 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
Mattel, the maker of the game has just released an updated version, the first in 75 years. The company notes that younger players, such as gen-Zers do not enjoy the stresses of playing competitively and losing. And so they have designed Scrabble Together, a version they claim is less competitive, involves teamwork and is easier than the classic version. It apparently even comes with “helper cards” providing clues. Mattel claims Scrabble Together will be “more inclusive.”
I am an avid Scrabble player and I have no clue how this version, already being called on X “Scrabble for Snowflakes,” will play out. For example, the highest scoring letters in the classic version are the 10-pointers Z and Q. I imagine the new version to avoid gen Z anxiety will allow some slack. You have the letters E, B, R and A? No Z on your rack? No problem. If you have a Q instead lay down the word QUEBRA. But you do not have a U? Don’t fret. Just pick a card from the animal category of the clue deck and you’ll find a valuable hint noting, “What is the name of the animal resembling a horse, has black stripes and sounds a bit like Quebec? And if you can’t figure it out just put it down anyway and shout loudly, ‘Hippo.’ That’s close enough.”
Now is there a chance that the practice of law might become this indulgent? Ha ha!
Fast-forward five years. Start with law school? Contracts class. Leading textbook published by Mattel: The Law of Contracts — As You Like It.
Chapter One: What elements do you need to form a binding contract? Offer, acceptance and consideration. Missing one? No problem. You can use a wild card.
And what about a torts class on negligence? How would the discussion on M'Alister (or Donoghue) v. Stevenson snail in the ginger beer case go?
PROFESSOR: What do you all take away from this case?
STUDENT: That poor snail must have suffered an agonizing end.
PROFESSOR: Madam, you get 100.
STUDENT: That poor snail must have suffered an agonizing end.
PROFESSOR: Madam, you get 100.
And will the trial procedure be different?
PROSECUTOR: How do you know the accused fired the gun?
WITNESS: George Whittle told me.
DEFENCE LAWYER: I object, your honour. Hearsay.
JUDGE: Excluding this testimony will upset the prosecutor. I’ll allow it.
WITNESS: George Whittle told me.
DEFENCE LAWYER: I object, your honour. Hearsay.
JUDGE: Excluding this testimony will upset the prosecutor. I’ll allow it.
I also foresee a dramatic change in cross-examination rules. They’ll likely be tightened a bit to reduce the risk of the questioning triggering witness anxiety.
CROSS-EXAMINING LAWYER: Mr. Brown, I understand you live in Toronto.
JUDGE: (interrupting): Now, now, counsel, let’s not be intimidating.
JUDGE: (interrupting): Now, now, counsel, let’s not be intimidating.
Certainly, the changes would affect jury trials too.
JUDGE: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, remember you have taken an oath not to favour either party in this civil action. Whatever you award the plaintiff, you must also award the defendant.
I’d say that certainly would be inclusive.
Naturally, if a party does not like a verdict, they can always appeal. The grounds for appeal including the notices of appeal might look a bit different down the road:
Notice of appeal (if it’s OK with everyone): The defendant hereby appeals from the decision of the Honourable Justice Balanced on the following grounds:
1. The learned judge erred in sentencing the appellant to a jail term of six months. This makes said appellant uncomfortable.
2. The learned judge erred in that he violated the rights of the appellant under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely his mobility rights, as while in jail these rights to move around will be compromised. OMG!
3. The learned judge erred in that he found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, without collaborating with the court registrar who shuffled the deck of trial cards and pulled one reading, “Hey, there is a reasonable doubt”.
The legal landscape is certainly quickly changing these days. Who knows which way it is heading? Meanwhile, I am happily retired from practice, spending some of my leisure time playing Scrabble … that is Scrabble Apart.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging is available on Amazon, (e-book) and paper version. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.