Viriaz vs. Carlantanda

Alistair Young

Oct 16, 2017

Viriaz vs. Carlantanda, District Court of the Lesser Rocks, 4001: In a case arising from an incident in which Viriaz was defrauded of several hundred esteyn by Carlantanda by means of the well-known “shell game“, respondent Carlantanda advanced that by the principle of long-standing custom (as seen in the brawler’s bar), and inasmuch as within delta of every sophont in the galaxy is familiar with the shell game, plaintiff Viriaz consented to play the game in full knowledge of its fixed outcome. Amicus briefs were filed for the plaintiff by the Baranithil Station Guide & Path-Pointer Association, and for the respondent by the Consequential Didaxis Non-Discouragement Faction.

The District Court found for the plaintiff, Justice Víënéra dissenting.

– Curial Summaries: Significant Historical Precedents in Imperial Law

law, shell game

← Bonfire of the "Elites" | Because Engineers' Puns Never Change →

Related posts

Shell Game

90. Don’t play the shell game on Paltraeth. They use a different kind of shells. - 145 Things Not To Be Done In The Associated Worlds The Paltraeth variant of the game is played using three obsolete artillery shells and a sledgehammer. In theory, one of the shells has

On Preextant Properties

Little more need be said on the matter of thoughts and chattelry; in truth, the Word is the thing and the whole of the thing: All the works of your hands: Stone and metal, wood and water, fire and wind. All that your will creates. These things are forged in

Curiously Enough, This Came Before Software

contract module: To avoid both unnecessary repetition, and to avoid the additional labor of poring over the mass of said repetition in search of differences from the commonplace form, Imperial contract law has long embraced the use of contract modules, sets of predefined and referenceable clauses and specifications to address

Some Ancient Questions

Have a random selection of answers to old questions and comments that came up while I was clearing out my e-mail: In our world, there is a Spanish proverb that runs: Ladrón que roba a ladrón tiene cien años de perdón (memorably quoted in translation by the villian of The

Stealing From Yourself

The Advocate for Guilt has cited the existing precedent set by this Court in Ulpiaj v. Ulpiaj (7918), affirming that for one sophont to appropriate property from themselves in the past constitutes theft, inasmuch as a worldline-past time-slice of an individual cannot consent to the actions of a worldline-future time-slice.