An amazing sign appeared in London recently. The “considerate builder scheme” sign announced that workmen around the capital are going to try to become better neighbours by keeping noise and disruption to a minimum (and attempt to curtail their melodic appreciation of passing skirts, presumably). Have we really reached the state of such litigiousness that we have to institute such schemes in order to assure the passing Meldrews that there is a genuine effort to reduce the likelihood of builders’ inconsideration? I’d love to know the instructions that the builders go through, many of whom have probably spent several years in blissful ignorance or apathy to their perceived inconsideration – “Terry, dear, do try to drop those bricks less loudly will you, please?” and, “Dave, you do realise that not all passing ladies are partial to tuneful accompaniment.” Yeah, that should work.
Two adverts on the radio recently encouraged my feelings of incredulity and frustration that have come with our increasing realisation that we are living in a litigious world. We have all been amazed at how coffee comes in cups with a warning that the, “contents are hot”, and that packets of nuts might, “contain nuts”. Well, here are another two.
The first is for Nicotinel, the product that tries to help people to give up smoking. The ensuing legal bollocks states that their product, “requires willpower”. Really – oh damn. And I thought I could simply apply this patch, despite the fact that I really would like to continue smoking and I just bought 400 cigarettes on a cross channel ferry, and then I would simply give up. I’d love to see the potential legal suit which might have forced this additional caveat. “It’s all Nicotinel’s fault. They owe me lots of money because they didn’t point out that I required any willpower whatsoever. If only I had known, I would never have bought their product in the first place, which actually constituted all the willpower that I was willing (or able) to spare.” I’m sure the judge would be understanding…
The second advert was for Durex Performer Condoms. The legal babble for this advert states that this product, “might help to improve performance.” Again, the potential law suit is intriguing. “I would like to bring this case against Durex, who stated that their condoms would help to improve my performance. I was duped. I am still as useless as I always was.” Cue fits of giggles amongst judge and jury, who then ask the individual to present the star witness(es). She / He / They then attest that, despite his bar room chat and general bravado, the individual in question had, quite frankly, just not lived up to expectations and was, as he says, “as rubbish as before”. [The chap looks regretfully at his boots and sighs mournfully] The litigant’s mother could then appear to state the shame and humiliation that had been brought upon the family name, before breaking down in tears unable to look at her son. Luckily, Nicotinel and Durex have now covered their own backs… which is clearly a good thing as we couldn’t possibly have a world where everyone wasn’t looking to sue everyone else.
So, if we shouldn’t be able to sue for this sort of bollox, what should we be suing for? Well, I have a suggestion: how about crap service on the trains? [Service, n. – a facility providing the public with the use of something, such as water or transportation.] The “use of something”, eh? Well, might I be able to sue then when my daily commute was more than doubled for the first two weeks of January, causing me to be late for work and late for home? You’d think so, wouldn’t you? Or, as Baldrick might say, “is that just litigious gobblychook”?
Posted January 19th 2004
Scholey.com 