Rule of Law
Don’t drop a beer on a man’s balls, especially when he’s playing Mario Kart
Case Summary
In a game of skill, I was playing Mario Kart, mid-race. Three others were playing against me. Bucky was not currently playing, as he had recently lost and had to forfeit his controller. One current player requested a beer from the box of beer. Bucky handed him a beer. I requested no such beer. Bucky still proceeded to drop a beer on my balls from approximately one foot in the air. I believe the beer was a craft beer of some sort.
From the Bench
A ruling has not yet been issued on this case.
Is this a Man Law violation?
Cast your vote by clicking yes or no.
What do you think of this case?
Rate this case on a scale of 1 (bad) to 5 (great).
/rating_on.png "1 Star")
/rating_half.png "5 Stars")
Loading...
Agreeing with the judgment of my distinguished colleagues in this case, I write separately to clarify that the basis of my concurrence is the clear anti-competitive nature of actions like those of the defendant, which tend to restrict the availability and value of goods on the general market. Such attempts to create and maintain artificial scarcity are properly condemned by all tribunals, though I maintain my objection to the exclusive jurisdiction of this court to entertain such claims.
The learned justice mistates the facts, and therefore I must dissent. First, no Mario Kart was in fact being played at the time. Second, Bucky had not yet lost at this point. Mr. White was not drinking beer – thus creating as a question of fact whether he actually had balls that beer could have been dropped upon.
With reference to the antitrust contention, there is precedent for eliminating competition when power is being used unfairly. Mr. White was recently accorded the power to make certain seating decisions at certain banquets. This power was abused to make anticompetitive and monopolistic approaches to certain females.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
This is for sure a man law violation… no spilling of beer, first! And second, no excuses play like a champion!
Ursa Major posted: Agreeing with the judgment of my distinguished colleagues in this case, I write separately to clarify that the basis of my concurrence is the clear anti-competitive nature of actions like those of the defendant, which tend to restrict the availability and value of goods on the general market. Such attempts to create and maintain artificial scarcity are properly condemned by all tribunals, though I maintain my objection to the exclusive jurisdiction of this court to entertain such claims.
Badgerus Minorus posted: The learned justice mistates the facts, and therefore I must dissent. First, no Mario Kart was in fact being played at the time. Second, Bucky had not yet lost at this point. Mr. White was not drinking beer – thus creating as a question of fact whether he actually had balls that beer could have been dropped upon.
With reference to the antitrust contention, there is precedent for eliminating competition when power is being used unfairly. Mr. White was recently accorded the power to make certain seating decisions at certain banquets. This power was abused to make anticompetitive and monopolistic approaches to certain females.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Too few facts presented:
-Was the beer open or closed?
-Did you win previously by any unmanly efforts?
-Were you seated in such a way as to make available your balls for a bag tag?
And to add, if the beer was not spilled and you had opportunity to Man Up and open and consume aid beer but took to bitching rather than drinking, you are now in violation.
All relevant questions.
Thank you for the article.
Great blog that I enjoyed reading.