Laws Broken: Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory

Share
Embed
  • Published on Feb 6, 2019
  • How long would Willy Wonka go to jail? Are Oompa Loompas legal? How much does Charlie owe in taxes?
    Check out Skillshare! skl.sh/legaleagle6
    Have you ever watched a movie and thought “that looks illegal.” It probably is! Welcome to Laws Broken, a series on LegalEagle where I tackle your favorite movies and show you how legally irresponsible they are.
    As a lawyer, it’s hard for me to watch movies, because I’m constantly thinking about how the main characters are breaking the law or opening themselves up for civil liability. But my pain is your entertainment!
    This week we’re covering a cult classic, Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory (1971). I love this movie, but something always stuck me as odd about the way that Willy Wonka ran his contest. It’s never a good sign when children start turning into fruit or getting incinerated.
    Stay until the end when I tally up how long Wonka is going to jail and how much he owes the families of those poor children.
    Got a non-legal movie that seems illegal? Let me know in the comments!
    (Thanks to Skillshare for keeping LegalEagle in the air!)
    New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
    thexvid.com/user/legaleagle
    Check out my other series Real Lawyer Reacts here (including my reaction to Suits, Better Call Saul, A Few Good Men and tons more): goo.gl/mmzShz
    I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous from a legal perspective. Today I'm taking a break from teaching law students how to crush law school to take on the movies and TV.
    All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
    Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
    ========================================================
    ★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ
    ★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ facebook.com/legaleaglereacts
    ★ Stella’s Insta: instagram.com/stellathelegalbeagle
    For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv

Comments • 10 021

  • LegalEagle
    LegalEagle  Month ago +3987

    Apparently, MatPat at Film Theory did a video covering the OSHA violations of Wonka's factory. Check it out! thexvid.com/video/jD83QaWy8LI/video.html He goes into more depth about the unsafe working conditions. (I hadn't seen it before putting this video together, but it's well worth your time too).

    • D.K. T.
      D.K. T. 6 days ago

      +TheChuckwagonLite *objection* OSHA laws went into effect the same year this movie came out, in 1971. No prior law, no prior violations
      And, just to stir the s**tpot on this, yes, I saw that little nugget on Game Theory's covering of this topic...

    • jane doe
      jane doe 6 days ago

      OBJECTION!!! Isn't this movie clearly set in the past? I don't know, but it feels like some of these laws might have been made after the movie, I am unsure.

    • Stevin Henrichs
      Stevin Henrichs 7 days ago

      Objection. The story takes place in England. It would be British law not the laws of the U.S.A.

    • InGaming pc
      InGaming pc 11 days ago

      do more of these videos

    • Fab Elger
      Fab Elger 14 days ago

      OBJECTION... willy wonker would go to prison if anything...jail is where you go BEFORE you get judged....

  • Captainjack1988
    Captainjack1988 Hour ago

    I wonder if the beam control guys on the death star could have spoken to osha about that guardrail issue XD

  • sam whary
    sam whary 5 hours ago

    I really hope there's more on the way! I love these!

  • James Hronek
    James Hronek 7 hours ago

    Objection. The grass, and fungus are all edible due to this section of the factory being entirely made of candy, as stated in the book. The problem with that is the fact that they are walking on it with their dirty shoes... which is still a health problem but a better way to get at Wonka in case he says that it is edible.

  • Mark Christiansen
    Mark Christiansen 7 hours ago

    Wait, I had a paper route when I was like 6.

  • maloc1824
    maloc1824 8 hours ago

    Objection this doesn't take place in America.

  • Lexi Hansen
    Lexi Hansen 8 hours ago

    Mrs.Doubtfire? I don't like it but I'd like to see it kicked down a peg!

