Well-known court cases in real life: a new game for IP lawyers

IP Draughts has invented a new game for people who have studied law.   One person says the name of a well-known court case, and another person has to say something interesting about the case or the parties.  However, the interesting fact has to be entirely irrelevant to the decision in the case.  Let’s give a couple of examples:

Case: Hadley v Baxendale 1854 (leading case in both the UK and US on the distinction between direct and indirect/consequential losses in contracts; concerned late delivery of a spare part for a mill)

Interesting fact: Baxendale traded under the name Pickford & Co.  In 2011, Pickfords continues to be a leading carrier in the UK, moving the house contents of nearly 140,000 people each year.

Case: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking 1970 (leading English case on whether terms and conditions displayed in a multi-storey car park were binding on a customer; only visible after ticket taken at entrance)

Interesting fact: IP Draughts tried to park in Shoe Lane Parking (it is near Fleet Street, in London) 2 weeks ago.  It is now a very old car park (see link to case report above; it was opened in 1964), appears to have been designed for small cars, and we couldn’t find a big enough space.

You get the general idea.  Are any IP lawyers from board-game companies reading this post?  Are we on to a winner?  Can we protect this idea?

2 Comments

Filed under General Commercial

2 responses to “Well-known court cases in real life: a new game for IP lawyers

  1. I think its a lovely idea. I’m very dyslexic and one implication of that is that it is hard for me to remember names on their own without any semantic associations. I found that, during my diploma, it was much easier to remember cases if I knew lots of irrelevant details about them. I could then visualise the case better and recall was improved. So, in a sense, I played this game a lot as a law student.

    For example, for some reason I find the Shoe Lane Parking case easier to remember because, as we all know, Francis Thornton was a trumpeter going to play for the BBC. That extra (and quite irrelevant) detail makes all the difference.

    The best example of this I have every experienced comes from Professor Edward Burn, who used to pepper his lectures with this kind of detail (one of the reasons why I performed so well in Land Law I am sure).

    In discussing Hurst v Picture Theatres [1915] 1 KB 1, he explained Mr Hurst’s unhappiness, as a contractual licensee, at being unable to do more than get his money back. As the professor said “He didn’t want his money back, he wanted to watch the film. It was a film about Lake Garda. Have any of you ever been to Lake Garda?” He then went on to (1) describe Lake Garda and how lovely it was; (2) describe Catullus’s family villa there and (3) quote from Catullus’s poetry about the Lake.

    Of course I have absolutely no way of forgetting it.

  2. Mr Pettifog

    Stick to the day job young man!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s