Apparently, MatPat at Film Theory did a video covering the OSHA violations of Wonka's factory. Check it out! ruclips.net/video/jD83QaWy8LI/видео.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).
Credit was given, that is the important part. I do like the conclusion Mat came up with: Wonka was ditching the factory before these laws became enforceable! I already viewed Wonka in a negate light, what with the whole 'I rescued them and now they work for me' excuse being ripped straight out of Slavery 101, but even I didn't give him enough evil-credit. Even with the unsafe nature of his factory being pretty damn obvious to any watching the film, making one question how safe the product is let alone how many workers are killed regularly, I didn't give Wonka enough evil-credit. Even as Wonka spun each accident as the sole fault of children, who are well known for their great impulse control, I didn't give this evil man enough credit. I, like the gullible crowds in the movie, brought into this con-artists excuse of: 'getting old, want some young blood to run things.' In reality he is more evil then that: *Wonka knew the factory would start costing him millions per day and chose a child's guardian to dump it onto, as they wouldn't know about the legal ramifications till it was too late.*
Actually, if this were to occur in America, you would actually GET *at least* $5 million for enslaving an entire country. If history tells us anything it's that this is an incredibly lucrative business plan for which you will be able to avoid any consequences for at least ~200 years.
If you're applying US law to this, then yeah, those numbers are totally off! Each of the murdered children were extremely wealthy and white, so you'd be paying out more than 20 mil a head there. And you'd certainly EARN way more than 5 million dollars enslaving an entire country of non-whites!
I like how he labelled all the kid's as dead. But didn't they say they had explanations at the end and they all walk out fine? I mean realistically I guess, Violet would've been internally ruptured from the massive bloating
Two books so...... Could be usa law although in this movie Charlie finds a fifty pence price (half pound coin) clearly indicating UK.... Not to mention that city/town.
@@Zorilla10 Its based on a novel by the british childrens author Roald Dahl. This novel was directly inspired by him and other children at his school being invited to trial chocolate bars from a nearby factory. From this and some other factors such as currency, british chocolate making heratige and architechture, I would argue Britan is the most likely setting.
Because Charlie is only 12-13, I always kind of assumed that Wonka was offering him a sort of long-term apprenticeship that would culminate in him inheriting the factory in about 10 years. That seems to be what Wonka is implying when they are all in the glass elevator. I imagined that Wonka would make Charlie a junior vice president of the company, and apprentice him while the boy continued to go to school, and then probably to college, where he might obtain a business degree.
@@joshuanash6401 I think this report is about the movie alone. Yeah in the book they survived but if you take the movie by itself, there's no proof the kids survived.
@@paulh2981 Standard TV/Movie trope is if they didn't die on screen they are still alive. Even if they did die on screen they can be brought back. No children died in this film.
When I was a kid, I rolled my eyes at Wonka freaking out over Augustus contaminating the chocolate river, but now that I work in the deli at a local grocery store, I DEFINITELY understand his panic
Haha me too, and I work in a literal candy store 😂 Due to Covid we have to pre-bag all bulk candy that would normally be open and bagged by the customer with a scooper. And of course we have to tell the children and even some adults to stop touching items they’re not going to buy, cuz we gotta sanitize everything that is not bought. It’s a bit of a nightmare 😅
Then why didn’t he have handrails? Why did he let a bunch of kids who came off the streets into his factory and hang around yet-to-be-produced products that he fully intended on selling? Why does he even have an open-air room full of perishable foodstuffs to be literally stepped on? Willy Wonka sucks ass.
LMAO, isn't that the same with all of us? We never think about scenes like the chocolate river or why Wonka is so angry. Blink and suddenly we're working in the food business and the reason why he's anger becomes crystal clear!
Also, funny enough, the filming of the movie caused some related health hazard condition. The chocolate river was real, but due to poor refridgeration, it spoiled quickly after filming before it drained and was disposed. Also the scene with the soap vehicle basically gave all of the actors on it essentially chemical burns and shut down production for a month while they recovered. THE MORE YOU KNOW!
@@tonyf4991That would be in the 2007 book adaptation, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where it's paint mixed with water. In Willy Wonka, it really was real chocolate.
As a criminal who commits tax fraud, tax evading, 1st degree murder, vandalism, violation of government patents, mass murder and oh my mafia boss told me not to state anymore crimes I commit so yeah I agree
Its not even implied. In the other version of this movie, he OUTRIGHT ADMITS that he's tested the gum on the Oompa Loompas and they ALL became blueberries.
Willy Wonka: *Breathes* Eagle: this actually a violation of section 32 of the clean air act. Mr Wonka will serve two life sentences without possibility of parole
@@mamesmck5236 hey if you want to i can spoil it woop too late now so Willy Wonka gives the factory to Charlie because he doesn't want to come under fire from all those OSHA violations he's currently under.
Small thing maybe but at time of release half the laws cited were different or nonexistent. Let alone in day it's portrayed to be in, thing were very different 60+ yrs ago. But you're right Totally Different Perspective!
Anyone else interested to seeing if the Johnny Depp Willy Wonka would fare any better or worse than the Gene Wilder one by having LegalEagle examine that movie?
in violet's blueberry case, she didn't eat a product. she ate a test prototype not meant for mass production or public consumption. it was still in the testing stage. no court, surely, would ever convict for damages from an incomplete product wilfully stolen by the plaintiff.
@@chloeedmund4350 Possibly. But then when/where would the preventative measures end? It could be argued that to sufficiently prevent her action, and subsequent action, from occurring, would be to not allow her to be in the factory in the first place.
@@gamerleal9265 and this would be exactly why most factories don't have children tour them. The only exceptions generally have carefully controlled areas, with guardrails, keeping them away from any potentially dangerous equipment or products.
No one knows of thay died at the end or just made to leave after thay were recovered from their wrong doins and takin straight home without anyone seeing one by one
Fun fact not only did Wonka take an entire civilization out of their native country only to make them work and live in the factory, but according to the other movie and book he pays them in cacao beans which to the Oompa Loompas, which is highly addictive and super toxic, but also to get them into the country he shipped them in crates with holes drilled into them.
@@satanclaws666 Yeah but we're given zero indication that it's sufficently toxic to Oompa Loompas to cause them harm, which is what Jerricko was implying.
@@ChaseElliottFan97 It makes them entirely reliant on Wonka, since they can't use the beans to buy food and stuff for themselves if one of them wants to leave. If they wanted the beans, Wonka could just pay them in real money so they could buy it themselves.
I worked at a chocolate factory for 5 years and I can say from personal experience that a chocolate river is, indeed, very bad. Chocolate rain and a chocolate waterfalls, too, should be avoided at all costs.
@Sebastian Marlow the chocolate is boiled before being made into bars, killing any bacteria, should a water cleaning company get sued because there is dirt in the dirty water?
Fun fact: both female child actresses had a crush on the child actor who played Charlie on set & the child actor that played Augustus actually hates chocolate
Objection. Jurisdiction. Willy Wonka’s factory is in UK or fantasy land or other jurisdiction that has Pound as its currency and is not located within the United States and is not under jurisdiction of US Legal Code. Great video by the way. I love these
That, and everything he said about the EPA and OSHA. It all depends on what timeframe the movie occurred in. If the events in the movie happened in late 1970, or later, then, yes......Wonka's *definitely* in violation of those laws. If they happened any earlier, like in the book, which was set in the 1920s, EPA and OSHA wouldn't even exist yet, so Wonka wouldn't be bound to them, or forced to follow their regulations.......
@@vetarlittorf1807 well that’s what Willy Wonka says would happen, but we never see the children again, they are never seen back to normal or even leaving the factory, and aren’t even mentioned. And then Wonka retired and gave the factory to Charlie. So I think it’s safe to assume they are dead. Even if it wasn’t out right said, it definitely is implied, or at least leaves the viewers to assume so.
My theory was always that Wonka was looking for a replacement who could take the fall for his company’s negligence and then he’d leave the country and find asylum. Effectively, dooming Charlie Bucket.
Or Charlie switches the wonka factory to constructing a train which travels the world and contains its own internal ecosystem. Then the world freezes over and Charlie, captain America, and the remnants of humanity travel the world endlessly.
Willy Wonka is a Batman villain who specialises in brainwashing, abducting, and murdering kids in a way that makes it look like an accident. He's got the henchmen, the gadgets and the funky costume. But hey, that's just a theory... You know what comes next...
I remember a cartoon in MAD magazine where in the aftermath of Jack and The Beanstalk, Jack was told it will cost a million dollars to bury the dead giant. He says “a million dollars? That’s a bit stiff” the undertaker says “yeah and so’s the giant”.
I never liked Gene Wilder's Wonka. He feels more like a mad scientist than simply an eccentric idealist. In the book, when Augustus fell in the river and when Violet turned into a blueberry, Wonka was genuinely concerned about them.
ThatGuy67 LMAO I love how oblivious, nonchalant, careless, and uninterested Willy Wonka acts whenever one of the kids get in dangerous (and possibly deadly) situations 🤣 probably because he doesn’t like them!
"Let's ruin your childhood like law school ruined mine" HA! Joke's on you, my childhood is already ruined. Also, sorry man. Hope your childhood gets better
Isn't it also fair to call the Oompa Loompas part of a company town since they live, work, and get all their food and supplies at the factory? Or are those not actually illegal?
I'm not any kind of professional, but I'm pretty sure that being paid in "scrip" and exchanging that for products that the company provides (often at a huge markup) is illegal, so if they have to exchange the coca beans he pays them for room and board then probably, is my guess.
@@justins8802 not exactly? There isnt any real evidence to say that Wonka doesnt allow the Oompa Loompas to leave and search for other ways of life, but rather looks like they stay and labor in Wonka’s factory in their own free will. So really, the irregular immigration stuff seems to be the most legally reprehensible thing in this case. I mean, if you can leave at will and you stay because of a pay you agree with, is there any slavery or indentured servitude taking place?
Presumably WW Inc has a fair amount of cash from continuing operations. No reason Charlie can't use that cash and get a loan on future profits to pay the rest.
Yes, in the first film they die. Willy Wonka lies about their fate. The while reason Gene Wylder wanted Wonka's entrance to be him walking eith a cane was so you can't tell if Sonja is ever lying or not. So Sonja is fur shure a liar!!!! They only survive the book and remake.
Brian Finley mate Maybe when you get an English education master English as a language Discover all our idioms and then fully understand sarcasm, irony and exaggeration Then maybe I could explain it to you
*Objection* The gum was not a released product, but rather an object still in testing. Wonka did not claim it is edible at all, nor did he supply the girl with the gum. Thus it cannot be held liable under product's strict liability, because it would be equivalent to holding a man liable to damages made, by someone consumig their handwritten note, and getting food poisonig.
But it happened to a child he had invited to the factory, and had the appearance of regular candy - something the group had been allowed full access to until that point. In addition, it was placed within her reach, despite being an untested product not fit for human consumption AND Wonka didn’t make her spit it out, despite the potential danger. As a child, it isn’t her legal duty to keep herself safe, but it is his liability as the owner of the factory and the person who helped her get into contact with hazardous material. Moreover, he could easily be blamed for being so “ignorant” (aka ignoring them) of safety procedures after other children had been harmed due to his negligent behavior.
Objection: He did nothing to warn her of the magnitude of the consequences of her actions which apportions quite a lot of blame to him. He was fully aware of the risks associated with consumption of the product and despite this made no effort beyond his initial "no don't do that". I'd imagine that the outcome would be quite different if he'd told her that chewing the gum would result in her disfigurement.
Another violation, not mentioned: The ceiling ventilator fan in the Fizzy Lifting Drinks room doesn't have the required safety grilles on either side of it.
Imagine being an Hoompa Loompa, just starting his shift, going in and seeing that the whole place is covered in bird guts and feathers. "... Oh, is it 7am already?"
The novel actually takes place in 1920's before the Federal Labor Laws for Minors were created. Of course, I know this is a review for the 1971 film and not the novel, but I just wanted to point this out that Charlie working in the novel would be legal at the time that the story plot took place. The film, though, was based in the 1970s, so the law would still apply to Charlie in the film since the FLSA law was created in 1938.