  • Jean Dobbs
    Jean Dobbs 9 hours ago

    Objection: Regarding an allergen... it is cross contact and not cross contamination! Similar concept but not the same thing according to the NSF. It would not have the same penalties

  • Old Smokey
    Old Smokey 9 hours ago

    OBJECTION! Sorry I love that, Anyways I'd like to ask. with the age of this film would Charlie not be exempt from these regulations. While we are approaching the film from a modern perspective the point is that Charlie may in fact not be illegally working at the point in time we see him

  • Miner Kitten
    Miner Kitten 9 hours ago

    WHY DO YOU LOOK SO FAMILIAR

  • Cheers! 진아 이야.♥

    1:52 OBJECTION : What about child actors ?

  • Crazy Nerd
    Crazy Nerd 12 hours ago

    what about the batman movies? what laws are broken?

  • UndeadDog
    UndeadDog 13 hours ago

    Objection! “Minors employed on the delivery of newspapers to consumers are exempt from FLSA” -us department of labor. I knew this one cause I’m only 21 and one of my classmates had a paper route at age 11

  • Luann Nelson
    Luann Nelson 13 hours ago

    Have you ever done a video on The Princess Bride?

  • Big.N
    Big.N 13 hours ago +1

    Objection! The chocolate river was NOT flowing into the damn environment

  • terriberri87
    terriberri87 15 hours ago

    Do home alone!

  • Miryafa
    Miryafa 16 hours ago

    The phrase "I am eminently qualified to examine a work of fiction" was amazing

  • Dylan Kelley
    Dylan Kelley 17 hours ago

    Objection, you're applying US law to events that happened in the UK.

  • Julia Abernathy
    Julia Abernathy 17 hours ago

    Just a few things, I'm not a lawyer but.....

    11:45 People haven't even been in the factory for decades, based on the timeline OSHA may have not existed yet when it was built and he's been left alone.
    12:46 it's a growing living garden of candy, risks are assumed. the rest of the factory is relatively cross-contamination free.
    14:45 Wonka did say not to eat it, it was her own fault. And he tries to fix it.
    16:00 definitely shouldn't vent directly, but the river stays contained in the factory
    16:50 the spoiled kid shouldn't have even been running around like that, they're on a tour, not a free-for-all
    18:00 he would have to pay taxes on the factory anyway. and the factory likely makes plenty of money, they've been thriving for ages.
    18:44 you can see the children leaving, all alive at the end of the movie, prior to or at the same time as Charlie Leaves in the elevator.
    19:50 again the kids didn't die

  • Austin Baker
    Austin Baker 18 hours ago

    Was the FLSA still a law with the limit of 14 years of age in the time period this movie is set? 1920s I'm guessing?

  • trollskullkid69
    trollskullkid69 18 hours ago

    I could be wrong on this one, but in SpongeBob, is Plankton committing corporate espionage too while stealing the secret recipe? Sorry, I was just confused on that one part in the video.

  • Midnight Pajamas
    Midnight Pajamas 19 hours ago

    Oompoa-loompa immigrants. hehehe.

  • ChilledOutDandelions
    ChilledOutDandelions 20 hours ago

    Was the purchase of Danimals yogurt in order to meet Come and Dylan Sprouse back in the 2000s in violation of the sweepstakes law?
    Lol I've never seen a post of who ever won that. I (my parents) bought so much yogurt😂

  • Vantal The RWBY Reader

    Objection! Your honor this movie takes place in the 20s.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    Here's my readings first you neglected to consider the laws of the time that's a movie and book take place. II you did not pay attention to the dialogue of the film otherwise you would know none of the kids were killed. 3rd you assume that safety regulations are the same in the distant past as they are in modern day. And finally you did not compensate for the laws that they had back then and are the judges film fairly. I give your evaluation of this film a whopping f.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    This is Great Britain not America there is no IRS. However, again you're forgetting about the time this movie takes place. There was no taxes on gifts of any sizes back then. The only taxes Charlie would have to pay would be any money he earned from utilizing the Chocolate Factory. There was no inheritance tax not in America and not in Great Britain at the time. Inheritance tax is a relatively new and bad idea. Also he would not have to liquidate anyting because the Chocolate Factory more than makes up for any any taxes that Charlie would have to pay in order to accept such a grand gift. He would not have to liquidate anything to pay for it. After all in this fantasy world Willy Wonka's chocolate factory is 3 times bigger than Hershey's. It's like inheriting the Disney company today. To pay the taxes you just have to dip into your profits for the first year and set up a payment plan for the rest of the taxes over a course of three or four years.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago +1

