Sparkling white wine in glasses at Mercedes Benz Fashion Week Australia at Carriageworks in Sydney, Thursday, April 10, 2014. (AAP Image/Jennifer Polixenni Brankin) NO ARCHIVING

Please note the introduction of the following amendments to The Social Contract. These matters pertain specifically to Appendix F: Romantic Relationships.

Importantly, the wording here specifies that the term “romantic” when appended to the word “relationships” in this context does not “in any way signify any requirement whatsoever of any romance of any kind”. In fact, the term “romantic relationships” is taken to mean “any relationship wherein the persons involved share an abode and/or finances and/or a Netflix account and/or a memory of having once kissed”.    

Alert readers will notice in section 2(b)(iii) that the phrase “I thought you packed it” or “any variation thereof” is no longer considered “a defence to anything, ever, so help you God”.

The law in relation to name-remembering has been clarified in this update. It is now clear that it is an implied term of any romantic relationship that (see 7.8.1): “at any event where Partner A knows more people at a function than Partner B, AND where Partner A is deficient in the area of name-remembering”, the law states that Partner B must:

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial and get Crikey straight to your inbox

By submitting this form you are agreeing to Crikey's Terms and Conditions.

(a) Unilaterally introduce him or herself; AND

(b) Ask for any names that aren’t repeated; AND

(c) WHEREAS it is implied that Partner A “is and will forever be” grateful for the performance of this duty and WHEREAS it is considered a “significantly onerous duty as to require some form of payback” (see “Points System”, below) it is also hereby stipulated that Partner A may, in response to said performance of duty, declare outrage at having not been allowed to perform the introduction. (Some form of “Oh! I was just about to do that!” seems acceptable here).

The last update is the controversial introduction of the Relationship Points System.

As expected, it is complex, nuanced, fraught, and comes in at 158 pages. Without doubt, this area of law will be rigorously debated. One clear determination, though, is that where points are traded in “duties, tasks and chores”, all chores are not equal but the SAME chores ARE equal. E.g. If one person cleans the bathroom and receives no praise but the other person does so and expects a ticker-tape parade, the latter forfeits all rights to any points for the next twenty-four (24) hours. We will watch the litigation in this area with interest.

Stay tuned here for updates.

Remember: ignorance of the law is no excuse.