Corporal punishment was legal in the time era of the film, which was based on a book that was also a specific time era, so the kids would know to stop in their tracks, lest they get hit with a ruler or paddled
10:52 Actually, the book that this movie is based off of goes more into detail about that. The Oompa Loompas apparently had just about nothing too eat, and they loved cacao beans. When Wonka found them, he asked if they would like to work in his factory for an unlimited supply of chocolate and cacao beans. They agreed happily.
Objection: In the Dinner chapter where you mention that fault is not considered, only causation, wouldn't Wonka be able to argue that it was not a finished product ready for release, and he warned Violet not to chew the gum? Surely there's some kind of defence there, if a product is not in a state where it is intended for public consumption..?
Wonka: Congratulations on your factory Charlie, how do you plan to handle the PR crisis? Charlie: Crisis? Wonka: A lot of people just died in your factory Charlie
Charlie: "Gee whiz, I guess I'll just bribe the public and the judges by giving lots of people lots of free chocolates" Willy Wonka: "Good thinking, Charlie!" Uncle Joe: "You can make the free chocolates outta that chocolate river Augustus Goop contaminated! I'll oversee all the promotions for the free giveaway!" (A year later the Willy Wonka chocolate brand is more popular than ever before! Also Willy Wonka got acquited of all charges! However some people complain the free chocolates tasted "sweaty" and "pissy")
@@mariic2 nah there's nothing wrong with that I bet; doubt there's even laws that specifically mention dinosaurs in the first place since most people are concerned with sheep and common animals that are even possible. For every law, there's a loophole somewhere.
Objection: the "winning" of the factory assets and stocks is never mentioned in the competition - in fact, no monetary winnings were mentioned. The fact that Wonka also HAPPENED to be looking for an heir and HAPPENED to find one from the competition winners doesn't mean the act of handing the factory over is suddenly part of the competition - it's an independent business action.
the impression that I got from both reading the book and the sequel and watching both movies, the tim burton one as well, is that Charlie "winning" the factory WAS the "true" purpose of the golden ticket thing. I think Wonka knew exactly what he was doing. Wonka was looking for an heir and he started the golden ticket thing as a way of finding the heir. when a company like Coca Cola does one of those contests where you look under the bottlecap and you "could win a million dollars!", they always know exactly how many winning prizes they printed and exactly where they sent them. so, Wonka, being as eccentric as he is and having access to wondrous resources that normal people can't even understand, he could have specifically targeted certain children to get those tickets. he might have known exactly where he sent those golden tickets. I mean, in the book, it goes into great detail of the mania that struck the world, everyone looking for the tickets, and grownups were looking for the tickets too, how did he know that children would find them? like there was a scene in the book where a bank robber stole a ton of money then used it to buy chocolate bars and the police came to arrest him and found him sitting on a mountain of chocolate bars, frantically cutting the wrappers with a knife and had to pry him away, how did Wonka know that guy wouldn't find one? or 3? the tour of the factory was a way of getting the children into situations where they could prove their worth and virtue of character so he could pick a winner. each room was a test. he picked those situations deliberately, to test the children. He did his homework, studying the backgrounds of each of those kids, as evidenced by the oompa looma song lyrics(most evident in the lyrics from the book), those guys knew everything about these kids. Wonka did the whole golden ticket thing as a way of getting the children into controlled situations to test their virtue so he could find the most pure and innocent person to become his heir. and among billions of people, somehow found Charlie. He must have cherrypicked those children. how he managed to ensure that those particular ones would be picked? I dunno, can't be explained, just like how the secrets behind how he makes his crazy candies can't be explained either. but hey, that's just a theory. . . I hope that line isn't copyrighted. . .
OBJECTION!! I don't think Wonka would be responsible for turning Violet into a blueberry based on "product liability", due to the fact it was not on the market or available to the public. She snatched it out of his hand and ate it, disregarding his warning.
I just said something to this effect, it's like trying to sue because you illegally download an unfinished and unreleased version of a movie, show, or videogame that hasn't been deemed safe or for public consumption. If you have a seizure looking at it it's your own fault since it had no guarantee of being safe as of yet. Especially if you were told before hand explicitly NOT to take it.
Objection per Department of Labor. "Minors employed in the delivery of newspapers to consumers are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)child labor provisions, as well as the wage and hours provisions. This exemption applies to carriers engaged in making deliveries to the homes of subscribers or other consumers of newspapers (including shopping news). It also includes employees engaged in the street sale or delivery of newspapers to the consumer. However, employees engaged in hauling newspapers to drop stations, distributing centers, and newsstands are not exempted because they do not deliver to the consumer." Also this movie is based in some weird European country that speaks dubbed english. :)
In the UK, where the Cadbury and Rowntree factories heavily influenced Roald Dahl, we allow kids to work on things like car washing, lawn mowing and paper routes from 13. They are meant to get a work permit from the Local Authority (County Council).
@@alexweirdyoung Even so, in the book Charlie is 11 and in the movie he is 12, so he would not be eligible for that type of work in any case. But Cliff is right that he could indeed have a paper route at that age. (There are some other exemptions to, like working a family farm.)
Objection: Slugworth, as an employee of Wonka's, attempted to persuade Charlie into committing crimes he otherwise wouldn't have in order to trick him into forfeiting his winnings. That's entrapment.
not really because there isnt an "or else" included basically not giving charlie an option. for instance an undercover cop says you have to buy drugs from them or they are going to shoot you in the face if you dont. that would be entrapment.
@@wades623 Threat of force is not required for entrapment, that's an entirely different thing. Attempting to lure someone into committing an illegal act in order to arrest you for it. Charlie did not just say to himself "I bet it would be worth a lot of money to his competators if I could learn Wonka's secrets." He had no interest in committing industrial espionage before Slugworth came along to offer a bribe for doing so. That's a textbook form of entrapment. You're thinking of coercion.
@@Macrochenia it is neither coercion or entrapment. Charlie was nither threatened nor tricked into doing it. There was always the choice to not take the money.
@@wades623 The fact that Slugworth was not trying to force Charlie to commit the crime or trick him into committing the crime by accident DOES NOT MATTER. Entrapment is any attempt to persuade someone to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise in order to catch them in the act and punish them for it. Doesn't matter how. Slugworth's offer was made under the direction of Wonka with the express purpose of tricking Charlie into forfeiting his winnings. Therefore, entrapment.
@@Macrochenia if that logic worked there would be no such thing as under cover law enforcement. It is basically the same situation, something is offered and depending on the person they have free will not to engage in the action. If you could get what you say to stand I wouldn't mind because I've never thought cops should be able to lie and get away with what they do but they do and they shouldn't get special privileges just because they are with the government
@@obviouslykaleb7998 you realize Game Theory mostly presents and discusses already-popular fan theories in their videos? When Matpat actually makes videos on his pet theories, they tend to go poorly :p
16:12 - the "chocolate river" was not flowing out of the factory to anywhere. It was being sucked up through pipes to the different parts of the factory where it was used to make sweets. It was one of those pipes that Augustus Gloop got sucked up. His mother says "He'll get turned into marshmallows". Wonka replies that this is "impossible". When his mother asks why not, he says that particular pipe doesn't go to the marshmallow room, but to the room where they make "chocolate covered fudge". Mrs. Gloop says "He'll get made into fudge then" to which Wonka replies "No he won't because I would never allow it! Augustus flavoured chocolate covered Gloop? Now that would NEVER sell!" Great stuff!
Yeah, of course it was self-contained. No way Wonka would let a river of pure chocolate flow out of his factory; even without the pollution, imagine the waste!
@@allisond.46 He missed one important detail. For that chocolate to flow with the consistency of water, it would have to be EXTREMELY hot. Augustus would've burned his hands the minute he touched it. And falling in would've caused at the very least , second degree burns all over his body.
@@Quiltfish Even that is a criminal charge I believe. I've worked in a factory in India, and here, even if an adult (from a different/partner company) goes for a tour of a factory, an experienced operator must accompany him/her and must act immediately should anything go wrong. This is just cruel negligence.
@@xejelah That is a valid point. In this time and age, if Willy Wonka didn't give Health and Safety inspectors access to the factory, they would not let the factory open regardless of what goes on inside. So the seclusion itself would be impossible.
Objection! At the end of the movie, Willy clearly states that all of the children will be returned to exactly how they were, thus none were killed nor even permanently injured.
He may have told Charlie that but we don't know for certain that he was being honest with him on that. It sort of leaves the viewers to their imaginations on their fate.
@@melissacooper4282 The movie is a fantasy, but it would seem unlikely that Wonka would commit 4 homicides of children, in front of their parents and other witnesses. There is no way he could get away with it. Also, there is no suggestion that there was any chance that Mike or Violet were killed. Mike was "totally unharmed" except for being shrunk down to pocket size. So at most there could have been 3 wrongful deaths Augustus, Veruca and Mr. Salt. I hope this lawyer does a better job researching the facts of his real life cases.
"exactly" even though 1 is covered in chocolate, 1 is forever blue, 1 is trashed and the other... well, is no longer his usual size. (the point is that once they walk out that door, everyone might be concerned on what's really going on in that factory)
The thing about the factory, based off the book and 2005 movie, Wonka felt he was on the brink of death and so wanted a child to run the business as he didn't trust an adult so wanted a kind, fun-loving child but to prevent suspicion decided to punish 4 children from them being spoilt and teach their parents how awful they are
My favorite fan theory is that Wonka was trying to offload the factory on a patsy so he could flee impending indictment. Lumpaland probably doesn't have extradition treaties to the US or UK...
@@linwoodvalentine7693 If they void it. Which they would on an advice of any lawyer just seeing the civil bill. Anyway, you cannot discharge criminal case like that, so William W. is going to jail forever.
@@AstralS7orm Objection, if those are considered as crimes, and Loompaland, where Willy Wonka is king, has no extradition treaty with both the US and the UK, then they can not legally arrest him in Loompaland.
And if I remember correctly there slaves he doesn't pay them Jack crap Johnny Depp at least the movie with Johnny Depp kind of made it seem like oh I pay them in cocoa beans for their service
*Going by the UK version of the novel and first movie, so shillings, not dollars, and 1920s. He's correct on Charlie's paper route. Charlie is nine by the movie? Age isn't stated in the novel. That would be illegal by the UK's 1903 Employment of Children Act which prohibited anyone under the age of eleven from being involved in street trading ( newspaper hawking "any other like occupation carried on in streets or public places."). He's partially right on the working time. Women were allowed to be worked for 14 hours a day by the Factory and Workshop Act of 1901. This however was to not exceed 3 days in a week, and include 2 hours minimum for meals. Amusingly there is nothing in the Factory and Workshop Act about fencing for rivers of chocolate. Only rivers of molten metal and moving machinery and water wheels. I think you could make a case for violating the Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1875 for "sale of articles of food and of drugs not of the proper nature, substance, and quality" by having been "mixed with some extraneous matter". As for the nuts part, no one cared back then. "If your kid can be taken out by a peanut... don't get attached." Literal garbage and poor ventilation would fall back to violating Factory and Workshop for unclean conditions, effluent on the ground, trash on the ground, etc. Not sure his argument on product liability seeing as it wasn't actually a product, though from his presentation it did seem like it was safe for consumption. "I haven't got it quite right yet" could imply flavour was an issue, and 'I wouldn't do that' is not 'you should not do that'. Pollution into the waterways? That's just the Thames =p That final dropoff would be a fencing issue as per Factory and Workshop regarding fencing off dangerous machinery, as that drop off lead to an incinerator iirc. *disclaimer: not a lawyer, barrister or professional wigwearer in the UK legal system. I do like chocolate though.