    Again you're ignoring the time that this movie takes place. There was almost no environmental regulation in those days. Besides when does air bubbles ever cause damage to the ozone or environment? When did steam cause an environmental problem? Effervescence doesn't do any damage whatsoever to air. It's a chocolate factory not a cold shooting Factory, or oil to gas Factory, or a Metallurgy Factory. There is very little dangerous pollutants coming out of this Factory. If they were dangerous pollutants Willy Wonka would be guilty of poisoning his customers with his chocolate and sweets and there were laws back then for that.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago +1

    Boy you really don't pay attention to any of the dialogue do you? Wonka said that the chocolate river is churning the chocolate via by waterfall. Churning meaning mixing. As in recycling. None of the chocolate makes it into the environment it stays in his artificial River. Why do you think Wonka was so upset that the fat kid was contaminating his chocolate? He would have to now flush all that chocolate down into a disposal unit and then refill his River with brand new chocolate and start all over again. You know for a lawyer you really don't listen to what's going on on the screen on these earlier videos. Very upsetting.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago +1

    And this is why they had to sign the waiver. So that if the child disobeys any of Wonka's warnings he would not be reliable of what happens.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago +1

    You are obviously not reviewing this movie by the time period the story takes place in. You're making assumptions based off of today's laws and not the laws that existed back when this story takes place.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    How do you know their actual plants and trees growing? To me they look like plastic grass that you put in an Easter basket.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    Again, allergy laws are not put into effect as of yet. In fact many people did not believe in food allergies. You would be surprised how many people who own restaurants even today who do not believe that people can get sick from food.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    You're assuming the Oompa Loompas shed hair. Maybe they're the rare kind of humanoids who don't shed hair. There are dogs who don't shed fur, there are cats who don't shed fur. So why must every humanoid shed hair? Also, this is a time. When people did not worry about hair nets. But Willy Wonka doesn't want hair in his food anyway so if he trusts Oompa Loompas do not put hair or dirt or dirty anything into his food a doesn't worry about hair nets it's easy to assume Oompa-Loompas don't shed hair.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    Objection OSHA did not exist back in those days. I did not know OSHA existed until the 2000s. Not every Factory had OSHA until the 2000s. Also, this was the first time you allowed kids into his Factory and everyone else who worked in his Factory had followed his safety guidelines which includes not getting near the river or drinking from the river. Are you going to sue nature? There's no handrails are safety harnesses near natural Rivers. So why you should Willy Wonka have safety handrails in his River when everyone knows not to drink from it. The fat kid fell in because he couldn't stop drinking the chocolate if you had listened to Willy Wonka he would have not fell in. Safety guidelines isn't just about safety rails and barriers.

  • Some random
    Some random Day ago +1

    I wonder how this would hold up in 1964 when the book was released or in 1971 when the movie was released.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    Again you're making assumptions on things are not even mentioned in the movie or the book. She didn't say he said come live with me as my personal slaves and I'll treat you well. He said come and live with me in peace. Do you have Lupus could be working for him out of gratitude and it's possible that he is paying them but they know they look weird so they never leave the factory or they might just be very happy in the factory and not want to leave and they keep their money for a rainy day. You don't know it's not in the dialogue it's not in the book it's not in the movie you don't know what they're doing. Is nothing in there that implies that he has enslaved Oompa Loompas

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    Objection he never ever ever said he secretly transporter the entire country population to his Factory. He just said he transported them to his Factory. You assumed it was in secret because his guest knew nothing about it. There's nothing in the dialogue that implies that the government did not know what he was doing

