Wednesday, June 03, 2009

The existential crisis of a Pringle

Is a Pringle a potato chip? Yes, according to the UK's Supreme Court of Judicature. Procter & Gamble U.K. will be obliged to pay US$160 million in taxes after its lawyers fought hard to declassify the Pringle as a potato chip -- or crisp in British parlance -- and instead, volunteered to call it "savory snack."

In a New York Times editorial, Adam Cohen quotes the court's Lord Justice on the decision. This is so funny:

The Supreme Court of Judicature had little patience with Procter & Gamble’s lawyerly attempts to break out of the potato chip category. The company argued that to be “made of potato” Pringles would have to be all potato, or nearly so. If so, Lord Justice Jacob noted, “a marmalade made using both oranges and grapefruit would be made of neither — a nonsense conclusion.”

He was even more dismissive of Procter & Gamble’s argument that to be taxable a product must contain enough potato to have the quality of “potatoness.” This “Aristotelian question” of whether a product has the “essence of potato,” he insisted, simply cannot be answered.

Don't you just love them Brits? Full report here.

2 * :

Alfredo said...

Speaking of court decisions, check out this decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines:

I quote:

"Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confined to the
oft-quoted 'touching of the female organ,' but has also progressed into
being described as 'the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the
pudendum,' or 'the bombardment of the drawbridge.' But, to our mind, the
case at bar merely constitutes a 'shelling of the castle of orgasmic
potency,' or as earlier stated, a 'strafing of the citadel of passion.'"

Jason said...

Haha!!! And I thought Judith Krantz has exhausted all possible metaphors for it. Whoever penned this must've been truly inspired :-P

Thanks for sharing!

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...