Finn rules 1,225 € per tit, per feel, excessive

|

A district court judge in Finland has ruled that a twenty-something couple overcharged a 74-year-old man suffering from dementia when they billed him a total of 25,500 euros to fondle the woman's breasts on ten occasions. In the absence of official EU rules on fair market value per cup size (look for that one to be cleared up soon), the judge applied a reasonable man standard:

"Based on general life experience alone, it is indisputably clear that a 25,500 euro charge is disproportionate to the compensation in question," Judge Hasse Hakki, who heard the case, told Reuters Friday.

But he said the court in Kokkola, about 300 miles north of Helsinki, would not decide "the proper financial value of the compensation."

It's not clear what punishment the offenders are supposed to receive, but to say whether the ruling is reasonable or not we'd need to know more about how severe the old dirty bastard's dementia really was. It could well be a case of fraud if there was a serious problem with short-term mammaries.

NEXT: A Little Bit O' Sanity Returns to Air Travel Security

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This entire post was a setup for “short-term mammaries,” wasn’t it?

  2. Tim, that was terrible.

    Still, who is the judge to rule that it was excessive? If I were a doddering 70-year-old growing fat off of a Nordic uber-welfare state, I’d gladly turn over my weeks’ handout to get some touch. Hell, if I had the money now, it would save me the hassle of buying dinner first.

  3. Where is Jennifer when an old man needs her?

  4. Did the judge cop a feel, or is he just assuming it wasn’t worth 25,500 Euro?

  5. Value is subjective. This idiot Finnish judge needs a lesson in basic microeconomics.

  6. a lesson in basic microeconomics

    How do you know the transaction concerned micro-entities?

    One that did was immortalized:

    There was a law student called Rex
    With diminutive organs of sex.
    When charged with exposure,
    He replied with composure,
    De minimis non curat lex.

  7. Cute! But seriously, it’s just obnoxious when government gets in the way voluntary and honest interactions among adults.

  8. …Shoulda been:”…it’s just obnoxious when government gets in the way *of* voluntary and honest interactions among adults.”

    The Preview button is my friend.
    The Preview button is my friend.
    The Preview button is my friend.

  9. Ah yes…But, were they real, and spectacular?

  10. My Balls have informed me that they will be taking the next flight to Finland in the hopes of finding this man’s equally demented, more masculinly-inclined cousin so that they can get rich quick.

  11. Herrick, there’s no reason (although we all know your personal preferences) you can’t find his equally demented sister, you know.

  12. In all seriousness, Rick, you getting mad about this is just silly; you wrote this:

    But seriously, it’s just obnoxious when government gets in the way voluntary and honest interactions among adults.

    But, uhh, Rick, (and forgive me, AR’s lefty side is about to come out) there’s nothing voluntary about dementia. That’s why the old dodderer filed charges later; probably because he realized, during a lucid state, that he was, in fact, being swindled.

    Taking advantage of a feeble-minded old man who has no ability to decide for himself earns you a trip to jail and a year in AR’s Fifth Circle of Hell (*Reserved for Looters and Liars Only!).

  13. The Preview button is my friend.

    How much is Reason allowed to charge us for pressing it?

  14. Like I said, it’s not only a question of what the market will bare, but of whether the old gink was compos mentis when he agreed to the terms. If he could prove otherwise, the issue is one of fraud. The judge’s statement-which was made to Reuters and was not part of his decision-would indicate that the outrageous price was just the tit of the iceberg.

  15. If the guy is really demented then this is fraud. If he is just a old man with money to spare then who cares.

  16. Christ, Tim, was that the breast you could do?

  17. You think it fell flat?

  18. Thanks, for the mammaries. Dah-dah,d-d-d-dah, dah-dah,d-d-d-dah, dah-dah,d-d-d-dah, d-d-d-dah, d-d-d-dah…

  19. Talk about being nippled and dimed…

  20. Yikes, this thread is going tits-up, fast.

  21. Fair market value, btw, has long been known to be tat.

  22. Ayn_Randian:

    That’s why the old dodderer filed charges later; probably because he realized, during a lucid state, that he was, in fact, being swindled.

    Tim:

    Like I said, it’s not only a question of what the market will bare, but of whether the old gink was compos mentis when he agreed to the terms. If he could prove otherwise, the issue is one of fraud.

    “Swindled”? “Fraud”? What?? The only way that criminal fraud charges should even be a possibility is if it could be proven that both the old guy had dementia and that the couple was definitely hep to that-Like some one told them that he did, or that they saw his med. records. Otherwise, mightn’t they have just thought that he was just an eccentric, horny old fellow?

    So, sans those conditions, this should just be a civil matter where the judge nullifies the deal and requires that the money be paid back, prorated, for any of the ten occasions if it can be established that the fellow was “out of his mind” on that occasion, and ineligible enter into contract ( in this case a “contact contract”;)

    And BTW, doesn’t the fact that the elderly gentleman became lucid enough to undertake legal proceedings make it rather less likely that he was actually “out of his mind” on each and every of those ten occasions when he paid to fondle? I think this is probably just a case of fondler’s remorse.

  23. A grope-based economy might be significantly more stable than what we have now.

    And what kind of world do with live in where this kind of thing is acceptable, but no old ladies want to prod my taint with their thumbs, no matter how many times I offer?

  24. So anytime an old person offers you a lot of money in exchange for a service, you should say no on the grounds that the old guy is probably senile? Sounds like age discrimination to me.

  25. So anytime an old person offers you a lot of money in exchange for a service, you should say no on the grounds that the old guy is probably senile? Sounds like age discrimination to me.

    Big surprise; no one actually ever said this, not even the judge. Do you ever tire of deliberate misrepresentation?

  26. How long can can this subject be milked for puns?
    I’ll keep checking back to keep abreast of the situation.

  27. Do you ever tire of deliberate misrepresentation?

    About as frequently as you tire of missing the point due to your tragic inability to distinguish between “sarcastic one-liners” and “serious commentary.”

    Perhaps you’d understand me better if I adopted some of your debating techniques. Do you think I should bestow the nickname “Doodles” upon everyone I disagree with, or simply reply by screaming “IDIOT! GET FUCKED!!” in all caps?

  28. Hey! Why are you dragging me into this?

  29. Because you’re an idiot who needs to get fucked, Doodles. Duh.

  30. Jennifer, to be fair to AR, you comment was not overtly recognizable as sarcasm, nor was it a one-liner.

    Just sayin…

    Doodles, baby! Howyadoin?

  31. I guess I’d better change my name to Doodles as well. I need to get fucked and my status as an idiot is well deserved.

  32. Jeff P,

    Hi hon — I’m doin’. ^_-

    (Actually, I’m not doin’…I need to get fucked. Maybe Jennifer can arrange something for me and her? I’ll hold my breath!)

  33. You’re better off talking to the women in the story, Doodles. After their recent smackdown from the judge, you know that at least they won’t overcharge you.

  34. So, one alcohol fueled post (for which I was smacked down, for which I apologized) and a personal word I extend for “dude” (doodles), and I’ll never hear the end of it? There’s a word for this, but I wouldn’t want to be mislabled a misogynist. (I’ll do it anyway, that’s nagging behavior, really).

    Your comment, as Jeff said, wasn’t readily apparent as sarcasm…maybe it has something to do with sarcasm being in the tone and inflection of your voice. Not all of us read as you speak.

  35. And it wasn’t a one-liner, either. Do I ever tire of deliberate misrepresentation?

  36. I think they undercharged the guy.

    Women. Can’t live with them, pass the beer nuts.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.