Thursday, January 19, 2012

Law cartoon: Impute vs Infer

This cartoon, which pastiches the work of the pop artist Roy Lichtenstein, which was itself a pastiche of comic art, recently accompanied an article in a law magazine.

It was about the legal problems involved in separations with "cohabitant" couples. The difficulty appeared to be trying to establish what the parties' intentions had been, as there was no marriage contract, and the fine legal definition as to whether these were inferred or imputed ...

Yes, I was lost too! But I think I got enough of a gist of the topic to come up with the right cartoon. A law firm has just bought a colour print of it, so I suppose I must have.

Click here to buy Royston's cartoon book


  1. I agree, Royston. Such dry publications are actually perfect for cartoon these days, surely. Newspapers used to be dry-as-a-bone print-heavy sheets which needed alleviation by such things as cartoons and graphics. Now the opposite is true - papers are glitzy, colourful things where eye-popping primary colours compete for the attention of a grazing reader. A cartoon has to compete with all this eye candy. In a law mag, well, you've got a head start.

  2. True, though with newspapers it's not always about competing with graphics, because being flashy and eye-catching isn't always the point of cartoons. You often hear people say "Did you see the Matt cartoon in the Telegraph?", but you rarely hear them say "Did you see that amazing graphic?"



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...