July 24, 2005
Charlie & the Chocolate Factory & Tort Law
Posted by Christine Hurt

Milwaukee, like the rest of the country, is having a heat wave.  This time last year, we had sweatshirts on to watch the Whitefish Bay Classic bike race, but today it was in the 90s.  Good time to go see a movie.  (However, in the middle of the movie, the electricity went out.  Too many window units running, I guess.)

I thought that I had closed the deal on going to see March of the Penguins, but my kids convinced me in the ticket line to see Charlie.  Although the movie is set in modern times, many parts of the movie are stubbornly anachronistic, and I'm sure that each updating or nonupdating was a conscious choice.  Factories seem pre-industrial; Veruca Salt's dad has a factory full of women who shell peanuts, for instance.  The chocolate factory has no health codes or safety standards.  Most interestingly, the movie seems to take place in a world without a Torts system, which fascinated me. 

In The Incredibles, the writers embraced the question of whether in out current Torts regime a superhero could go around saving people's lives and injuring them in the process.  In this movie, a gazillionaire invites five children into his factory, watches as they each contemplate a dangerous activity, gives them half-hearted warnings, and then stands idly by, giggling, as the children face painful and not quite reversible consequences.  I found it a little hard to believe that none of the parents didn't turn around to Mr. Wonka and threaten to sue him.  Hmmm.  Maybe I have a new exam question.

Torts | Bookmark

TrackBacks (2)

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d8345945d669e2

Links to weblogs that reference Charlie & the Chocolate Factory & Tort Law:

» Willy Wonka as defendant from Overlawyered ...
"Batman and The Incredibles aren't the only ones who might want to worry about being taken to court o ..." [more] (Tracked on July 27, 2005 @ 19:27)
» Charlie and the Chocolate Factory – PC police beware from The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns ...
"Like any parent with deferred-parenting skills might do, I took my kids to see Charlie and the choco ..." [more] (Tracked on August 1, 2005 @ 23:36)
Comments (9)

1. Posted by Ted on July 24, 2005 @ 21:50 | Permalink

See, the idea for the grotesque punishments inflicted upon the children in CatCF is to provide a moral lesson against gluttony, gum-chewing, slothful tv-watching, and plain spoilt brattiness. That lesson is somewhat obviated if the children are entitled to damages for consequences attributable to their own poor behavior. Which, come to think of it, is a good moral for the current state of the tort system.


2. Posted by Happy Fun Lawyer on July 25, 2005 @ 10:21 | Permalink

In the Gene Wilder version, didn't everyone have to sign a waiver before the tour started? Or was that just a confidentiality agreement?


3. Posted by Christine on July 25, 2005 @ 10:31 | Permalink

Interesting question about Wilder movie. I don't remember. There was no waiver in this one or confidentiality agreement, even though W.W. was supposedly concerned about spies. I also vaguely remember in the Wilder movie that there was a rule that no one could leave with anything from the factory. That rule was not mentioned or at issue this time.


4. Posted by Tim on July 27, 2005 @ 23:52 | Permalink

In the Gene Wilder version, the children and parents were required to sign a contract of about 200 pages after seeing it for about 10 seconds, or they would not be allowed in. In the end, those who violated the contract were left with nothing, except for Charlie, who, even though he violated the terms and was told he would have nothing, still didn't give up the secrets of the Everlasting Gobstopper to the evil Slugworth.

But I doubt the contract would be enforceable in the real world...signed by children without anything resembling a complete opportunity to know the terms? I don't think so.


5. Posted by Skipp on July 28, 2005 @ 8:34 | Permalink

Actually, in the Wilder version (no pun intended), the children (and maybe the parents) were required to sign a contract written on a wall. The contract started with foot-high letters and as one read it, the print got smaller and smaller until, above the signature lines, the print was so small it was unreadable.


6. Posted by Ted on July 28, 2005 @ 11:06 | Permalink

"Under section 37B of the contract signed by him, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become null and void if—and you can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy—'I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained,' et cetera, et cetera... 'Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum,' et cetera, et cetera... 'Memo bis punitor delicatum.' It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal."


7. Posted by Chris Boden on February 24, 2006 @ 17:33 | Permalink

The latin translates to...

Fax mind fire fame cultivate

Mindful twice punisher luxuriously


8. Posted by taso face on March 7, 2006 @ 13:45 | Permalink

YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!


9. Posted by AndimerForts on July 4, 2008 @ 16:10 | Permalink

As the primary backer of HD DVD, Toshiba spent a lot of money developing technology that they didn't get a lot of use out of. Some features from HD DVD players, like upscaling, fit nicely into standard DVD players. Others, like web-enabled content, aren't quite as applicable. Sure you could put the same capabilities into a DVD player, but with no official standard you'd be hard pressed to get anyone to take advantage of it.

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Bloggers
Papers
Posts
Recent Comments
Random Walk
Search The Glom
The Glom on Twitter
Archives by Topic
Archives by Date
July 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Syndicate The Glom
Subscribe

The Glom's Blog Network on Facebook:

Miscellaneous Links