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago +2

    As for the children singing the contract job so you're right there Miners and he would not be allowed to sign the contract without the parent or Guardian signing them with them.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    As far as fine print this concerned the law saying you have to be able to read it without a magnifying glass had not come into effect yet. In fact that law did not come around until the late 70s or early 80s. It's one of the reasons why my father never signed a contract unless he could read it all without a magnifying glass. But it was still legal. This is also one of the reasons why my father never bought a car from a used car lot until the 1980s. The fine print on several used car lot stickers for so small you practically need a microscope to read them and they were perfectly legal back then

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    When Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory takes place you're not was no such thing as overtime pay. If the boss required you to work 20 hours you still get paid for the same amount of time as you would have worked hourly. So if you were making $0.25 an hour which was average you would have made $2.50 for working 10 hours. Yes it was legal back then. This was a time before unions caught on around the world

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    Back then they didn't have technical legal jargon that everyone was forced to say in order to avoid hurt feelings. Pepsi often said the great giveaway when doing their bottle tops promotions. There was none this PC garbage going on in legalese

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    Another objection. No purchase necessary is a fairly new law. It is also a disclaimer. You can still have purchase necessary to win a ticket or any sweepstakes. But back in the 50s 60s and 70s, the era in which I was the same age as Charlie, it was quite common to make people buy a product to earn a ticket to a sweepstake especially when the prize was so huge. But if you pay attention you can get the ticket without buying the bar if you're willing to steal the rapper. Of course stealing is it illegal. I remember when I came close to winning $1,000 and the bottle top Pepsi competition back in 1976. And you had to buy a Pepsi to get the bottle tops. It was perfectly legal and technically still is today. You just have to make sure you put a disclaimer saying you have to buy their product in order to win. Is no different then forcing people to buy lottery tickets in order to win the lottery.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    1.52 minutes into your video and I've already found one major problem with your comment. Back when this movie was made lots of kids Charlie's age even in America had a paper route. My own brother's had paper out to that age. It wasn't until the late 1990s that paper routes we are limited to adults only. This isn't a violation of child labor laws even today. If a young boy older than 8 years old wishes to work for a living during his summer days or part-time during the winter you may do so with permission, written permission, by his parents or Guardians. Also when an employer is wanting to hire a child they must talk to the parent or guardian of that child before engaging that child into their Workforce. It is perfectly legal and it builds character for the child.

  • BondFreek
    BondFreek Day ago

    If you pay attention to the dialogue in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and you actually read the book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and you saw the Remake called Charlie and Chocolate Factory ... then you would know that none of the kids got killed. Yes, they were maimed but none of them died. The kids shrunk by the Magic Camera was stretched out like a Taffy. The girl who fell into the furnace came out a little burnt. The girl turn into a blueberry Romaine blue but normal size. And the fat kid came out a little thin but still covered in chocolate. The dialogue just simply says in the movie that all the kids would be alright.

  • runforitman
    runforitman Day ago

    Would he not be charged for slave labour?

  • Sam
    Sam Day ago

    No comment on Mike's situation? That would definitely be some kind of safety violation

  • Dante Haskell
    Dante Haskell Day ago

    If this was in the us then maybe

  • Jack Medin
    Jack Medin Day ago

    Hey! Huge fan, great vid as always. You counted the oompa loompa's as human, which I would agree with for practical and ethical reasons. That said, ignoring the philosophical problems, I would be really curious how their safety conditions and immigration would be considered if they were interpreted as animals instead.

  • FrontierBrainRobby
    FrontierBrainRobby Day ago +3

    OBJECTION: while I love the work you've done, Wonka states at the end that the kids will be returned to their former selves, but "perhaps a bit wiser". No deaths!

  • Sierra Plummet
    Sierra Plummet Day ago

    What about the new one?