You know there's an interesting fan theory about this being released just before OSHA went into effect where Wonka set up this whole thing just to offload his factory before he becomes criminally liable
Objection lacks jurisdiction. This film is based in the UK, and therefore US law does not apply. Furthermore it was based in the UK in 1964. Therefore: 1) Child labor laws in the UK in 1964 had no age based prohibition on the distribution of newspapers. Children "below school age" could not work in bars, mines or industrial undertakings or similar trades, but no prohibition existed for paper boys. 2) Under UK law, until 2005, selling candy bars with tickets in them would have been perfectly legal as a promotional contest. Additionally, after 2005, it would be classified as a lottery, and still legal so long as the enterprise followed the rules for such things, however it would likely run afoul of those rules since the promotion was aimed at children. Although even that isn't 100% guaranteed since the UK still has no prohibition on things such as lootboxes. 3) Overtime and labor laws were very very different in 1964 in the UK and would greatly depend on the contract of employment, and regulations on health and safety at the time, however in 1964 england, these were very lax. Additionally, offering to pay the employee that finds the ticket would count as a contest under current UK law since it would largely depend on the skill of the worker as to how many bars they could open and check per hour. 4) Trade secrets in the UK are considered part of the law of equity, there are no statutory provisions . Under UK law, the duty is on the person with the secret to protect that secret and absent extraordinary circumstance no protections would be available. Given that Wonka himself delivered to Charlie the gobstopper, he violated his duty to protect and could not seek damages under current (or former UK law). However, had Charlie stolen it, and then sold it, it would likely be different, unless Charlie could show that wonka had not taken all necessary steps to protect his secret. 5) UK contract law is vastly different in this regard. Having a parent present gives additional remedies for Wonka. Under UK law a child must be 7 years of age or younger to not be able to enter into a contract. A non fiduciary contract, signed in the presence of the parents could be binding under several circumstances. In 1964, the rules were very heavily tilted to favor Wonka, although it has changed in the decades since. A personal guarantee from a parent or legal guardian generally binds the child. 6) in the UK in 1964 Willy Wonka could sponsor an infinite number of workers so long as a) He was of good character b) Had a pressing need c) was willing to accept personal responsibility for the health and welfare of those workers d) Was willing to accept limited liability for the criminality of those workers. The UK had gotten hammered in WWII and needed workers to rebuild and keep domestic production moving, so they all but removed restrictions on the importation of workers. 7) OSHA was created in 1971, which is after 1964. This ignores that OSHA isn't the law in the UK, their health and safety laws didn't exist until the 1980's. 8) The disclaimer from #5 would cover violets blueberry dilemma under UK law, from 1964. 9) Veruca would be under the disclaimer from #5 and no OSHA or H&S from #7. 10) UK law does allow for a transfer of assets without taxation, at least it did under that taxation code from 1964, Charlie would have to pay ongoing council tax on the land, and any business taxes owing as a matter of ongoing operations, but until thatcher took over these were relatively cheap. The UK in 1964 believed that it was better to have 100% of a factory generating income and taxes than 60%. So charlie would need to pay the same taxes that Wonka was paying, and no more. So everything was legal in the UK during the time the movie existed. Nobody wins any cases, nobody gets paid, and the solicitors starve.
I watched a video once where they pointed out that this movie was placed only a couple years before a massive change in labour safety laws. So Wonka was getting rid of his factory before he could be held liable for its issues and or had to completely rebuild it to match new standards.
@Ollie B Considering that, in the book, Charlie finds a 50-pence coin and buys a Wonka bar, and that is obviously Uk currency and not US dollars/cents, it's safe to assume a UK location.
Actually, a newscast we see says that a ticket was found “right here in America”. Also, background details establish a German location (as it was filmed in West Germany) and the only time British labour laws would come up is during the scene at Mr Salt’s factory.
Objection: Under the constitutional guarantee of Ex Post Facto, those child labor laws were added at a much later time. At the age of 10-12, in Ohio, I had a paper route in the late 80s to early 90s. I also babysat, did lawn work, and other odd jobs for money. And there was no labor law violations in the 80s and 90s for those jobs. Willy Wonka was filmed in the 70s, and depicts a time much earlier than 1970, so no child labor laws were broken at that time, thus under Ex Post Facto, any laws created after such time cannot be retroactively applied to previous transgressions.
Sorry, but I have to draw the line somewhere. The Willy Wonka chocolate river is a CLOSED loop system meaning it would not effect the environment outside the factory premises thus not concerning the EPA.
No guard rails is BAD those oompa loompas MUST dress better in full body covered suits with hair nets, no bobble anything notice their shoes...those are a NO and can be a hazard. Their outfits do not look to be able to protect ANYTHING. I notice so much wrong...kitchen wise no hand washing seen....no change of gloves.....no DON'T WEAR HAIR PRODUCTS in a factory. Hair spray back than and now is FLAMMABLE a huge hazard to the oompa loompas. Everyone visiting should be in white protecive suits with hair nets and gloves....i see no medical kits anywhere. I also see no eye wash stations.....and I could go on for eons
Film theory had a really good video on this topic. The movie is set the same year OSHA became a thing. Basically Wonka is giving the factory away to avoid paying hefty fines.
Objection! Liability of product should only be counted if the product has been released to the public. I mean in this case Willy Wonka warned her to not use the product that was not released to the public, she in fact "stole" it. You can't really steal something and then claim damages from eating that stolen thing.
@@alwaysdisputin9930 As a home owner you have a duty of care to people in your home regardless of the authority of presence of those people and would be liable to the injured burglar.
@@cigmorfil4101 I let my dog do all that. He's like "oh burglars! how wonderful! do come in! Would you like a cup of tea? How about a nice slice of cake?"
@@r.b.rozier9692 That's a case where B&E is committed by the victim but gets caught in a deadly trap. The principle is that don't set deadly traps that can kill people.
FACT CHECK: This movie is set in the United Kingdom. The labour laws are different there. Many UK children have part-time jobs such as paper rounds and must be 13 years old. This minimum age was set in 1966 a few years after the book was published which is why Charlie is a little younger in the book. In the film I believe he is 13, so no laws were broken !!
@@jjlortez I don't know what you've been smoking but the price of a Wonka bar is 50 pence. The author is English and the story was inspired by his visit to an English chocolate factory. Charlies accent is also English as is his family and the shopkeeper. You yanks don't know anything.
@@jasongoodacre KK if you need to know. Accents meant nothing, besides most of the accents in that movie are Russian or Australian. And the book was written 8n Canada.
The hilarious thing is, that was a big piece of gum......and even AFTER she supposedly starts eating it, if you look very carefully, you can see it in her right hand. And as she's talking you don't see it in her mouth.
@@CeltycSparrow she takes a bite out of the gum, you can see the corner missing from the piece of gum. And she might not actually have gum in her mouth while filming cuz there's always a smacking sound when you chew gum with your mouth open (like she's doing) and that wouldn't sound good in the audio
This film was good to start with but your legalese just makes it all the more hilarious! "Congratulations, Charlie, I'm giving you your heart's desire,only downside, that also includes all my debts!" 😝
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!
@@rezalustig6773 A nitpic for the record: The Brothers Grimm did not author the fairy tales attributed to them, they collected and anthologized traditional folklore tales. This is an important distinction since it was sort of the point of their work: The Grimms were Romanticist scholars obsessed with the history of German language and literature, and believed folklore represented a very pure expression of national storytelling traditions.
Objection sustained. Mr Wanka is required to apologize to the world, do 200 hours of community service and be on probation for 3 years. Court adjourned
I would note is that None of the children were killed in the movie. The remake and Book confirmed that fact. They just didn't show them leaving the factory.
The only one that was disfigured permanently was Mike Teavee as it looks like they stretched him out too much but maybe he'll have a career in the NBA.
Objection. Your first point about child labor laws doesn't take account for the time period the movie is suppose to take place in. It's set in the 1920s and child workers were at it's height working in mills, factories, ect. It wasn't until 1938 when the Fair Labor Standards Act covered children. There were pushes to stop child labor before 1938 but until Congresses passed this child labor was still legal. You're retroactively applying laws to them that didn't exist until nearly 20 years later.
Even still, in the USA Newspaper delivery to consumers or selling on corners is exempted from FLSA. Yes, I know this takes place in the UK, but it still stands to reason. (29 CFR §570.124)
I object to your objection on the basis that this movie is set in the 1960's NOT the 20's. There are clearly cars from the 60s and TV with a Lone Ranger like series playing at Mike Teevees house. Therefore, FLSA would apply. HOWEVER, it would only apply to the Oompa Loompas and their plight, because newspaper delivery is NOT covered under FLSA which you can read about here: www.dol.gov/general/topic/youthlabor/newspaper I knew this one immediately because I delivered papers when I was 13.
@@moonlghtknght Well no, the reason for the cars and the Lone Ranger was that they had a very tight budget for the movie. They didn't want to spend the extra money on cars from the 20s so they went with the cheaper option, it's also why they shot the movie in Bavaria. To save money. Similar deal with Mike Teevee but instead it was to make more money. It was set in the 20s.
@@AgentTexes The BOOK may have been set in the 20s. This is about the movie, which is definitely NOT set in the 20s. Since this vid is about the MOVIE, THAT is the time frame we have to deal with here.
Objection! Laws can in fact be applied retroactively, also known as ex post facto. For example, the Adam Walsh child and safety act that requires sex offenders to register was applied to people who offended before it was enacted.
OBJECTION! Article 1, section 9 states "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." The AWCSA does not make it an offense to fail to have registered before it passed, it merely creates an obligation to register moving forward.
@@danpowell806 This depends on if the existing laws was amended to include regulation of nut allergies or if the nut allergy regulations were promulgated from an existing law that could reasonably have been foreseen to include the nut cross contamination issue. New regulatory interpretations and new legal precedents can still screw you in an ex post facto way (though you have some legal shields that you can attempt to apply, it will ultimately be up to the court to determine whether or not you could reasonably have foreseen this based on the law's language).
+SentsuizanXS, that law requires sex offenders to register. So, failure to register is a crime that would occur AFTER the law's passage. The date that the person became a convicted sex offender is irrelevant to his duty to register upon passage of the law.
Technically the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy does permit the passage of ex post facto laws in the UK but they are highly frowned upon and thus are extremely rare in practice. Even so for this to occur the act would need to explicitly specify an alternative effective date otherwise it becomes effective on the date on which it is passed by default. Most commonly this is seen in acts that delete an offence though as doing that after the fact is a lot less controversial, it is sometimes also the case that laws are passed that commute previous sentences when removing a sentencing option too like the death penalty abolition acts that communed existing death sentences to life imprisonment instead.
I actually had the original book, so I can say none of the children actually died. Augustus Gloop was just squeezed tight by the pipe and he came out alive but "thin as a straw". Violet Beauregard was successfully juiced by the juicer so she was back to normal, except still blue. Veruca Salt survived her fall into the incinerator (somehow) and was just covered in very smelly garbage. And Mike Teevee was stretched back out by the Oompa Loompas and became about 10 feet tall and "thin as a wire". I think Wonka even made a joke about him becoming a basketball player, but it's been years since I read it.
OBJECTIONS! -Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (based on the book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) is set in the UK, and so US laws don't apply. This is indicated by the coin that Charlie found to buy his winning bar being a 1 shilling coin. -During the period in which the story is set (1950s-early 1960s Britain), children over the age of 9 are allowed part time jobs as long as they don't interfere with their full-time education. This wasn't changed until 1966, when the UK adopted the UN General Assembly of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into law, which increased the legal age of a child entering employment to 14. -During the 1950s-60s in the UK, such a giveaway would have been legal. -During this period, the requirement for the workers to do unpaid overtime would have been legal, as long as their contracts allowed for it, as there was no legal minimum wage until the Minimum Wage Act 1998. -At age 9-10, Charlie would be under the age of criminal responsibility in the UK, and therefore likely couldn't be charged under criminal law for corporate espionage for Slugworth. -In the UK at the time, tax was only payable on winnings from betting shops (at 9%), and so wouldn't apply in this case. In the modern day, tax on gambling winnings was abolished in the UK in 2001. Sorry, but as a Brit who enjoys history, literature and has legal knowledge, I couldn't resist! Keep up the good work on your channel though!
Objection: the "mold and fungus" growing in the factory are actually candy. Everything in that room was specified to be edible candy. So it's not a health violation.
except it is because you are allowed to walk around on the "candy" which means its clearly not a food safe environment, and your shoes bring with it contaminants which validate the initial claim that its a health violation.
I always hated that part even as a kid. Because... it’s human nature to keep striving and setting new goals. He’s not just going to never want something new. Happiness, with no goal or growth, is a pretty boring way to live in and of itself.
@@SunflowerSpotlight That's insanity, Charlie's now rich enough to pursue anything he wants and strive to do things that aren't accomplished just by being rich, he can study and learn anything he wants and set goals by honing skills in any field he'd like. He can be an angel investor, advance technology and better the life of people. He can travel the world and take in cultures. You're viewpoint is myopic because when money isn't an option, your goals don't disappear you just have a greater amount of goals to strive for.
if any of these kids died in the movie, to me it would sound more like "involuntarily manslaughter" than just "manslaughter" as wonka has told some kids to not do something MANY TIMES and the kids did stupid things anyway instead of fearing for their life.
