page 2

Kitchen Jurisprudence.

College Cooking.

(Opinion by Mr. Justice Good.)

At first sight it would appear obvious that the Cafeteria is liable if food sold by it is not up to the standard set by P. 38 of the Culender, but things are not always what they seem—especially in these matters—and various factor(ie)s have to be considered The general question was the subject of a "Post" editorial on July 16th, 1932, so surely in practical life this matter claims attention — "'Post' hoc ergo proper hoc.". . . . . . .

Public sentiment is, of course, largely with the consumer, but the equities are not as one-sided as they would be if they were. The Caf. is under an obligation to dispose of perishable goods in as short a time as possible, and is thus onerously burdened as compared with the light-headed occasional customer. The goods are perishable in two senses, distinctly separable and quite different, inter se. (1) They are of a nature, such that their existence qua goods is ephemeral—to use an euphemistic euphuism; they are here away to-day to-morrow" (to cite Mrs Malaprop.) Their corporate life—as their own—outside the environs of the Caf. is nil, though occasionally they are introduced into lectures to combat epidemics of coughing. (2) The very essence of their being is perishable (Sic transit—saveloys tufeedim'. as the old Equity saw has it.

Sec. 38 of the Fish and Chips Act covers both differences as regards sale of adulterated or defective Pisces Partesque: "No fish or part of a fish shall be sold without a certificate in quadruplicate, signed by the party to be charged and sealed by the Local Authority affected, that the said fish has been duly pasteurised by the Milk Dept." and the Innocuous Weds Act extends this to "all food publicly sold for consumption." But since the Cat. does not sell fish and chips, nor does it run a sanitorium, the matter is not affected by legislation, and must be decided by the Common or garden variety of Law . . . . . . .

The doctrine of "laches" leaves no room for doubt. Why should the customer be allowed to delay his purchase and then to complain of the result? It is clearly unjust. If a man waits till July 11th before paying exam, fees he cannot complain of the fine; and similarly any attempt to defeat the ends of justice by deferring purchase until the subject of the contract is objectionable can be predicted as anti-social.

The remedy is in the hands of the consumer himself: he has been cheated by his own dilatoriness. Let him agitate for the fitting of "Zip" fasteners to all saveloys suggested by the "Dominion" (though this would mean a combat with manufacturers anxious to preserve inviolate the secrets of the trade—Cave canem!); or else let him shop early and avoid the crust.

(Fee: Half up to £20).

—M. B.