Couldn’t resist this one from this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald, at least the damages sought are on the low end of the scale, I guess…

The makers of Lynx deodorant are being sued by an Indian man, who claims he used their products for seven years but failed to attract the opposite sex.

Vaibhav Bedi, 26, wants Unilever to compensate him $91,000 for the "depression and psychological damage" caused by a lack of any "Lynx effect", the Daily Record reports.

Some adverts for Lynx - marketed as Axe in India - show beautiful women seemingly becoming entranced by those who use the products.

"The company cheated me because in its advertisements, it says women will be attracted to you if you use Axe ... I used it for seven years but no girl came to me," Mr Bedi said in his court petition.

A New Delhi court has accepted half-used body washes, shampoos, anti-perspirants and hair gels for forensic testing in the case.

Unilever has refused to comment on the lawsuit, but Mr Bedi's lawyer Ram Jethmalani has urged the company to settle out of court.

"There is no data to substantiate the supposition that unattractive and unintelligent men don't attract women," the Daily Record quoted him as saying.

"In fact, some of the best looking women have been known to marry and date absolutely ghoulish guys."

From: Andrew.Dickinson@CliffordChance.com [mailto:Andrew.Dickinson@CliffordChance.com]
Sent: Monday, 2 November 2009 10:49 p.m.
To: ken.oliphant@oeaw.ac.at; Saiman@law.villanova.edu; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: RE: outlandish torts

Ken's reference to "pop torts", reminded me of "Pop Tarts", which have also entered litigation folklore over here – the filling (surprisingly) becomes hot when you toast them, and packets now carry a warning of this.

See http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Pop-Tarts, referring to a case brought by one Thomas Nangle and Texas A&M University professor Joseph Delgado, apparently triggering further lawsuits.

Kind regards

Andrew

From: Ken Oliphant [mailto:ken.oliphant@oeaw.ac.at]
Sent: 31 October 2009 18:22
To: Chaim Saiman; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: RE: outlandish torts

In Britain, I'd say that the American "pop torts" are seen as indictments of the common law of torts as a whole, and not as peculiarly American. In public debate, there's often a total failure to note that the cases come from another, rather different legal system (with jury trials, as Chaim notes, including jury assessment of damages, plus considerably greater scope for punitive damages, as well as contingency rather than conditional fees). The "McDonald's coffee case" is treated as emblematic of the ills of the system in Britain - and it's hardly ever mentioned that there were McDonald's coffee cases in Britain too - which were entirely unsuccessful.

Why pop torts have become so much a part of political debate in Britain is an interesting question. The UK doesn't have a tort reform movement with anything like the clout of that in the US. Instead, the pop torts are worked into a rather reactionary narrative about the decline of individual responsibility and allegedly excessive "regulatory" intrusions on everyday life and individual autonomy.

Elsewhere in Europe - but certainly not everywhere else - I sense that outlandish tort stories from the US are indeed dismissed as peculiar to the anglo-saxon world.

Best wishes

Ken

From: Chaim Saiman [mailto:Saiman@law.villanova.edu]
Sent: Fri 30/10/2009 8:42 PM
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: outlandish torts

I have been following the emails of the past few days with some interest, and note that most of the examples (real and otherwise) are taken from the American context. Moreover, as one poster suggested, some of these hoaxes may be part of a concerted effort by activists on the American scene to paint a cartoonish picture of the American tort system in order to spur on political efforts at tort reform (limitation)

My question to this largely non-American audience is whether, from an international perspective, these sort s of suits are seen as uniquely (or typically) American, and if so, is it only on account of the jury, or are there other factors at work.

Would be interested in your thoughts.

--cs

Chaim Saiman

Associate Professor

Villanova Law School

610.519.3296

saiman@law.villanova.edu

http://ssrn.com/author=549545

[CC]Office[/CC]

This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.

If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any

attachment from your system.  If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment

or disclose the contents to any other person.

Clifford Chance LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales under number OC323571.

The firm's registered office and principal place of business is at 10 Upper Bank Street, London, E14 5JJ.

For further details, including a list of members and their professional qualifications, see our website

at www.cliffordchance.com. The firm uses the word 'partner' to refer to a member of Clifford Chance LLP or

an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. The firm is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Authority's rules can be accessed by clicking on the following link: http://www.sra.org.uk/code-of-conduct.page

Clifford Chance as a global firm regularly shares client and/or matter-related data among its different

offices and support entities in strict compliance with internal control policies and statutory requirements.

Incoming and outgoing email communications may be monitored by Clifford Chance, as permitted by applicable law and regulations.

For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer

to any Clifford Chance office.

From:	Mamari Stephens <Mamari.Stephens@vuw.ac.nz>
To:	ken.oliphant@oeaw.ac.at
	obligations@uwo.ca
Date:	02/11/2009 20:42:09 UTC
Subject:	RE: outlandish torts