@@lalehiandeity1649 It's more far-fetched to compare present day American law to a fantasy story based in 1920's England than to reference the book it's based on! 😂
Regardless of strict product liability, I don't necessarily think he would be liable for Violet's disfigurement because it's not a product that's available for sale. If I'm going on a tour of a cosmetics facility and I swipe a tube of an untested formula of skin cream that later gives me a terrible rash, it can't really be their fault because it's not intended for human use at that point
Wonka: Don't forget what happened to the man who suddenly got everything he always wanted. Charlie: What happened? Wonka: He realized that he had reached the peak of his existence without earning it and without anything to work towards, he became despondent and ended up living an empty life of excess until he lost everything. He went to the grave penniless, friendless, emotionally empty, and miserable.
Objection!! I held a paper route job from twelve to thirteen years old in Washington State from 1985 - 1986. Do your research. This film took place in 1971. I highly doubt the labor laws were more restrictive in 1971 than they were in the '80s.
Ohsa was made a year after the year this movie is set in. Theirs a theory that wonka left the company to Charlie so he would be stuck with all the legal troubles while he ran off with his money. Seem like a good idea to leave all the trouble to a poor family with no idea of safety laws.
Objection: Charlie Bucket is not in the USA - so question jurisdiction and point of law - Roald Dahl was a British novelist and set the beginning of his book in a small English town. ... also in the UK no law existed preventing minors to hold a paper route when the film was made - I had a paper route in the late 1970s. I was 12
@@clementinetea252 Is it? Feels like the point is more about applying law to the absurd events in the story. I don't recall him saying anywhere that applying modern laws to old media was the point.
@@MrVisualHigh Well, the movie was based on a book that was made in 1964 that's meant to have the story itself take place in the 1920s, with Cadbury and Rowntree's being the biggest confectionery giants in Britian.
Overruled. The movie is being watched by an American lawyer on American soil. Therefore, it shall be judged by American law. If it was being viewed by a lawyer in the UK, it would be judged by UK law.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Apparently, MatPat at Film Theory did a video covering the OSHA violations of Wonka's factory. Check it out! ruclips.net/video/jD83QaWy8LI/видео.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).
And yes, I am fully aware of the irony of this situation.
Total respect. This is an integrity move. Thanks for answering my concerns.
Proof that brilliant personalities may gravitate towards similar topics.
Damn it, that was MY objection. How dare you steal my idea for an objection by writing it before I did!
Credit was given, that is the important part.
I do like the conclusion Mat came up with:
Wonka was ditching the factory before these laws became enforceable!
I already viewed Wonka in a negate light, what with the whole 'I rescued them and now they work for me' excuse being ripped straight out of Slavery 101, but even I didn't give him enough evil-credit. Even with the unsafe nature of his factory being pretty damn obvious to any watching the film, making one question how safe the product is let alone how many workers are killed regularly, I didn't give Wonka enough evil-credit. Even as Wonka spun each accident as the sole fault of children, who are well known for their great impulse control, I didn't give this evil man enough credit. I, like the gullible crowds in the movie, brought into this con-artists excuse of: 'getting old, want some young blood to run things.'
In reality he is more evil then that:
*Wonka knew the factory would start costing him millions per day and chose a child's guardian to dump it onto, as they wouldn't know about the legal ramifications till it was too late.*
Mom: the life of a child is invaluable
LegalEagle: $20M a piece
Mom: the life of a child is invaluable
LegalEagle: $20 million a piece, take it or leave it
Mom: Gimme
I didn’t even realize that they died until he started tallying everything up
....brats are free!!!
CHeath
Take one for free and buy a normal kid 50% off
Lol
Wait just a minute.
Death or injury of one child: $20 million
Enslaving an entire country: $5 million?
Actually, if this were to occur in America, you would actually GET *at least* $5 million for enslaving an entire country. If history tells us anything it's that this is an incredibly lucrative business plan for which you will be able to avoid any consequences for at least ~200 years.
Heres the thing, how big is this country, and how many did he enslave.
Exactly we dont know.
If you're applying US law to this, then yeah, those numbers are totally off! Each of the murdered children were extremely wealthy and white, so you'd be paying out more than 20 mil a head there. And you'd certainly EARN way more than 5 million dollars enslaving an entire country of non-whites!
GoRyGuy You were making sense in the first half but then you had to go and ruin it with the second half
I like how he labelled all the kid's as dead. But didn't they say they had explanations at the end and they all walk out fine? I mean realistically I guess, Violet would've been internally ruptured from the massive bloating
Objection: The Chocolate Factory is situated in the UK and the events set around the 1920's-30's. US law is not applicable.
Right The UK, English law circa 1964!
Two books so...... Could be usa law although in this movie Charlie finds a fifty pence price (half pound coin) clearly indicating UK.... Not to mention that city/town.
@@AMPProf
Objection! That town happens to be Munich, Bavaria.
So... West German law?
@@Zorilla10 Its based on a novel by the british childrens author Roald Dahl. This novel was directly inspired by him and other children at his school being invited to trial chocolate bars from a nearby factory. From this and some other factors such as currency, british chocolate making heratige and architechture, I would argue Britan is the most likely setting.
The film was film in Germany
Because Charlie is only 12-13, I always kind of assumed that Wonka was offering him a sort of long-term apprenticeship that would culminate in him inheriting the factory in about 10 years. That seems to be what Wonka is implying when they are all in the glass elevator. I imagined that Wonka would make Charlie a junior vice president of the company, and apprentice him while the boy continued to go to school, and then probably to college, where he might obtain a business degree.
It's also in the book that he tells Charlie his entire family can move in with him.
in the books he wants a partner
😅😅😅 Ahh brilliantly explained!! Love it
@@nubreed13 He says it in the movie too.
I love how he owes more money for forgetting to say "you do not need to make a purchase to participate" than he does for 4 murders.
That’s how businesses work in America.
He didn’t actually kill anyone, they ended up living.
@@joshuanash6401 I think this report is about the movie alone. Yeah in the book they survived but if you take the movie by itself, there's no proof the kids survived.
@@paulh2981 he said they would be just fine. Granted he isn’t the most honest and upstanding guy but, ya know.
@@paulh2981 Standard TV/Movie trope is if they didn't die on screen they are still alive. Even if they did die on screen they can be brought back. No children died in this film.
When I was a kid, I rolled my eyes at Wonka freaking out over Augustus contaminating the chocolate river, but now that I work in the deli at a local grocery store, I DEFINITELY understand his panic
Haha me too, and I work in a literal candy store 😂 Due to Covid we have to pre-bag all bulk candy that would normally be open and bagged by the customer with a scooper. And of course we have to tell the children and even some adults to stop touching items they’re not going to buy, cuz we gotta sanitize everything that is not bought. It’s a bit of a nightmare 😅
Then why didn’t he have handrails? Why did he let a bunch of kids who came off the streets into his factory and hang around yet-to-be-produced products that he fully intended on selling?
Why does he even have an open-air room full of perishable foodstuffs to be literally stepped on?
Willy Wonka sucks ass.
LMAO, isn't that the same with all of us? We never think about scenes like the chocolate river or why Wonka is so angry. Blink and suddenly we're working in the food business and the reason why he's anger becomes crystal clear!
I too work ata grocery store and i cant feel bad for the kid. If he wants to do something dumb his consequences are his fault
Mhmhm osha
"Don't forget what happened to the man who suddenly got everything he ever wanted."
What?"
"He had to pay a ton of taxes."
Plus, you'll have to pay the fines for those children dying, Charlie. Good luck.
Just like winning the actual lottery.
guinealover6674 !!! Hopefully (and probably) the revenue from the factory would allow him to pay those taxes.
@@ryanjapan3113 oof i mean, i don't know, at this point it seems like Wonka just wants to get rid of the damn thing....
There's no tax on prize winnings in the UK
Also, funny enough, the filming of the movie caused some related health hazard condition. The chocolate river was real, but due to poor refridgeration, it spoiled quickly after filming before it drained and was disposed.
Also the scene with the soap vehicle basically gave all of the actors on it essentially chemical burns and shut down production for a month while they recovered.
THE MORE YOU KNOW!
the actress for Veruca also cut her knee on one of the rocks and still has a scar from it to this day
The chocolate river wasn't real chocolate. They state in the commentary that it is just water colored brown to resemble chocolate.
The girl getting her chin smacked by the Candy Man at the beginning 🙈 this production was terrifying
@@tonyf4991That would be in the 2007 book adaptation, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where it's paint mixed with water. In Willy Wonka, it really was real chocolate.
@@Damariobros That sounds crazy expensive!
I forgot how gross the chocolate river looked in the movie. Just dirty water really.
It looks like shit
IMDB says it's 150,000 gallons of water, chocolate, and cream. The cream spoiled and by the end of filming smelled terrible
True
It looked okay on a 90's VHS player displaying on a tiny 80's TV.
Lucatin it probably looked better. Also it doesn’t help that the first one I say was the remake where the chocolate was digital eye candy.
"Lets see if I can ruin your childhood, like law school ruined mine"
A statement both lawyers and criminals and agree to
As a criminal, I can agree.
As a criminal who commits tax fraud, tax evading, 1st degree murder, vandalism, violation of government patents, mass murder and oh my mafia boss told me not to state anymore crimes I commit so yeah I agree
kinda implies legaleagle went to lawschool during his childhood
@@ThePenguinManwhat the hell penguin.
Also, willy’s statement: “it always goes wrong once we reach dessert” implies that he’s been testing on people/oompa loompas
did you ever hear the song from honest trailers willy wonka it paints a very grim detail about the oompa statues as slaves
Its not even implied. In the other version of this movie, he OUTRIGHT ADMITS that he's tested the gum on the Oompa Loompas and they ALL became blueberries.
I mean I’d hope he used lab rats or something but I doubt it
@Ollie the Sock :D They were also originally black. I can see why they changed that detail in the movie lmao.
Same with the drinks they floated away so that to
Willy Wonka had the brilliant idea of putting an air vent with a fan above the room with consumables that caused levitation.
You know... I've never thought about that. Huh.
So what you are saying is that this was a failed Saw house? 😂
I never thought about that until I watched the scene in this video and realized the legal implications of it.
Willy Wonka: *Breathes*
Eagle: this actually a violation of section 32 of the clean air act. Mr Wonka will serve two life sentences without possibility of parole
Hahahahahah
Lol
He is actually guilty of many things but ok...
@@Cassxowary He is joking the fact Wily is literally committed too many crimes that even for him to alive is illegal.
Herta Schneider r/whoosh
Child: Falls in river.
Wonka: I'm never going to financially recover from this.
Have you seen Film Theory's video on willy Wonka?
augustus fell into a river in lego city!
@@jettyblue12 Oooo, I must check it out!
@@mamesmck5236 hey if you want to i can spoil it
woop too late now so
Willy Wonka gives the factory to Charlie because he doesn't want to come under fire from all those OSHA violations he's currently under.
I’d love a Willy Wonka version of Tiger King
As a kid, it all looked so fun. As an adult, "Is that legal? That can't be legal?"
Small thing maybe but at time of release half the laws cited were different or nonexistent.
Let alone in day it's portrayed to be in, thing were very different 60+ yrs ago.
But you're right Totally Different Perspective!
But... I was always pretty sure it wasn’t legal
Even reading the book as a kid I was like "Daddy are the children okay? Mr Wonka's factory does not seem safe" lol
All the “deaths” disturbed me as a kid and I asked my dad, “how did they get out/back to normal?” Didn’t like it
What you mean Willie Is wanka Can't build Is his factory seriously all those are the real reasons he gave those children and their dreams come True.
Anyone else interested to seeing if the Johnny Depp Willy Wonka would fare any better or worse than the Gene Wilder one by having LegalEagle examine that movie?
Absolutely!
Yeah!
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.
Def esp since there are guardrails in the new version Veruca Salt's tantrum
I'd love to see Johnny Depp Willy Wonka put on the chopping block! 😄
in violet's blueberry case, she didn't eat a product. she ate a test prototype not meant for mass production or public consumption. it was still in the testing stage. no court, surely, would ever convict for damages from an incomplete product wilfully stolen by the plaintiff.
