A bit off topic, this. Taiwanese students show how you can exploit the Pizza Hut rule ‘One trip to the salad bar’ (photos).

I wonder what the glycaemic index of those piles of cucumber is?

(Via rebecca’s pocket)

Here’s a bizarre item on Quizilla. I’m afraid I can’t remember where I found it. I particularly liked the pepperoni pizza question:

You are the Rule of Lenity! You interpret

ambiguities in penal statutes in favor of the

accused. You’re a laid-back kind of rule and

concerned with not being too quick to judge.

You’re soft on crime.

Which Canon of Statutory Construction are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Btw, I wasn’t at all laid back and lenient about the beer, just about the pizza and the attractive member of the opposite sex.

And here’s what I learnt in the distant past about the interpretation of statutes:
the literal rule (take the obvious meaning if it’s reasonably clear), the golden rule (give words their ordinary meaning unless it would be absurd), the mischief rule (what mischief was the Act designed to cure? interpret in conformity with that aim), the eiusdem generis rule (a list of specific items is to be regarded as exhaustive unless followed by general words).

Alpmann Brockhaus lists some German rules, but I won’t go into those!
grammatische Auslegung, systematische A., historische A., genetische A., teleologische A., erweiternde A., verfassungskonforme A., richtlinienkonforme A. And in the case of wills: erläuternde A., ergänzende A., wohlwollende A.

RollOnFriday recently had a competition for the best-named law firm. This was not about fictitious firm names, like Private Eye’s Sue Grabbit & Runne or the Marx Brothers’ Dewey Cheatem & Howe, but existing names (although ‘Wright Hassle’ – actually Wright Hassall – had already been named by the organizers and was therefore excluded, as was Godloves Solicitors (note their businesswomen’s breakfast club)).

The winner was a Chinese firm called Deep & Far, with no Messrs. Deep or Far in sight.

Founding partner Mr. C. F. Tsai explains the reasoning behind the name: “because I want my firm to be deeply rooted in Taiwan first and then far all over the world.” And we love the profiles – “Ya Ping Chou: An ordinary, simple family is what she belongs to… For the sakes of health and beauty, she is fond of cooking for herself and makes exercise a habit.”

Second place goes to Boss & Young of Shanghai (apparently “he left his job as associate to start the Chinese firm with a partner to be his own BOSS when he was very YOUNG”).

Are there German equivalents? I can only think of long names like KSB Intax Knoke Sallawitz v. Bismarck Brauer v. Bock Wendenburg (although the KSB Intax part looks like an abbreviation).

Answers.com has a somewhat eclectic list of law firms, and if you scroll down there is a list of fictional law firms (including, from The Simpsons, Luvem and Burnem Family Law).

And here’s Jeremy Blachman, looking for law firm names that sound convincing that he can borrow for a novel. Some commenters offer their own names, for instance Chris Z M Csefalvay IV, who, if he really exists, has a German Abitur.

Wordlab, of course, has been here before, linking to an article at law.com on naming law firms.

BBC Prime, at 20:30 on March 1 2006:

bq. HOME FROM HOME-Sidmouth/Munich (Lifestyle)
Families, couples and individuals from different countries swap homes for a holiday. As they settle into their new environment, the travellers gain a unique perspective on the everyday lives of their absent hosts. Today the Nancekievills swap their modern holiday home in Devon with Sabine and Gerwin Zott from Munich, Germany.
He\Dk\Cz\Po\Hu\Ro\It Subtitles

What differences will they notice? Let’s see – the Munich shower will work properly, but they can’t get any clotted or even double cream or see the sea.

Riccardo Schiaffino (of About Translation) and Franco Zearo have started a blog on translation quality and quality measurement.

Schon am 19. Februar brachte die Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung einen Artikel zum englischen Scheidungsrecht (danke an Handakte WebLAWg).

bq. Colin Montgomerie hatte Pech. „Da habe ich wohl ein wenig abdrücken müssen”, war der trockene Kommentar des schottischen Golfspielers zu seiner Scheidung. 25 Millionen Pfund Vermögen besaß er, fast 15 Millionen davon mußte er seiner Exfrau angeblich zahlen. Deftig, aber bei Scheidungen in Großbritannien üblich.
„Nirgendwo ist das Scheidungsrecht so günstig für Frauen wie bei uns”, sagt Sandra Davis, Leiterin der Rechtsabteilung für Familienrecht bei der Anwaltskanzlei Mishcon de Reya in London.

In England und Wales gibt es keine ehelichen Güterstände. Selbst wenn ein Ehevertrag geschlossen wurde, kann das Gericht entscheiden, welche Aufteilung des Vermögens billig ist. Im Fall von Montgomerie verzichtet seine Frau auf zukünftiges Einkommen.

Der Grund der Scheidung war, wie immer, dass die Ehe unheilbar zerrüttet war (irretrievable breakdown). Die Tatsache, die diesen Grund unterstützt, war Verhalten des Mannes, das zu dulden von der Frau nicht erwartet werden kann (‘unreasonable’ behaviour – in diesem Fall Besessenheit mit Golf).

bq. Zudem schaffen es einige Frauen, sich einen Anteil des künftigen Einkommenspotentials des Ehemannes zu sichern. Die jährliche Unterhaltszahlung von 250.000 Pfund, die Julia McFarlane nun für sich durchsetzen will, würde ihr in Deutschland niemals zugestanden. Deutsche Frauen bekommen maximal drei Siebtel des Einkommens als Unterhalt gezahlt.

Na gut, im Fall Montgomerie war es ein außergerichtlicher Vergleich. Allerdings hätte man in Deutschland auch außergerichtlich nicht so viel erreicht, eventuell eben wegen der Unsicherheit vor Gericht.

James Turner QC has been arguing before the House of Lords that guidelines are needed (BBC News).

bq. The Law Lords should set guidelines on the division of assets in high value divorce cases, a leading barrister has claimed.
James Turner QC is acting for Alan Miller, a millionaire fund manager ordered to hand over £5m to his ex-wife after less than four years of marriage.
Allowing courts to use their discretion had led to arbitrary rulings, he said.
The case is expected to result in a clarification of matrimonial law in “big money” cases.