Schoolyard Justice

In the case of the Montreal Tim Horton's Schoolyard Dispute, we are pleased to issue judgement.

The Facts

The facts of the case as presented to the court are as follows.

• On or about Monday, March 7 2006, at an undisclosed elementary school in Montreal Quebec, a ten year old student (Student A) retrieved from the garbage one discarded Roll Up The Rim To Win coffee cup.
• The rim of this cup was not rolled up. Student A discovered that she was unable to roll up the rim, and so solicited the assistance of a twelve year old companion (Student B).
• Student B rolled up the rim, revealing the possibility of winning a Toyota RAV-4.
• Both students presented the winning cup to school officials, who notified both parents. A parent of Student A appeared on the scene first, and claimed the cup.
• Subsequently, the parents of Student B have made claim to the entirety of the prize.

The Law

Schoolyard law is clear in cases like this:

Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers.

The law clearly states that ownership follows the act of finding, not the act of appraising value.

In the case of the cup, the "Finder" is clearly Student A. Student A did not discard the cup after failing to roll up the rim; she solicited the assistance of Student B in appraising the value of her find. As she did not discard the cup, she does not become a "Loser"; and retains title to the cup and the subsequent prize.

The "Loser" who is weeping in this case is clearly the purchaser of the cup who discarded it after consuming the drink within.

Student B has no standing under schoolyard law, and merely functioned as an assistant to Student A; the law is silent on the responsibility of a "Finder" to any assistants they may have in the finding exercise. That said, the law does nothing to restrain the family of Student B from engaging in any weeping in regards to this incident.

The Verdict

We therefore enter an order that the title to the cup and the subsequent prize does belong in its entirety to the family of Student A.

All this said, the family of Student A made a generous offer to share a portion of the prize value with the family of Student B (although in the face of the claim, such an offer was sensibly withdrawn). It is also revealed that the source of the facts surrounding the case were released to the media by the family of Student B, even though these facts are not in any way supportive of their claim. This reveals a strong possibility both that these facts are largely true, and that the claimants from the family of Student B are stunning stupid for failing to 'spin' the story in such a way that would give weight to their claim without becoming factually incorrect. (Look for lawyers for the family of Student B to correct this "accidental mis-statement of fact" in the coming days.)

All right, recess is over. Get back to class.