch’ is not a ‘made lunch’.

This is highlighted by my most special and normal compatriot Earnshaw J, who said:

Recently I have been frequenting the lower area of the collonade which has a sandwich bar. At this retailer one may "make" one's own sandwich(s) from raw materials provided. This sandwich which I have put together myself I then purchase.
i) The sandwich toppings are not cut up by me.
ii) I have to select toppings and bread, assemble and wrap the product.
iii) At the final purchase the sandwich is already complete.

Had Earnshaw J been at somewhere other than a retailer’s property, her action would unquestioningly constitute the ‘making’ of lunch. Indeed, the axiom which civilisation as we know it is founded upon is that putting a sandwich together constitutes ‘making lunch’.

So can one’s location at the time of ‘making lunch’ make them ineligible to claim as such? Certainly not! For as Choo J wisely voiced, it is not necessarily to be at one’s residence when one is ‘making lunch’. Therefore the sandwich which Earnshaw J put together can be considered made by her. It was something she both made and bought.

Also, when you think about it, ‘normal’ lunchmaking involves
1. buying food materials
2. the actual ‘making’ of lunch

In Earnshaw J’s case, this order was merely reversed. And, y’know, we really should not discriminate against people who might want to do things a little differently. Especially when the end result is the same anyway.

Therefore I am in a position to put forth the notion that it is possible to have ‘made’ a lunch that is also bought.

But wait there’s more.

Think back to what we decided a lunch that is both ‘made’ and ‘brought’ constitutes. Remember that an egg sandwich is definitely a ‘made lunch’, and consequently, so is a cornthin ‘sandwich’, one slice of cornthin, a mandarin, a banana and other similar food materials. Depending on your size and appetite, all these ‘meals’ have the ability to become a fulfilling lunch.

Now, regarding the ‘bought’ lunch. Making yourself a sandwich which you then pay for is, as proven above, still a ‘made lunch’. Accordingly, making a cornthin sandwich which you then pay for should also constitute a ‘made lunch’. Since three slices of cornthin can be considered a ‘made and bought’ lunch, so too should one slice of cornthin, and, undoubtedly, so too should a mandarin, a banana and other foodstuffs.

So we can see that any food from a self service foodstore can also be considered a ‘made lunch’.

This brings us to the next question. What about over-the-counter food?

When you think about it, there isn’t much difference between self-serve places and over-the-counter places. The only distinction is this: In a self serve place, you are getting food off the shelf that someone else has put there a while ago. In an over-the-counter place, you are grabbing some food off the counter that someone else has put there a moment ago. One’s action in both circumstances is still the same, and abide my similar underlying principles. Therefore, since the former action constitutes ‘making lunch’, so too should the latter. Similarly, there is also no distinction between grabbing lunch from a counter or shelf and grabbing lunch from another person’s (e.g. shopkeeper) hands. In all these circumstances, the action is still the same – i.e., the action of ‘making lunch’.

The blindingly obvious conclusion is this: Anything at all, bought or brought, can be considered a ‘made lunch’.

This truth is so rational that I have no idea why it requires so much explanation.


The matter of ‘Lunch’
Now, briefly, to the matter of what exactly ‘lunch’ is. According to my most distinguished and decorous cohort Choo J, ‘lunch’ is defined as follows:

1. It must consist of edible substances
2. Lunch is a meal which means that food must be consumed in the duration of it. Drinks or liquids do not constitute a lunch.

The first point I have no problem with. I think it is a great reminder that lunch indeed needs to be edible.

I also agree with the fact that lunch is a meal (this is yet another wonderful axiom).

But consider an orange. There are many fascinating things about an orange.
1. It is an edible substance.
2. It is a solid food.

Therefore it is lunch. I am relieved and glad to say that I agree with Choo J on this matter.

However, this definition does not leave room for solids that have been manipulated into liquid form: Suppose I change the physical state of the orange by juicing it. What was solid is now liquid, yet there is still no difference the content of what is eaten – that is, I am still eating the equivalent of an orange.

Choo J also recognised a fruit salad as a form of made lunch. A fruit salad is fruit chopped up into little pieces and then mixed together. But when you think about it, juice is also like a fruit salad – it contains fruit chopped up into very little pieces – so small that you can’t really see them. So although fruit juice and fruit salads may look different, the underlying concept for both is still the same. Therefore, if one is considered a ‘lunch’, then so too should the other.

What is more, I believe that the ratio of Choo v Chung (2000) UNSW 16 was that orange juice did indeed constitute a lunch, and a made one at that. This decision was held by Chung and Chu JJ, while the dissenting judge, Choo J, illogically, but probably accidentally, believed otherwise.

Universal authority also has something to say about this. Hebrews 5:14 declares:
“But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil”

This inherently suggests that some people, namely, those who have not trained themselves to distinguish good from evil, should be consuming liquids for their meals instead. (Indeed, man cannot live by bread alone). Hebrews 1:12 again pleads: “You need milk, not solid food!”

So if drinks or liquids don’t constitute a lunch, then does that mean these people will never get to eat lunch? That is absurd!

Rather, lunch should be defined as follows:
1. Anything edible, both solid and liquid.


Conclusion
In short, I therefore hold that a person can claim that they have ‘made lunch’ if the substance in question is edible, and owned by that person. Also, the general rule is that lunch is something that needs to be eaten some time after breakfast and/or before dinner.

Thank you and goodnight =Þ