Intruding House of Courts
3 July 2000



Anderson J
In considering what constitutes a made lunch we must first consider the various states that a lunch could take. The statement put forward by Earnshaw J and supported by the High Court of Daylite: "Now there are two possible things your lunch can be. And if it isn't bought, then it's made." indicates two possible states.

However this supposition was found to be in error by Choo LJ, who put forward a third state that a lunch my hold which she labelled the 'bought, made lunch'. This category refers mainly to those lunches obtained from institutions such as a self-serve sandwich bar, where the sandwich is 'made' by the consumer and also paid for by that very same consumer.However Choo LJ went on to give the example of a bottle of orange juice as something that does not fall into any of the above categories and therefore doesnot constitute a lunch.

But Chung J had previously argued that orange juice may be considered a lunch, in stating that orange juice is an orange cut into very very tiny pieces. She claimed that in consuming orange juice "I [Chung J] am still eating the equivalent of an orange." But wait, my learned non-colleague, you are not eating the equivalent of an orange, you are drinking it! I believe that the difference between eating and drinking is a vital component of the definition of a lunch (a definition to be stated later in thisconcourse). I shall not yet confirm or deny that 'made', 'bought' and 'bought, made' are three states of lunch, we mustexplore further.

In order to explore further and ultimately to define the states of which a lunch may take, we must first make the fairly safe assumption that a 'made lunch' is a valid description of a lunch, i.e. that a 'made lunch' may exist. We can therefore go on to assume that 'made' refers to one or more of the of theaffore-mentioned 'lunch states'.

We must now consider whether there exist any lunch states that are not refered to by made. Hon J put'sforward a very valid point:

This would seem to be a very simple and easy solution to our problem, however, I fear that the definition of 'made' slightly differs when used in the context of a 'made lunch' as opposed to how it is usually used. We must remember to always keep things in their context, especially bible verses (Chung J should note).

I shall proceed to put forward my own definition of a'made lunch'.
note: numbering denotes seperate parts of a single difinition, it does not denote alternate definitions as is the standard

'made lunch', a definition:

  1. it is a lunch, i.e. 'made lunch' is a subset of 'lunch'. (see 'lunch' below)
  2. it is made up of one or more food items that have been manipulated prior to consumption to an adequate extent by the consumer or a person who had the specific consumer in mind during manipulation and proceeded to hand on the lunch to the specified consumer free of charge. (see 'manipulation to adequate extent')

'lunch', a definition:

  1. it is edible.
  2. there is a consumer such that the original intents of the consumer were to consume (specifically eat) the lunch at approximately noon.
  3. it is solid in entirety or in part

manipulation to an adequate extent:

I am unable to give a pricise definition of this, but I shall attempt to give a good idea of what I mean byusing examples.
I shall first give examples of what, in itself, is *not* considered adequate as manipulation for the'made lunch' definition:

I shall now give examples of what, is considered adequate as manipulation for the 'made lunch'definition: following are some specific examples of 'made' and'not made' lunches. Having answered the question in full of "what constitutes a 'made' lunch" I have reached the conclusion of my argument, even though I may have left unanswerd some of the questions that I posed myself in attempting to answer the original question.

So having solved the world's problems, or at least one of them, I think I may go to bed.

The Intruding House of Courts rests its case.




previous next