But there's no wet floor sign
Couldn't it be argued that he should've taken measures to ensure that she or anyone else couldn't steal it?
@@chloeedmund4350 Possibly. But then when/where would the preventative measures end? It could be argued that to sufficiently prevent her action, and subsequent action, from occurring, would be to not allow her to be in the factory in the first place.
@@gamerleal9265 and this would be exactly why most factories don't have children tour them. The only exceptions generally have carefully controlled areas, with guardrails, keeping them away from any potentially dangerous equipment or products.
She's a child.
child: dies tragically
oompa loompas: *dancing intensifies*
Times five.
That furnace is lit every other day. So she has a sporting chance.
😂😂😂
OBJECTION: None of the children were harmed in any way as stated by Wonka himself near the end of the original film.
No one knows of thay died at the end or just made to leave after thay were recovered from their wrong doins and takin straight home without anyone seeing one by one
Fun fact not only did Wonka take an entire civilization out of their native country only to make them work and live in the factory, but according to the other movie and book he pays them in cacao beans which to the Oompa Loompas, which is highly addictive and super toxic, but also to get them into the country he shipped them in crates with holes drilled into them.
Addictive sure, but toxic? That I don't remember.
The Oompa Loompas love the beans. It's not bad they are getting payed in them.
@@Pineapply_Queen it’s toxic to animals like dogs so technically it’s toxic but the human body can filter out the toxins
@@satanclaws666 Yeah but we're given zero indication that it's sufficently toxic to Oompa Loompas to cause them harm, which is what Jerricko was implying.
@@ChaseElliottFan97 It makes them entirely reliant on Wonka, since they can't use the beans to buy food and stuff for themselves if one of them wants to leave. If they wanted the beans, Wonka could just pay them in real money so they could buy it themselves.
I worked at a chocolate factory for 5 years and I can say from personal experience that a chocolate river is, indeed, very bad. Chocolate rain and a chocolate waterfalls, too, should be avoided at all costs.
Why
@@outlawdaddy3866 it’s just mainly impractical.
But you know no other chocolate factory turns it's chocolate by Waterfall
OBJECTION: The river is a closed loop, so the EPA will not be involved.
Austin Persing that is probably the answer. Willy Wonka is way to smart to let chocolates uh out.
@Sebastian Marlow he doesn't even have to pay me to get rid of the chocolate river I'll be there waiting in the corner with a straw XD
@Sebastian Marlow ik I just saw the opportunity to make that joke so I went for it XD
@Sebastian Marlow the chocolate is boiled before being made into bars, killing any bacteria, should a water cleaning company get sued because there is dirt in the dirty water?
but what about the pipe that goes to the boiling room? wonka must be boiling the chocolate for a reason, perhaps i dunno, to sell to unwary consumers?
In the words of MatPat: “Come with me, and you’ll be in a world of OSHA violations.”
*Dying of laughter while OSHA is still trying to figure out what happened...*
The fact that that scans perfectly is hilarious.
I love that song it will never get old
HAHAHAHAHA
This is literally my favourite comment🤣🤣🤣
Fun fact: both female child actresses had a crush on the child actor who played Charlie on set & the child actor that played Augustus actually hates chocolate
Lol
The augustus is so ironic
How could you possibly hate chocolate?
@@dickcastle 🤷🏻♀️ my cousin hates it too
He got that rizz
Objection. Jurisdiction.
Willy Wonka’s factory is in UK or fantasy land or other jurisdiction that has Pound as its currency and is not located within the United States and is not under jurisdiction of US Legal Code.
Great video by the way.
I love these
And in the UK you can be 13 and have a paper route so well. The one kid is 12. It is very possible that Charlie could be 13.
Surprising, although the book clearly takes place in the UK, I believe the movie canonically takes place in the US.
Paid in pound not dollar
That, and everything he said about the EPA and OSHA. It all depends on what timeframe the movie occurred in. If the events in the movie happened in late 1970, or later, then, yes......Wonka's *definitely* in violation of those laws. If they happened any earlier, like in the book, which was set in the 1920s, EPA and OSHA wouldn't even exist yet, so Wonka wouldn't be bound to them, or forced to follow their regulations.......
And it's the 70s
FYI: the books reveal that the children were disfigured, not dead.
I think that the movie implies that the children died though
@@scootmctoot No it doesn't. It's stated that they will be returned to normal.
@@vetarlittorf1807 well that’s what Willy Wonka says would happen, but we never see the children again, they are never seen back to normal or even leaving the factory, and aren’t even mentioned. And then Wonka retired and gave the factory to Charlie. So I think it’s safe to assume they are dead. Even if it wasn’t out right said, it definitely is implied, or at least leaves the viewers to assume so.
also that the oompa loompas were shipped through in crates at night
@@madisyn4790 i believe they did show them at the end
Objection: The gloves that the Ompa Lumpa's were wearing were cloth gloves which is not safe for handling food.
They aren’t nylon gloves?
Overruled!!!! They are white-Nylon inspection gloves.
@mrParkerman6 they aren’t shut up
I'd like but its at 420
My theory was always that Wonka was looking for a replacement who could take the fall for his company’s negligence and then he’d leave the country and find asylum. Effectively, dooming Charlie Bucket.
A king of industry, that Wonka. Lol
Admit it, you saw robot chicken. If not, its a original good joke.
Robot Chicken did this version.
Or Charlie switches the wonka factory to constructing a train which travels the world and contains its own internal ecosystem. Then the world freezes over and Charlie, captain America, and the remnants of humanity travel the world endlessly.
Willy Wonka is a Batman villain who specialises in brainwashing, abducting, and murdering kids in a way that makes it look like an accident. He's got the henchmen, the gadgets and the funky costume. But hey, that's just a theory...
You know what comes next...
I remember a cartoon in MAD magazine where in the aftermath of Jack and The Beanstalk, Jack was told it will cost a million dollars to bury the dead giant. He says “a million dollars? That’s a bit stiff” the undertaker says “yeah and so’s the giant”.
I'm guessing that the joke was more about the giant being in rigor mortise than him having a stiffy.
A corpse that huge would natutally cause a plague.
*"MY CHOCOLATE!!"*
"Don't just stand there! DO SOMETHING!"
*"help."*
Police. Murder.
ya i love it when he says
help.
please.
murder.
I never liked Gene Wilder's Wonka. He feels more like a mad scientist than simply an eccentric idealist. In the book, when Augustus fell in the river and when Violet turned into a blueberry, Wonka was genuinely concerned about them.
ThatGuy67 LMAO I love how oblivious, nonchalant, careless, and uninterested Willy Wonka acts whenever one of the kids get in dangerous (and possibly deadly) situations 🤣 probably because he doesn’t like them!
Vetarlit Torf you should watch young Frankenstein
"Let's ruin your childhood like law school ruined mine"
HA! Joke's on you, my childhood is already ruined. Also, sorry man. Hope your childhood gets better
An actual original and funny comment on RUclips is rare
@Meine Namen
Are you saying That because you don't like it or because it's one of the rare ones?
I'm going to assume the latter is true, funny bone has been tickled, I am now ROFL.
Oh, cognitive dissonance does wonders to restoring happy memories! And compartmentalizing, too.
You seen the way the world is going? Of course his childhood is getting better. It's getting better by the second.
Objection: The plants were actually candy, which means they stepped on sellable candy with their dirty shoes.
I always imagined the grass was candied coconut shavings with green food coloring
@@CorndogMaker Nah the book says they're sellable candy
@@littlemssunshinexoxo but...*candied* coconut shavings are candy
@@CorndogMaker I guess? Either way, he's selling food that has been stepped on with dirty feet, even eaten with dirty hands with Wonka's permission.
@@littlemssunshinexoxo you'd have to prove he sold the contaminated candy.
Isn't it also fair to call the Oompa Loompas part of a company town since they live, work, and get all their food and supplies at the factory?
Or are those not actually illegal?
I'm not any kind of professional, but I'm pretty sure that being paid in "scrip" and exchanging that for products that the company provides (often at a huge markup) is illegal, so if they have to exchange the coca beans he pays them for room and board then probably, is my guess.
Pretty wild that enslaving an entire civilization was the least of his crimes.
That's because it could at least be argued that they were better off than where they lived previously.
@@japanpanda2179 yeah those vermicious knids and wicked wang-doodles were awful back in Loompaland
The thing is is that it's shown (at least in the new movie) that he pays them in coco beans or chocolate and they agree
@@calvinscarvings.66 So indentured servitude then?
@@justins8802 not exactly? There isnt any real evidence to say that Wonka doesnt allow the Oompa Loompas to leave and search for other ways of life, but rather looks like they stay and labor in Wonka’s factory in their own free will. So really, the irregular immigration stuff seems to be the most legally reprehensible thing in this case. I mean, if you can leave at will and you stay because of a pay you agree with, is there any slavery or indentured servitude taking place?
*child who can’t swim falls into river*
Wonka: MY CHOCOLATE
To be fair, you can make a new child in 9 months, making a new chocolate river will take considerably longer.
Same tho.
@@khosrowzare8301 Not to mention that chocolate later gets sold to people. And a child swimming in it probably ruined a whole shipment.
The event was also foreseeable and even encouraged that all could eat in the room
Did you mean:
*mY chOcOLaTe!!*
*heart warming ending*
Lawyer: you have to pay taxes on that
Oversimplified: *“There’s a tax for that”*
Everything is not free Charle
Presumably WW Inc has a fair amount of cash from continuing operations. No reason Charlie can't use that cash and get a loan on future profits to pay the rest.
Objection!
If 12 year olds can't have jobs they also can't pay taxes
I love that you just skipped over Mike entirely. Like, that’s all on that kid so Willy gets off on that one
Willy Wonka commits child murder then hands over the factory to a scapegoat so he can escape blame
Except none if the kids died.
Fellow film theorist?
Swordplaymaster Gerb no matpat is an overrated pandering hack and is extremely cringey
Yes, in the first film they die. Willy Wonka lies about their fate. The while reason Gene Wylder wanted Wonka's entrance to be him walking eith a cane was so you can't tell if Sonja is ever lying or not. So Sonja is fur shure a liar!!!! They only survive the book and remake.
Brian Finley mate
Maybe when you get an English education master English as a language
Discover all our idioms and then fully understand sarcasm, irony and exaggeration
Then maybe I could explain it to you
*Objection*
The gum was not a released product, but rather an object still in testing. Wonka did not claim it is edible at all, nor did he supply the girl with the gum. Thus it cannot be held liable under product's strict liability, because it would be equivalent to holding a man liable to damages made, by someone consumig their handwritten note, and getting food poisonig.
It happened in his factory on his invitation so you could argue he was liable. Because it happened on his watch.
If the contract was valid would this still be unlawful?
Jakub Kalka Yes, he actually was trying to stop the eating of the gum
But it happened to a child he had invited to the factory, and had the appearance of regular candy - something the group had been allowed full access to until that point. In addition, it was placed within her reach, despite being an untested product not fit for human consumption AND Wonka didn’t make her spit it out, despite the potential danger.
As a child, it isn’t her legal duty to keep herself safe, but it is his liability as the owner of the factory and the person who helped her get into contact with hazardous material. Moreover, he could easily be blamed for being so “ignorant” (aka ignoring them) of safety procedures after other children had been harmed due to his negligent behavior.
Objection: He did nothing to warn her of the magnitude of the consequences of her actions which apportions quite a lot of blame to him. He was fully aware of the risks associated with consumption of the product and despite this made no effort beyond his initial "no don't do that". I'd imagine that the outcome would be quite different if he'd told her that chewing the gum would result in her disfigurement.
Another violation, not mentioned:
The ceiling ventilator fan in the Fizzy Lifting Drinks room doesn't have the required safety grilles on either side of it.
Imagine being an Hoompa Loompa, just starting his shift, going in and seeing that the whole place is covered in bird guts and feathers.
"... Oh, is it 7am already?"
The whole factory is just full of OSHA violations
In the book, Willy Wonka ties down the Oompa Loompas when they test the Fizzy Lifting Drinks
The novel actually takes place in 1920's before the Federal Labor Laws for Minors were created. Of course, I know this is a review for the 1971 film and not the novel, but I just wanted to point this out that Charlie working in the novel would be legal at the time that the story plot took place. The film, though, was based in the 1970s, so the law would still apply to Charlie in the film since the FLSA law was created in 1938.