  • Theldras Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

    Objection: movie takes place in Britain in 1964, therefore many regulations and laws he supposedly broke did either not even exist or cover the specific supposed violations he would be guilty of today, and the laws that would have been broken would easily be covered by contract both children and parents would have to sign to go in.
    the chocolate river is a closed system therefore the EPA would have no say in the matter, and the movie takes place in britain back in 1964 so... they would not have a say in the matter regardless of there actually being any violations or not, considering that 1. they did not even exist at the time, and 2. it is in another country where they have no jurisdiction.

    also, the blueberry brat clearly stole the highly experimental alpha stage gum that is still in early stage of development, Wonka clearly tried to tell her to not eat it and warned her about it and she clearly did not listen, sure, he could have done more, but then considering he has a cane it could be argued that he was physically incapable of keeping up with her to prevent her from eating it.

    and that spoiled brat in the room with presents, the Oompa Lompas clearly tried to stop her, and she climbed up on what looks like a weirdly designed scale for industrial purpose that reject objects that fail some form of inspection by dropping it down somewhere thru a trapdoor system, considering that she survived and fought against personell trying to stop her and climbed up on something that's clearly not intended for humans to stand on, i don't think wonka would be held accountable for anything, in fact, it may actually be her parents who will be held accountable.

  • Uhmkaayy
    Uhmkaayy Day ago

    "ruin your childhood" he said that with a straight face, youre my hero.hahaha

  • toby lawrence
    toby lawrence Day ago

    OBJECTION this movie is set in Europe so using US laws are invalid

  • DragonAlchemist0
    DragonAlchemist0 Day ago +1

    Objection!
    Considering children are not knowledgeable of the law nore charlie knowing any better as he is 12 year old since children are not good at making proper decision as adults are when it come between right and wrong. Pretty sure he wouldnt found guilty. Also wouldn't slugworth coercing a minor into a illegal action not be something he could be charged with?

  • Djarra
    Djarra Day ago

    Objection! Pre 1990 Uk law 12 was old enough for a paper route.
    It changed when I was around that age.

  • Lois Wozney
    Lois Wozney Day ago +4

    1. Willy Wonka did pay the oompa loompas, with cacao, chocolate and a safe place to stay.
    2. All the plants in the factory were food products, the grass was minted sugar, the buttercups were taffy, etc.
    3. Everything is assembled in different rooms, so cross-contamination isn't a problem.
    The books have much more information on the factory, so if you want to do a more accurate video, you'd have to read the books. And I believe the movie takes place in Britain, so you would have to use the laws from Britain and the laws that existed at the time of the movie.

    • Jean Dobbs
      Jean Dobbs 9 hours ago

      Also when a food is in contact with another food that is a common allergen, it is not cross contamination, it is called cross contact. While it is a similar concept, cross contact will not harm anyone except those with the allergy. Cross contamination can cause anyone to get sick, such as using the same cutting board for a salad that raw chicken was just cut on, or not thoroughly removing a cleaning chemical off of a tool that is then used to stir a soup.

  • Asura
    Asura Day ago

    Hmm... given Wonka deliberately planned for these "accidents" to happen - hence his sardonic and lackadaisical tone when saying "Oh no." and "Please stop." - the court could probably nail him for premeditation. That said, he _did_ (try to) get everyone to sign a form intended to absolve him of all culpability for injury, disfigurement, etc...

  • Asura
    Asura Day ago

    Isn't _Charlie and the Chocolate Factory_ set in the UK? Do they have the same regulations as the US in terms of child labour?

  • tk97898
    tk97898 2 days ago +7

    Objection! The kids are not killed, but were affected by the sweets in the factory due to there own stupidity.

  • Merennulli
    Merennulli 2 days ago

    Obviously, the criminal charges go straight to Willy Wonka, but would the civil liabilities be on Willy Wonka or on the factory he just gave to Charlie? The question probably is coming to mind because in Film Theory's video, Matpat suggested Willy Wonka might have been dumping it on Charlie before certain laws went into effect that would effectively ruin him. (It's a fun theory in line with Wonka's looney personality, but from a practical standpoint it would make more sense just to shut down and liquidate assets before the new laws went into effect than to give it away to some child.)

    Though as others pointed out here, both your breakdown and his both cite US law while it's clearly set in England. (I would love it if you invited one of your counterparts from across the pond onto the show to discuss this under UK law, but this was still a wonderful walkthrough of how our laws are supposed to protect us from madmen like Wonka.) The UK has a lot of laws parallel to our own, but I have to admit I don't have a clue even what their counterpart to OSHA, EPA, etc. are.

