Lawsuit over ghosts... What do you think will happen?

[Leaper]

Very bare bones story: a pair of restauranteurs are being sued by their landlords for refusing to move into their new location. Reason? The place is haunted, and the restauranteurs are Jehovah’s Witnesses, which, they say, prohibits them from being around such spooks.

A few more details in the article… What do you all think will happen? I’m particularly interested in the suit asking the judge to determine whether the place is haunted… Yay for legal prescedent! (Yeah, yeah, I know… It’s still fun to think about! :D)

[ivylass]

“I asked them if these were good ghosts or bad ghosts, and if they were good ghosts why it was a problem,” said David Simmons, an attorney representing the building’s owners,

I don’t know how he said this with a straight face.

[Misnomer]

You don’t know that he did say it with a straight face.

I bet the ghost tour people will be asked to testify, but if they’re anything like the guy who runs a ghost tour out by me they wouldn’t know a ghost if one bit them.

[OtakuLoki]

How does one know when a ghost has bitten one?

[Queen_Bruin]

Ectoplasm on your ass?

[ENugent]

In New York, a buyer was allowed to rescind a house purchase because the seller neglected to tell him that the house had a poltergeist. Stambovsky v. Ackley, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991).

[Dijon_Warlock]

Home page of the house in ENugent’s post.

Cool house. It was written up in Reader’s Digest many years ago. Site has pics, if you’re into that.

[Campion]

The ghosts will hire a lawyer, and file a complaint in intervention, seeking damages for having their home invaded. The court will find that the ghosts’ occupation of the premises has been “open and notorious” for the relevant statutory period, and will award them the entertainment complex through adverse possession. The ghosts will then open GhostWorld (tours every hour on the hour), will go on Oprah and The View, and have a brief but glorious engagement at the Celine Dion Theater in Las Vegas. Unfortunately, as complaints regarding alleged “inappropriate touching” become more common, the ghosts are hounded out of Las Vegas, only to find that in their absence GhostWorld has become, well, a ghost of its former self. They are briefly featured on a “Where Are They Now?” segment on VH1, which garners that station’s lowest ratings. They are not heard from again.

[jackelope]

In the ghost-house case to which ENugent and Dijon Warlock refer, the sale was rescinded because the house’s reputation for being haunted was likely to hurt the buyer’s chances of reselling it. I.e., because the buyer was likely to be financially harmed by this previously undisclosed information. Judge Rubin had a big old time writing the decision:

Plaintiff, to his horror, discovered. . . .

[N]o divination is required to conclude. . . .

While I agree with Supreme Court that . . . plaintiff hasn’t a ghost of a chance, I am nevertheless moved by the spirit of equity to allow the buyer to seek rescission of the contract of sale. . . .

[T]he theoretical basis for granting relief . . . is elusive if not ephemeral.

“Pity me not but lend thy serious hearing to what I shall unfold” (William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene V [Ghost] ).

From the perspective of a person in the position of plaintiff herein, a very practical problem arises with respect to the discovery of a paranormal phenomenon: “Who you gonna’ call?”

[T]he notion that a haunting is a condition which can and should be ascertained . . . is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent and laid quietly to rest.

No case has been brought to this court’s attention in which the property value was impaired as the result of the reputation created by information disseminated to the public by the seller (or, for that matter, as a result of possession by poltergeists).

Mmmm. That’s good law.

[cornflakes]

@Campion

The ghosts will hire a lawyer, and file a complaint in intervention, seeking damages for having their home invaded. The court will find that the ghosts’ occupation of the premises has been “open and notorious” for the relevant statutory period, and will award them the entertainment complex through adverse possession. The ghosts will then open GhostWorld (tours every hour on the hour), will go on Oprah and The View, and have a brief but glorious engagement at the Celine Dion Theater in Las Vegas. Unfortunately, as complaints regarding alleged “inappropriate touching” become more common, the ghosts are hounded out of Las Vegas, only to find that in their absence GhostWorld has become, well, a ghost of its former self. They are briefly featured on a “Where Are They Now?” segment on VH1, which garners that station’s lowest ratings. They are not heard from again.

This doesn’t have a ghost of a chance of happening.

[Electrical_Storm]

@jackelope

In the ghost-house case to which ENugent and Dijon Warlock refer, the sale was rescinded because the house’s reputation for being haunted was likely to hurt the buyer’s chances of reselling it. I.e., because the buyer was likely to be financially harmed by this previously undisclosed information. Judge Rubin had a big old time writing the decision:

Mmmm. That’s good law.

Oh! Oh! My sides are killing me from laughing myself to death!

That’s good stuff!