I mean in the UK I had a paper route at age 11 in the early 2000s. Nothing unrealistic there.
"Class undismissed"
As if you'd actually have enough time to say that as a teacher before every single one of your students is already gone.
Corporal punishment was legal in the time era of the film, which was based on a book that was also a specific time era, so the kids would know to stop in their tracks, lest they get hit with a ruler or paddled
10:52 Actually, the book that this movie is based off of goes more into detail about that. The Oompa Loompas apparently had just about nothing too eat, and they loved cacao beans. When Wonka found them, he asked if they would like to work in his factory for an unlimited supply of chocolate and cacao beans. They agreed happily.
Would that mean he would be avoiding taxes?
Min Yoongles actually probably yes. Bartering can be treated as taxable income
So payment in food?
Algis Yeah basically
yep, this is also explained in the remake!
Objection: In the book, Willy Wonka clearly stated that all of the plants and such were all edible candy.
YES!
@Haku infinite f*ck
"Everything in this room is eatable." Something like that anyway.
@Haku infinite That part of the quote is from the 2003 movie
Objection: It should be stored properly, And because they are are stepping on it, It should deemed unsafe to eat.
Objection:
In the Dinner chapter where you mention that fault is not considered, only causation, wouldn't Wonka be able to argue that it was not a finished product ready for release, and he warned Violet not to chew the gum? Surely there's some kind of defence there, if a product is not in a state where it is intended for public consumption..?
Objection he knew she would eat it as she planned it out
@@tfordham13objection: conjecture
@@battlesheep2552 objection! he could have had his security team apprehend her and force her to spit it out but he only looked on in mild amusement.
Wonka: Congratulations on your factory Charlie, how do you plan to handle the PR crisis?
Charlie: Crisis?
Wonka: A lot of people just died in your factory Charlie
Oh my gosh😂😂I suppose he'd get tried as a minor, so out by 21?
Nope they'll just wait until 18 to convict him
Did you even watch the end of the movie?
Charlie: "Gee whiz, I guess I'll just bribe the public and the judges by giving lots of people lots of free chocolates"
Willy Wonka: "Good thinking, Charlie!"
Uncle Joe: "You can make the free chocolates outta that chocolate river Augustus Goop contaminated! I'll oversee all the promotions for the free giveaway!"
(A year later the Willy Wonka chocolate brand is more popular than ever before! Also Willy Wonka got acquited of all charges! However some people complain the free chocolates tasted "sweaty" and "pissy")
None of them died. They may have had considerable medical expenses, though.
Fun fact they had to stop filming during the Veruca Salt scenes to tell her she had to be meaner.
It's actually Veruca Salt .
Tim Martin Fixed thanks left the comments after a couple of drinks so I didn’t notice.
It's actually just a bit of sodium chloride
Jaime Perez it’s actually just free real estate
Holy cow. Thats weird.
What sort of trouble would John Hammond (Jurassic Park) get into?
Prison for 999 years with no chance of parole, I would say.
And he'd owe billions in fines and settlements
Don't even get me started on the ethical implications of cloning dinosaurs in the first place.
Depends on where the park was located in and John Hammond's country of residence.
@@mariic2 nah there's nothing wrong with that I bet; doubt there's even laws that specifically mention dinosaurs in the first place since most people are concerned with sheep and common animals that are even possible.
For every law, there's a loophole somewhere.
Someone needs to make this into a direct sequel. The Disturbing Case of Willy Wonkas Factory. I see Oompa Loompa lawyers in my mind’s eye.
Singing the defense in rhyme lol
Objection: the "winning" of the factory assets and stocks is never mentioned in the competition - in fact, no monetary winnings were mentioned. The fact that Wonka also HAPPENED to be looking for an heir and HAPPENED to find one from the competition winners doesn't mean the act of handing the factory over is suddenly part of the competition - it's an independent business action.
It appears that the factory prize was a separate contest all together, All the children were given a chance to betray Wonka but only Charlie refused.
The contest was only for a free visit to the factory.
Wonka giving the factory to Charlie would technically be a gift, so no tax on gifts, right?
the impression that I got from both reading the book and the sequel and watching both movies, the tim burton one as well, is that Charlie "winning" the factory WAS the "true" purpose of the golden ticket thing.
I think Wonka knew exactly what he was doing.
Wonka was looking for an heir and he started the golden ticket thing as a way of finding the heir.
when a company like Coca Cola does one of those contests where you look under the bottlecap and you "could win a million dollars!", they always know exactly how many winning prizes they printed and exactly where they sent them.
so, Wonka, being as eccentric as he is and having access to wondrous resources that normal people can't even understand, he could have specifically targeted certain children to get those tickets. he might have known exactly where he sent those golden tickets.
I mean, in the book, it goes into great detail of the mania that struck the world, everyone looking for the tickets, and grownups were looking for the tickets too, how did he know that children would find them?
like there was a scene in the book where a bank robber stole a ton of money then used it to buy chocolate bars and the police came to arrest him and found him sitting on a mountain of chocolate bars, frantically cutting the wrappers with a knife and had to pry him away, how did Wonka know that guy wouldn't find one? or 3?
the tour of the factory was a way of getting the children into situations where they could prove their worth and virtue of character so he could pick a winner.
each room was a test. he picked those situations deliberately, to test the children. He did his homework, studying the backgrounds of each of those kids, as evidenced by the oompa looma song lyrics(most evident in the lyrics from the book), those guys knew everything about these kids.
Wonka did the whole golden ticket thing as a way of getting the children into controlled situations to test their virtue so he could find the most pure and innocent person to become his heir. and among billions of people, somehow found Charlie.
He must have cherrypicked those children. how he managed to ensure that those particular ones would be picked? I dunno, can't be explained, just like how the secrets behind how he makes his crazy candies can't be explained either.
but hey, that's just a theory. . . I hope that line isn't copyrighted. . .
meh! Even gifts have taxes? What a shitty world we are in...
@@gamerito100 Only if there are worth at least thousands of dollars because that could be a way to avoid paying heritage taxes
OBJECTION!! I don't think Wonka would be responsible for turning Violet into a blueberry based on "product liability", due to the fact it was not on the market or available to the public. She snatched it out of his hand and ate it, disregarding his warning.
Yup your correct this guy is a bad lawyer
I just said something to this effect, it's like trying to sue because you illegally download an unfinished and unreleased version of a movie, show, or videogame that hasn't been deemed safe or for public consumption. If you have a seizure looking at it it's your own fault since it had no guarantee of being safe as of yet. Especially if you were told before hand explicitly NOT to take it.
@@peteryanes3413 this guy is an amazing lawyer, he's explaining a fictional event.
Exactly. It's a prototype not meant for consumption and there was an explicit warning about it's safety that was entirely disregarded.
@@Ramuh. Some people really don't understand sarcasm, do they?
Objection per Department of Labor.
"Minors employed in the delivery of newspapers to consumers are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)child labor provisions, as well as the wage and hours provisions. This exemption applies to carriers engaged in making deliveries to the homes of subscribers or other consumers of newspapers (including shopping news). It also includes employees engaged in the street sale or delivery of newspapers to the consumer. However, employees engaged in hauling newspapers to drop stations, distributing centers, and newsstands are not exempted because they do not deliver to the consumer."
Also this movie is based in some weird European country that speaks dubbed english. :)
You also forgot that this movie took place at a time before child labor laws.
@@AMoniqueOcampo Actually, this movie was "Set" in 1970, where the FLSA law was implemented in 1938, so this Law was in effect.
In the UK, where the Cadbury and Rowntree factories heavily influenced Roald Dahl, we allow kids to work on things like car washing, lawn mowing and paper routes from 13. They are meant to get a work permit from the Local Authority (County Council).
@@alexweirdyoung Even so, in the book Charlie is 11 and in the movie he is 12, so he would not be eligible for that type of work in any case. But Cliff is right that he could indeed have a paper route at that age. (There are some other exemptions to, like working a family farm.)
Cliff Hartle that’s American law it’s meaningless in the U.K. to which the factory is located
Man who suddenly got everything he wanted: *Lived happily ever after*
Veruca Salt: Am I a joke to you?
Objection: Slugworth, as an employee of Wonka's, attempted to persuade Charlie into committing crimes he otherwise wouldn't have in order to trick him into forfeiting his winnings. That's entrapment.
not really because there isnt an "or else" included basically not giving charlie an option. for instance an undercover cop says you have to buy drugs from them or they are going to shoot you in the face if you dont. that would be entrapment.
@@wades623 Threat of force is not required for entrapment, that's an entirely different thing. Attempting to lure someone into committing an illegal act in order to arrest you for it. Charlie did not just say to himself "I bet it would be worth a lot of money to his competators if I could learn Wonka's secrets." He had no interest in committing industrial espionage before Slugworth came along to offer a bribe for doing so. That's a textbook form of entrapment.
You're thinking of coercion.
@@Macrochenia it is neither coercion or entrapment. Charlie was nither threatened nor tricked into doing it. There was always the choice to not take the money.
@@wades623 The fact that Slugworth was not trying to force Charlie to commit the crime or trick him into committing the crime by accident DOES NOT MATTER.
Entrapment is any attempt to persuade someone to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise in order to catch them in the act and punish them for it. Doesn't matter how. Slugworth's offer was made under the direction of Wonka with the express purpose of tricking Charlie into forfeiting his winnings. Therefore, entrapment.
@@Macrochenia if that logic worked there would be no such thing as under cover law enforcement. It is basically the same situation, something is offered and depending on the person they have free will not to engage in the action. If you could get what you say to stand I wouldn't mind because I've never thought cops should be able to lie and get away with what they do but they do and they shouldn't get special privileges just because they are with the government
jesus the ticket event was probably just a way to get rid of his factory before it cost him everything
phantom gaming but that’s just a theory... a FILM THEORY!
Matpat already did this
@@obviouslykaleb7998 you realize Game Theory mostly presents and discusses already-popular fan theories in their videos? When Matpat actually makes videos on his pet theories, they tend to go poorly :p
What if the 5 children but Charlie died and those 4 children might of knew what would be future
That is what MatPat said but no shade
Seeing an actual lawyer talk about oomph loompahs is pure gold tbh
objection:
How can Charlie layoff the factory staff to pay his tax bill when the factory staff are unpaid?
They're paid in coca beans, the Oompa-Loompas love them.
Cause Legal Eagle is assuming that Charlie would start paying them 😅
@@jeffwolcott7815Mmmm.... Cocaine
16:12 - the "chocolate river" was not flowing out of the factory to anywhere. It was being sucked up through pipes to the different parts of the factory where it was used to make sweets. It was one of those pipes that Augustus Gloop got sucked up. His mother says "He'll get turned into marshmallows". Wonka replies that this is "impossible". When his mother asks why not, he says that particular pipe doesn't go to the marshmallow room, but to the room where they make "chocolate covered fudge". Mrs. Gloop says "He'll get made into fudge then" to which Wonka replies "No he won't because I would never allow it! Augustus flavoured chocolate covered Gloop? Now that would NEVER sell!" Great stuff!
Still a massive OSHA violation to have people swimming in it.
Yeah, of course it was self-contained. No way Wonka would let a river of pure chocolate flow out of his factory; even without the pollution, imagine the waste!
How about after Augustus falls into it? They'll need to dispose of that batch
@@matthewcoveney4380 They would probably incinerate it. Chocolate does burn. While it would be very expensive, it would be possible.
@@allisond.46 He missed one important detail. For that chocolate to flow with the consistency of water, it would have to be EXTREMELY hot. Augustus would've burned his hands the minute he touched it. And falling in would've caused at the very least , second degree burns all over his body.
The kids didn't die. In the book, they're seen leaving the factory in their new forms.
So, *just* disfigured.
@@Quiltfish Even that is a criminal charge I believe. I've worked in a factory in India, and here, even if an adult (from a different/partner company) goes for a tour of a factory, an experienced operator must accompany him/her and must act immediately should anything go wrong. This is just cruel negligence.
And the remake
I have to wonder how many of these laws existed during this time period, though.
@@xejelah That is a valid point. In this time and age, if Willy Wonka didn't give Health and Safety inspectors access to the factory, they would not let the factory open regardless of what goes on inside. So the seclusion itself would be impossible.
Objection! At the end of the movie, Willy clearly states that all of the children will be returned to exactly how they were, thus none were killed nor even permanently injured.