    Also, I'll go out on a limb and guess Wonkavision also probably violates something the FCC would come knocking on his door about if this were the US. Definitely in the UK where the airwaves were even more restricted than they were in the US in the 70s. My excessive viewing of PBS Spacetime suggest to me that the visible bubbles in the air were probably as a result of the laws of quantum physics saying "haha, no, I'm out of here" and letting Wonka have his way, but the verbal description was of EM spectrum broadcast, which is regulated whether you're broadcasting TV shows or a TV dinner.

  • TheLeadhound
    TheLeadhound 2 days ago

    Come with me,
    And you'll be,
    In a world of civil litigation.

  • Jack Brand
    Jack Brand 2 days ago

    “Let’s see if I can ruin your childhood as much as lawschool ruined mine”

  • jonathan collier
    jonathan collier 2 days ago

    Child slaughter and slavery are cheaper than illegal lottery. Think about it.

  • saihenjin
    saihenjin 2 days ago

    Objection: The setting of the film is intended to be based on Roald Dahl's childhood in the 1920s, which predates the FLSA which was enacted in 1938.

  • HistoryFan476ad
    HistoryFan476ad 2 days ago

    Thank God Willy Wonka has diplomatic immunity from being the appointed Ambassador from Lumpa land. Either that or he works for the Soviets, trying to destroy american childhood.

  • That cat productions

    I love watching theese because 8 want to be a lawyer

  • Boba Fett
    Boba Fett 2 days ago +1

    Objection: you are applying US law, but never established that the factory was located in the US

  • Skillz Mcgee
    Skillz Mcgee 2 days ago

    OBJECTION: The plants in that and all rooms is -all- candy!

  • Ricky Webster
    Ricky Webster 2 days ago

    Let's see your law degree.... Anyone can just go " oh I've been in a bunch of cases

  • Roz
    Roz 2 days ago

    At the end you are pretty much told the kids were fine because they didn't return their Everlasting Gobstoppers. Charlie was the only one 😂😂😂

  • Anothersignalman
    Anothersignalman 3 days ago

    Objection! How many of the laws cited existed in the UK, circa 1970s?

  • beeble2003
    beeble2003 3 days ago

    Objection! Counsel clearly overuses the word "clearly".

  • bigemugamer
    bigemugamer 3 days ago

    Objection? do these violations coincide with today's laws or the laws that were in place the year this movie is suppose to take place??
    Edit: I would like to point out Walmart and Willy Wonka both employ people for little to no pay while providing a place to live in the same building they work.
    2nd Edit: all these health violations in a factory that produces food... Is this factory in china? flavored cardboard as a meat substitute in pork buns, chemically created eggs, fake rice mixed with real rice, melamine lased baby formula... anywhere else the factory would be shut down immediately.

  • CNFunnyJon
    CNFunnyJon 3 days ago

    Sounds like you will have to team up with a British lawyer for the angry Yankees. xD

  • CNFunnyJon
    CNFunnyJon 3 days ago

    I would figure the year of the film. 60s to 70s. The chocolate river is self contained. Wish you called him on Spazzberry. Turns out it is an adult content word! Hope you do the sequel I mean remake.

  • Deetex Seraphine
    Deetex Seraphine 3 days ago

    So how much fun were you having, repeating "everlasting gob-stopper" ad nauseam?

  • Steven Boelke
    Steven Boelke 4 days ago

    The gum that Violet took WASN'T a product. It's akin to stealing an experimental medicine - you can't blame the lab that made it if they took 'reasonable precautions"

  • Hector Gochi
    Hector Gochi 4 days ago

    Please do Its Always Sunny episode Hero or Hate Crime

  • nuggistrike
    nuggistrike 4 days ago

    Violet did just took the candy out of his hands and ate it ! And she was littlerey warnet 2 times ! Ans in the remake ! He dos say better spit it out after the 2 corse dinner ! So violet not only stole the candy and ate it ! But was warnet not to do it ! This is like a dum kid running acroos a higway and being hit by a car ! After parrens has sad “ stay “

  • Masta Gunz
    Masta Gunz 4 days ago

    Never before has such a cherished memory of mine been so crushed. Willy Wonka has been exposed as a vile human being. He used the plight of these poor Oompa Loompas as free labor. When will the almighty dollar stop it's war upon our sense or morals...woe to world upon which we have made.

