Below are some of the odd and funny cases we have gathered from all over the globe. While these cases are rather amusing, they often come from a background of rather serious and complex legal matters.

The Case of The “Haunted” House

In an odd case in a north-eastern state, a homebuyer sued the seller after finding out that the house was allegedly haunted and was featured in a local publication under the title “haunted dwelling.” The buyer, who didn’t believe in ghosts, reasoned that the seller’s failure to inform him of the property’s scary reputation was a material fact that should have been disclosed because it lowered the value of the house.

The court’s decision was unprecedented. The court approved the claim but there is no legal precedent for ghosts. The court ruled that since the seller promoted the house’s haunting in the local press, he was obligated to disclose the information to the buyer. The court in its judgement declared the house “haunted as a matter of law” giving the buyer a legal reason to rescind the contract. This case is a classic example of how the courts help in navigating the issues of belief, reputation and disclosure in property law.

The Great Pringle Controversy

A well-known snack company landed itself in trouble for having to explain in a European court that its best-selling tubular snack was not a potato chip. It is importance hinges on the fact that in that country, “potato crisps” were subject to a certain tax unlike other snacks. The company’s lawyers put forth that the snack was made from a special dough with less than 50% potato flour, had a special shape and was sold in a container instead of a bag, and that it did not comply with the legal description of a potato crisp.

The court initially ruled in their favour, granting a temporary exemption. However, a higher court overruled the decision, stating that because the product was primarily marketed and used as a “crisp-like” snack, it should be subject to the tax. As bizarre as it is, the case serves as an example of how the law definitional issues for very common household items go to somewhat absurd lengths.

The Monkey Selfie Lawsuit

One of the most modern and widely publicized disputes involved a crested macaque, a nature photographer, and an international animal rights group. The macaque, after taking a photographer’s camera, took a series of selfies, one of which went viral. The organization sued, demanding that the Copyright for the selfie be awarded to the monkey.

The court rejected the claim, ruling out that under the existing law, animals cannot own copyrights. The decision was made upon the understanding that copyright law is meant to serve human creativity and authorship. While the organisation argued for the extension of legal personhood to animals, the court ruled that the current legal framework offers no such claim. The case gained a lot of attention and in the end, people found themselves debating the legal rights of animals and the changing paradigms of intellectual property in technology enabled creativity.