He may have told Charlie that but we don't know for certain that he was being honest with him on that. It sort of leaves the viewers to their imaginations on their fate.
yes, i definitely trust the word of this very upstanding gentleman. why wouldnt i? hmm yes. very trustworthy indeed.
He still subjected them to this torture 😆
@@melissacooper4282 The movie is a fantasy, but it would seem unlikely that Wonka would commit 4 homicides of children, in front of their parents and other witnesses. There is no way he could get away with it.
Also, there is no suggestion that there was any chance that Mike or Violet were killed. Mike was "totally unharmed" except for being shrunk down to pocket size. So at most there could have been 3 wrongful deaths Augustus, Veruca and Mr. Salt.
I hope this lawyer does a better job researching the facts of his real life cases.
"exactly" even though 1 is covered in chocolate, 1 is forever blue, 1 is trashed and the other... well, is no longer his usual size.
(the point is that once they walk out that door, everyone might be concerned on what's really going on in that factory)
The thing about the factory, based off the book and 2005 movie, Wonka felt he was on the brink of death and so wanted a child to run the business as he didn't trust an adult so wanted a kind, fun-loving child but to prevent suspicion decided to punish 4 children from them being spoilt and teach their parents how awful they are
My favorite fan theory is that Wonka was trying to offload the factory on a patsy so he could flee impending indictment. Lumpaland probably doesn't have extradition treaties to the US or UK...
Legit! But they're minors so contract void.
@@linwoodvalentine7693 If they void it. Which they would on an advice of any lawyer just seeing the civil bill. Anyway, you cannot discharge criminal case like that, so William W. is going to jail forever.
@@AstralS7orm Objection, if those are considered as crimes, and Loompaland, where Willy Wonka is king, has no extradition treaty with both the US and the UK, then they can not legally arrest him in Loompaland.
There was another osha violation: there was a pot of boiling liquid that had no way of stopping people falling in
😅
"pot of boiling liquid " "no way of stopping people falling in" god how am I looking at a sentence like that and not cracking up?
Personal accountability. Don't be stupid and you will be fine.
Kevin Sullivan
Still an osha violation 🤦♂️. You would be a horrible lawyer
@@CorporateShill The cry of the weak minded useless eater of food.
To make the Oompa Loompa situation worse, in the first editions of the book they were "Pygmies from darkest Africa" 😬😬
Oh nooooooooo
Awkward......
And if I remember correctly there slaves he doesn't pay them Jack crap Johnny Depp at least the movie with Johnny Depp kind of made it seem like oh I pay them in cocoa beans for their service
Yes. Oompa Loompas were slaves.
So basically from Jumanji?
So you've reviewed that using current laws and rules, I'd be interested in how it fares under period accurate laws.
I was going to say this. I don't think OSHA existed when this film would have taken place. (early 1900s I think?)
*Going by the UK version of the novel and first movie, so shillings, not dollars, and 1920s.
He's correct on Charlie's paper route. Charlie is nine by the movie? Age isn't stated in the novel. That would be illegal by the UK's 1903 Employment of Children Act which prohibited anyone under the age of eleven from being involved in street trading ( newspaper hawking "any other like occupation carried on in streets or public places.").
He's partially right on the working time. Women were allowed to be worked for 14 hours a day by the Factory and Workshop Act of 1901. This however was to not exceed 3 days in a week, and include 2 hours minimum for meals.
Amusingly there is nothing in the Factory and Workshop Act about fencing for rivers of chocolate. Only rivers of molten metal and moving machinery and water wheels. I think you could make a case for violating the Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1875 for "sale of articles of food and of drugs not of the proper nature, substance, and quality" by having been "mixed with some extraneous matter". As for the nuts part, no one cared back then. "If your kid can be taken out by a peanut... don't get attached."
Literal garbage and poor ventilation would fall back to violating Factory and Workshop for unclean conditions, effluent on the ground, trash on the ground, etc.
Not sure his argument on product liability seeing as it wasn't actually a product, though from his presentation it did seem like it was safe for consumption. "I haven't got it quite right yet" could imply flavour was an issue, and 'I wouldn't do that' is not 'you should not do that'.
Pollution into the waterways? That's just the Thames =p
That final dropoff would be a fencing issue as per Factory and Workshop regarding fencing off dangerous machinery, as that drop off lead to an incinerator iirc.
*disclaimer: not a lawyer, barrister or professional wigwearer in the UK legal system. I do like chocolate though.
You know there's an interesting fan theory about this being released just before OSHA went into effect where Wonka set up this whole thing just to offload his factory before he becomes criminally liable
How it fares under period law for England and Wales would be more accurate.
@@danielmenetrey6876 Waaaaay further back. The movie itself is set in the 70s but the original book its adapting is from the 20s.
The books based in England so it would be totally legal for Charlie to have a job delivering papers
That particular scene was in the US, so the labour laws apply.
The book isn't set in any particular place. The movie was filmed primarily in Germany. I'm not sure what German laws are regarding child labour.
@@SakariWolf13 nope, it was filmed in Germany.
@@andrewpower8357 It doesn't matter where they filmed it, it matters where it was set.
@@SaryTheWolf 🤣 not if we're talking about child labour.
Kid: **burns in a furnace**
Oompa Loompas: “cha, cha, real smooth!”
Lol
Oompa luupa depity ded
In the UK version Violet walks out at the end, covered in rubbish, but alive and there’s a whole scene about how the furnace isn’t always on.
Turrrrrn it dowwwwn.🔥🚒👩🚒 +funky rhythm+
@@peacefulleopard8016 That was Veruca. Violet got turned into a blueberry.
Objection lacks jurisdiction. This film is based in the UK, and therefore US law does not apply. Furthermore it was based in the UK in 1964. Therefore: 1) Child labor laws in the UK in 1964 had no age based prohibition on the distribution of newspapers. Children "below school age" could not work in bars, mines or industrial undertakings or similar trades, but no prohibition existed for paper boys. 2) Under UK law, until 2005, selling candy bars with tickets in them would have been perfectly legal as a promotional contest. Additionally, after 2005, it would be classified as a lottery, and still legal so long as the enterprise followed the rules for such things, however it would likely run afoul of those rules since the promotion was aimed at children. Although even that isn't 100% guaranteed since the UK still has no prohibition on things such as lootboxes. 3) Overtime and labor laws were very very different in 1964 in the UK and would greatly depend on the contract of employment, and regulations on health and safety at the time, however in 1964 england, these were very lax. Additionally, offering to pay the employee that finds the ticket would count as a contest under current UK law since it would largely depend on the skill of the worker as to how many bars they could open and check per hour. 4) Trade secrets in the UK are considered part of the law of equity, there are no statutory provisions . Under UK law, the duty is on the person with the secret to protect that secret and absent extraordinary circumstance no protections would be available. Given that Wonka himself delivered to Charlie the gobstopper, he violated his duty to protect and could not seek damages under current (or former UK law). However, had Charlie stolen it, and then sold it, it would likely be different, unless Charlie could show that wonka had not taken all necessary steps to protect his secret. 5) UK contract law is vastly different in this regard. Having a parent present gives additional remedies for Wonka. Under UK law a child must be 7 years of age or younger to not be able to enter into a contract. A non fiduciary contract, signed in the presence of the parents could be binding under several circumstances. In 1964, the rules were very heavily tilted to favor Wonka, although it has changed in the decades since. A personal guarantee from a parent or legal guardian generally binds the child. 6) in the UK in 1964 Willy Wonka could sponsor an infinite number of workers so long as a) He was of good character b) Had a pressing need c) was willing to accept personal responsibility for the health and welfare of those workers d) Was willing to accept limited liability for the criminality of those workers. The UK had gotten hammered in WWII and needed workers to rebuild and keep domestic production moving, so they all but removed restrictions on the importation of workers. 7) OSHA was created in 1971, which is after 1964. This ignores that OSHA isn't the law in the UK, their health and safety laws didn't exist until the 1980's. 8) The disclaimer from #5 would cover violets blueberry dilemma under UK law, from 1964. 9) Veruca would be under the disclaimer from #5 and no OSHA or H&S from #7. 10) UK law does allow for a transfer of assets without taxation, at least it did under that taxation code from 1964, Charlie would have to pay ongoing council tax on the land, and any business taxes owing as a matter of ongoing operations, but until thatcher took over these were relatively cheap. The UK in 1964 believed that it was better to have 100% of a factory generating income and taxes than 60%. So charlie would need to pay the same taxes that Wonka was paying, and no more. So everything was legal in the UK during the time the movie existed. Nobody wins any cases, nobody gets paid, and the solicitors starve.
I'm pretty sure the movie takes place in the USA.
I watched a video once where they pointed out that this movie was placed only a couple years before a massive change in labour safety laws. So Wonka was getting rid of his factory before he could be held liable for its issues and or had to completely rebuild it to match new standards.
Why isn't this the top comment?
@Ollie B Considering that, in the book, Charlie finds a 50-pence coin and buys a Wonka bar, and that is obviously Uk currency and not US dollars/cents, it's safe to assume a UK location.
Actually, a newscast we see says that a ticket was found “right here in America”. Also, background details establish a German location (as it was filmed in West Germany) and the only time British labour laws would come up is during the scene at Mr Salt’s factory.
Objection: Under the constitutional guarantee of Ex Post Facto, those child labor laws were added at a much later time.
At the age of 10-12, in Ohio, I had a paper route in the late 80s to early 90s. I also babysat, did lawn work, and other odd jobs for money. And there was no labor law violations in the 80s and 90s for those jobs. Willy Wonka was filmed in the 70s, and depicts a time much earlier than 1970, so no child labor laws were broken at that time, thus under Ex Post Facto, any laws created after such time cannot be retroactively applied to previous transgressions.
Good for you, but I wouldn't want a ten year old watching my baby.
Sorry, but I have to draw the line somewhere. The Willy Wonka chocolate river is a CLOSED loop system meaning it would not effect the environment outside the factory premises thus not concerning the EPA.
No guard rails is BAD those oompa loompas MUST dress better in full body covered suits with hair nets, no bobble anything notice their shoes...those are a NO and can be a hazard. Their outfits do not look to be able to protect ANYTHING. I notice so much wrong...kitchen wise no hand washing seen....no change of gloves.....no DON'T WEAR HAIR PRODUCTS in a factory. Hair spray back than and now is FLAMMABLE a huge hazard to the oompa loompas. Everyone visiting should be in white protecive suits with hair nets and gloves....i see no medical kits anywhere. I also see no eye wash stations.....and I could go on for eons
@@Silver_wind_1987_ 1. Punctuation please.
2. None of those have anything to do with the EPA
Very astute of you!
@@zillanimu it's common health and safety also it's late. I really don't wanna edit crap right now I'm going to sleep goodnight.
@@zillanimu It's just chocolate.
Film theory had a really good video on this topic. The movie is set the same year OSHA became a thing. Basically Wonka is giving the factory away to avoid paying hefty fines.
Late. Just a week late.
@@schippai3308 no u
The big problem with this was that the book came out several years earlier.
If i cpuld actually stand mattpats obnoxious voice maybe id watch it
@@Ba11isticPickle it's not that bad
Objection!
Liability of product should only be counted if the product has been released to the public. I mean in this case Willy Wonka warned her to not use the product that was not released to the public, she in fact "stole" it.
You can't really steal something and then claim damages from eating that stolen thing.
i was burglarizing ur home & the food in ur fridge made me sick. I want compensation
@@alwaysdisputin9930
As a home owner you have a duty of care to people in your home regardless of the authority of presence of those people and would be liable to the injured burglar.
@@cigmorfil4101 I let my dog do all that. He's like "oh burglars! how wonderful! do come in! Would you like a cup of tea? How about a nice slice of cake?"
Bodine v. Enterprise High School
@@r.b.rozier9692
That's a case where B&E is committed by the victim but gets caught in a deadly trap. The principle is that don't set deadly traps that can kill people.
Willy Wonka: I transported the entire population of loompaland to my factory!
Ron DeSantis: I have an idea..
i dont get it
@@TestingthisnameHe's trying to say Ron DeSantis imported a lot of illegals and it failed as a comparison for so many reasons.
FACT CHECK: This movie is set in the United Kingdom. The labour laws are different there. Many UK children have part-time jobs such as paper rounds and must be 13 years old. This minimum age was set in 1966 a few years after the book was published which is why Charlie is a little younger in the book. In the film I believe he is 13, so no laws were broken !!