  • Miles Sharpless
    Miles Sharpless 4 days ago

    Willy Wonka did say all the children were restored to their origin horrible self. So I assume that was a lie. LoL

  • mrblanken
    mrblanken 4 days ago +1

    Objection: The children are not dead in either version. There is one line Charlie asked about the others children and Wonka stated they are fine but they will learn. It goes by very quickly.

  • WP Saiyan Hawk
    WP Saiyan Hawk 4 days ago

    Objection
    Willy Wonka wouldn't be completely responsible for what happened to Violet. Wonka did not offer the gum to her, she had taken it from his hand without his permission. Her accident was the result of her theft of the gum.

    • javiercs006
      javiercs006 3 days ago

      Products liability is still strict liability.

  • Mr. Mep6000
    Mr. Mep6000 4 days ago

    This sieries is the beeeest!

  • Acidic Garden
    Acidic Garden 4 days ago

    you make learning law actually interesting.

  • Bill lupin
    Bill lupin 4 days ago

    Charlie could take on loans to pay off the IRS, if he felt keeping the factory intact would be profitable, but given the osha violations we’ve seen, probs wonka was getting out while he still could.
    That’s right, this whole movie was wonka finding a sap to push his death trap liabilities onto.

  • K K
    K K 4 days ago

    Do The Judge (2014) and Lincoln Lawyer (2011)

  • P. B Amygdala
    P. B Amygdala 5 days ago +1

    Love this channel!!!!!
    Can you please do Ghostbusters (1984)?
    Thanks!

  • Mitchell McCreath
    Mitchell McCreath 5 days ago

    What time was that set in?

  • Yairo Nieves
    Yairo Nieves 5 days ago

    do spongebob work conditions

  • Slash Raptor
    Slash Raptor 5 days ago

    So in a sweepstakes that does say "no purchase necessary", then how can you participate in the contest without actually buying the product you need to buy in order to participate? It might be illegal, but the way Willy Wonka is doing things seems to make a lot more sense to me.

    • Slash Raptor
      Slash Raptor 5 days ago

      And also, don't forget, Willy Wonka promised that all the kids would be restored to perfect health, so now one actually died. He was trying to teach bratty kids a lesson.

  • reyrapids63
    reyrapids63 5 days ago

    The Oompa Loompas don't need hair nets because that is not hair that is cartilage.

  • g00gle minus
    g00gle minus 5 days ago

    Does Charlie need to pay taxes to IRS if he fused his company with Willy Wonkas chocolate company?

  • Katerina Urbanova
    Katerina Urbanova 6 days ago

    I almost died of laughing :-D This is precious

  • Gyarren
    Gyarren 6 days ago

    But wouldn't slugworth have been contributing to the delinquency of a minor or Corruption of a minor by trying to get Charlie to steal anything? And if any of the other kids would have actually died, I personally consider it justifiable homicide. Those little bastards got what was coming to them.

  • Kenshin Shimayama
    Kenshin Shimayama 6 days ago

    OBJECTION! None of those kids died or even had lasting effects. They all got sorted out before going home. Read the book.

  • Bluey
    Bluey 6 days ago +1

    this video seems to be comparing the laws of current day and not the laws back when the film was set in

  • Brett Williamson
    Brett Williamson 6 days ago

    Come with me and you'll be, in a world of osha violation.

  • The World
    The World 6 days ago +3

    OBJECTION!! In the book AND the reboot with Johnny Depp, the kids aren't dead...no evidence of the kids dying.

  • Frosty Film Watcher
    Frosty Film Watcher 6 days ago

    Yeah but the other 4 kids didn't die