Talk:Stambovsky v. Ackley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An entry from Stambovsky v. Ackley appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 March 2006. |
 |
Great article. Is there any information on what has happened to the house since the court case? —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 @ 19:42 (UTC)
- Thanks. The only information I could find about the house after the lawsuit is here. - Jersyko·talk 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, well written article. My only disappointment is that my Contracts professor picked a casebook without this case. Bobak 19:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting article, though my only quibble is that the "as a matter of law, the house is haunted" line is clearly facetious dicta by the court. While it's still an interesting case, it hardly stands for the legal proposition that ghosts are real, as is implied.
I think most law professors would include this as an example of the equitable doctrine of recission, but they could easily find any number of other cases to do the same thing. Choosing this one is motivated, I'd guess, because of its entertainment value to sleep-deprived law students. JJ, 15 Mar 06
- Agreed, 100%. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if this case was cited at some point in a wacky conspiracy theory regarding the existence of ghosts, aliens, or whatnot . . . "see, even the government agrees that they exist!!!" ;) - Jersyko·talk 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps similarly, here in Sydney, we had a quite recent court case where the real estate agent did not inform a couple that the house that they just bought was the site of Sef Gonzalez murdering his parents and sister. The couple were refunded their money. And the RE industry lost a little credibility in the popular press. The case was very high profile, but he couple were Asian, and emigrated to Australia, perhaps after the sentencing.
