Rattlesdene v Grunestone

Rattlesdene v Grunestone (YB 10 Edw II (54 SS) 140) is a 1317 case in English law.

Facts

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had sold him a bottle of wine but, before delivery, drew off much of the wine and replaced it with salt water.[1]

Commentary

The academics Mark Lunney and Ken Oliphant argue that in reality the case was likely the result of a shipping accident with the facts fabricated to allow the court to circumvent the vi et armis requirements which required that loss be suffered 'with force and arms' if a claim was to be brought.[2]

gollark: I mean, there are things which may make you wonder "what happened here" and inspire you to think of some sort of history (strongholds, mineshafts, etc.), but there is no actual explanation, and that's kind of part of the point of a *sandbox*.
gollark: * doesn't have lore exactly
gollark: Exactly.
gollark: That's very random, and it doesn't really *have* lore.
gollark: Presumably they can at least get a rough idea of where it *isn't*.

See also

References
  1. Handford, P. (2010) 'Intentional Negligence: A Contradiction in Terms?, Sydney Law Review, p. 34
  2. Lunney, M. and Olipant, K. (2013), Tort Law: Texts and Materials, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 5
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.