It came to our attention today that Sarah Burnhardt (22), a fourth-year Commerce/Law student with $2.00 in her bank account and $2.50 in coinage, decided to purchase a sausage on bread (with onion). This is despite the fact she owed a debt of One Soy Flat White, Two Sugars ($4.50), to her friend, Tom Johnson.

After conferencing with our team of skilled legal minds, we have grown concerned that Sarah may have contravened s588G of the Corporations Act 2001 - the duty to prevent insolvent trading.

Much like the poem Invictus suggests one is the master of their own fate, and the captain of their own soul, we have concluded Sarah was the director of her own wallet (or ‘coin purse,’ as she wishes it to be called). The Act thus places Sarah under a duty to prevent insolvent trading. With a debt of $4.50 at 11am today, Sarah effectively had $0.00, which keen-eyed legal eagles will note is just 1 cent shy of being insolvent.

But with the purchase of the $2 sausage, it seems Sarah’s duty has been cruelly violated by the twin evils of a Coles pork sausage, and Hi-Fibre, Lo-GI white bread.

The Act states clearly that Sarah commits an offence if she incurs a debt, and becomes insolvent by incurring said debt. There is no provision for sausage debt specifically, leading our legal team to become a little confused.

But by referring to the Sausage Act 1987, and the Sizzle Act 2001, we have concluded that young Sarah has ultimately breached s588G, leaving her without a leg to stand on, and leaving Tom without a coffee.

Similarly, we have been left without much of a clue, as we only thought through this joke to this point.

We don’t even study Corporate, we just poked our nose into Sarah’s affairs. Does contravening s588G mean the death penalty, or a slap on the wrist? Again, we genuinely don’t know.

The one thing we know for sure, however, is that any price greater than $2 for a sausage on bread is daylight robbery. Like, don’t be getting greedy, UQ Breakdance Club, just take the $2 and be grateful for what you’re given.