FACT CHECK:
american money at-least in the movie... So your wrong
@@jjlortez I don't know what you've been smoking but the price of a Wonka bar is 50 pence. The author is English and the story was inspired by his visit to an English chocolate factory. Charlies accent is also English as is his family and the shopkeeper. You yanks don't know anything.
Jason Goodacre in the uk, I’m fine with that.
@@jasongoodacre KK if you need to know. Accents meant nothing, besides most of the accents in that movie are Russian or Australian. And the book was written 8n Canada.
@@jjlortez The book was written by a Brit.
"This little piece of gum is a 3 course dinner."
"Bull-"
"No. Roast beef, but I haven't got it quite right yet."
Gets me everytime
Gene Wilder is marvelous in this.
The hilarious thing is, that was a big piece of gum......and even AFTER she supposedly starts eating it, if you look very carefully, you can see it in her right hand. And as she's talking you don't see it in her mouth.
@@CeltycSparrow the magic of film inconsistentencies.
@@CeltycSparrow she takes a bite out of the gum, you can see the corner missing from the piece of gum. And she might not actually have gum in her mouth while filming cuz there's always a smacking sound when you chew gum with your mouth open (like she's doing) and that wouldn't sound good in the audio
That part wasn't really his fault she snatched the gum out if his hand and he warned her not to eat it
“It’s hot and creamy. I can feel it running down my throat.”
Archer, “Phrasing!”
LAAANNNAAA !
Woah pause 😭😭😭😂😂😂
That's what she said!!!!!
DANGER ZONE!!!!!
Is Wonka hard at work?
He just might be.
This film was good to start with but your legalese just makes it all the more hilarious!
"Congratulations, Charlie, I'm giving you your heart's desire,only downside, that also includes all my debts!" 😝
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!
@@rezalustig6773 And they didn't get returned in the remake. But I'm fairly sure it's not right to assault children, even if you know it'll 'heal'.
@@rezalustig6773 Read Brothers Grimm collection... Dahl is pretty light.
@@AstralS7orm The Girl Who Trod on the Loaf by Hans Christian Andersen is still the most disturbing children's story I've read.
@ Do Grimm and Anderson count for twistedness scores when they were compiling folk tales?
@@rezalustig6773 A nitpic for the record: The Brothers Grimm did not author the fairy tales attributed to them, they collected and anthologized traditional folklore tales. This is an important distinction since it was sort of the point of their work: The Grimms were Romanticist scholars obsessed with the history of German language and literature, and believed folklore represented a very pure expression of national storytelling traditions.
Objection: Wonka's rich. He will spend fifteen minutes in prison and pay a fine of 38 cents.
Objection sustained.
Mr Wanka is required to apologize to the world, do 200 hours of community service and be on probation for 3 years.
Court adjourned
@@robbase5235 It hurts me that this is probably what would actually happen.
@@samwatson-tayler2805 Only to the rich. Us middle class would be imprisoned for 50-60 years, and ordered to pay millions in fines and fees.
If you actually believe that would happen you have the critical thinking skills of a dead raccoon.
Willy Wonka: "My glass elevator travels thru time as well as space! I found a lawyer from the future named Saul Goodman"
"I'm sorry, but all questions must be submitted in writing." Priceless.
Fun fact: Gambling winnings aren't taxed in the UK. I am sure HMRC would argue Charlie only "won" the tour, but was gifted the factory.
I would note is that None of the children were killed in the movie. The remake and Book confirmed that fact. They just didn't show them leaving the factory.
The only one that was disfigured permanently was Mike Teavee as it looks like they stretched him out too much but maybe he'll have a career in the NBA.
@@Patchuchan Violet was still blue, so she could be considered permanently disfigured too.
They should be dead. Most children don’t survive a fall like that or getting trapped and consumed by machinery
@@Blokewood3
And EXTREMELY flexible in the remake too.
Wonka says in this movie, too, that the kids survived. You don't see them, but Wonka says that "maybe they'll be a little wiser" from now on.
Objection.
Your first point about child labor laws doesn't take account for the time period the movie is suppose to take place in.
It's set in the 1920s and child workers were at it's height working in mills, factories, ect.
It wasn't until 1938 when the Fair Labor Standards Act covered children.
There were pushes to stop child labor before 1938 but until Congresses passed this child labor was still legal.
You're retroactively applying laws to them that didn't exist until nearly 20 years later.
Even still, in the USA Newspaper delivery to consumers or selling on corners is exempted from FLSA. Yes, I know this takes place in the UK, but it still stands to reason. (29 CFR §570.124)
I object to your objection on the basis that this movie is set in the 1960's NOT the 20's.
There are clearly cars from the 60s and TV with a Lone Ranger like series playing at Mike Teevees house.
Therefore, FLSA would apply. HOWEVER, it would only apply to the Oompa Loompas and their plight, because newspaper delivery is NOT covered under FLSA which you can read about here:
www.dol.gov/general/topic/youthlabor/newspaper
I knew this one immediately because I delivered papers when I was 13.
@@moonlghtknght Well no, the reason for the cars and the Lone Ranger was that they had a very tight budget for the movie. They didn't want to spend the extra money on cars from the 20s so they went with the cheaper option, it's also why they shot the movie in Bavaria. To save money.
Similar deal with Mike Teevee but instead it was to make more money.
It was set in the 20s.
@@AgentTexes The BOOK may have been set in the 20s. This is about the movie, which is definitely NOT set in the 20s.
Since this vid is about the MOVIE, THAT is the time frame we have to deal with here.
And its set in the uk
Objection! The film was made before Nut Allergies were under regulation. Laws cannot be applied retroactively.
Objection! Laws can in fact be applied retroactively, also known as ex post facto.
For example, the Adam Walsh child and safety act that requires sex offenders to register was applied to people who offended before it was enacted.
OBJECTION! Article 1, section 9 states "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
The AWCSA does not make it an offense to fail to have registered before it passed, it merely creates an obligation to register moving forward.
@@danpowell806 This depends on if the existing laws was amended to include regulation of nut allergies or if the nut allergy regulations were promulgated from an existing law that could reasonably have been foreseen to include the nut cross contamination issue.
New regulatory interpretations and new legal precedents can still screw you in an ex post facto way (though you have some legal shields that you can attempt to apply, it will ultimately be up to the court to determine whether or not you could reasonably have foreseen this based on the law's language).
+SentsuizanXS, that law requires sex offenders to register. So, failure to register is a crime that would occur AFTER the law's passage. The date that the person became a convicted sex offender is irrelevant to his duty to register upon passage of the law.
Technically the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy does permit the passage of ex post facto laws in the UK but they are highly frowned upon and thus are extremely rare in practice. Even so for this to occur the act would need to explicitly specify an alternative effective date otherwise it becomes effective on the date on which it is passed by default. Most commonly this is seen in acts that delete an offence though as doing that after the fact is a lot less controversial, it is sometimes also the case that laws are passed that commute previous sentences when removing a sentencing option too like the death penalty abolition acts that communed existing death sentences to life imprisonment instead.
I actually had the original book, so I can say none of the children actually died.
Augustus Gloop was just squeezed tight by the pipe and he came out alive but "thin as a straw".
Violet Beauregard was successfully juiced by the juicer so she was back to normal, except still blue.
Veruca Salt survived her fall into the incinerator (somehow) and was just covered in very smelly garbage.
And Mike Teevee was stretched back out by the Oompa Loompas and became about 10 feet tall and "thin as a wire". I think Wonka even made a joke about him becoming a basketball player, but it's been years since I read it.
The Johnny Depp version follows the book more
OBJECTIONS!
-Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (based on the book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) is set in the UK, and so US laws don't apply. This is indicated by the coin that Charlie found to buy his winning bar being a 1 shilling coin.
-During the period in which the story is set (1950s-early 1960s Britain), children over the age of 9 are allowed part time jobs as long as they don't interfere with their full-time education. This wasn't changed until 1966, when the UK adopted the UN General Assembly of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into law, which increased the legal age of a child entering employment to 14.
-During the 1950s-60s in the UK, such a giveaway would have been legal.
-During this period, the requirement for the workers to do unpaid overtime would have been legal, as long as their contracts allowed for it, as there was no legal minimum wage until the Minimum Wage Act 1998.
-At age 9-10, Charlie would be under the age of criminal responsibility in the UK, and therefore likely couldn't be charged under criminal law for corporate espionage for Slugworth.
-In the UK at the time, tax was only payable on winnings from betting shops (at 9%), and so wouldn't apply in this case. In the modern day, tax on gambling winnings was abolished in the UK in 2001.
Sorry, but as a Brit who enjoys history, literature and has legal knowledge, I couldn't resist! Keep up the good work on your channel though!
And correct me if I’m wrong but in the books the Oompa Loompas are actually paid
-Sustained.
-OVERRULED! The movie actually took place in 1970.
-OVERRULED! See above.
-Sustained.
-Sustained.
-Sustained.
Thank you for ruining the ruining of my childhood memories :)
@@Mirandorl
* ahem *
Snozzberries.
I just ruined the ruining of the ruining of your childhood. You're welcome.
Im just glad to see that someone noted that this is set in Britain and not to be held under United States, laws! Good job!
Objection: the "mold and fungus" growing in the factory are actually candy. Everything in that room was specified to be edible candy. So it's not a health violation.
except it is because you are allowed to walk around on the "candy" which means its clearly not a food safe environment, and your shoes bring with it contaminants which validate the initial claim that its a health violation.
Well the heath violation for the non clean suit interaction with the room.
@@frozenthorn9619
I didn't say there weren't ANY health violations, just that that one in particular is illegitimate. #Lawyered
The room being coated in perishable food is *why* it would be covered in mold.
But none of the parks fall under US jurisdiction...
"Charlie, don't forget what happened to the man who got everything be ever wanted?"
"What happened?"
"I sued him and got all of his stuff"
I always hated that part even as a kid. Because... it’s human nature to keep striving and setting new goals. He’s not just going to never want something new. Happiness, with no goal or growth, is a pretty boring way to live in and of itself.
I'm thinking of Elon Musk. He gets sued, and likes to threaten it all the same. If people have the means to use law like sport, they do.
Ha! Joke’s on Wonka. Charlie’s family is dirt poor.
Robin Best BEST COMMENT EVER !!!!!
@@SunflowerSpotlight That's insanity, Charlie's now rich enough to pursue anything he wants and strive to do things that aren't accomplished just by being rich, he can study and learn anything he wants and set goals by honing skills in any field he'd like. He can be an angel investor, advance technology and better the life of people. He can travel the world and take in cultures. You're viewpoint is myopic because when money isn't an option, your goals don't disappear you just have a greater amount of goals to strive for.
15:48 *Two people are being sucked up towards fan blades
The lawyer: Well, that's an EPA problem, for sure.
"He is clearly pushing his staff far too hard..."
That's completely legal though. Just ask Amazon.
Every asshole boss in the food industry does this.
Lol you have set hours.... Dont be so weak.
@@christophersprague4561 You have no idea about the topic, clearly...
@@voridori2863 he was talking about sweepstakes taxes. In the uk, sweepstakes are tax free. Maybe you have no idea. Nice one.
@@christophersprague4561 ...Are you having a stroke? My comment wasn't about the sweepstakes taxes at all.
It’s pretty clear that none of the kids died, though. They might be covered more for lifetime disabilities, though.
People pay money to be stretched like Mike Teevee in parts of the world!
if any of these kids died in the movie, to me it would sound more like "involuntarily manslaughter" than just "manslaughter" as wonka has told some kids to not do something MANY TIMES and the kids did stupid things anyway instead of fearing for their life.
And Veruca went THROUGH the safety rails to get to the squirrels.
Pyrrh Pianissimo Talking about the movie, not the book.
@@lalehiandeity1649 It's more far-fetched to compare present day American law to a fantasy story based in 1920's England than to reference the book it's based on! 😂
This is like a law filled version of Cinemasins. And I'm all for it.
Legal Eagle would be excellent at CinemaSins.
Ding!
Yes
I love that channel
Cinamasins is terrible, they suck at their job
So true🤣
Regardless of strict product liability, I don't necessarily think he would be liable for Violet's disfigurement because it's not a product that's available for sale. If I'm going on a tour of a cosmetics facility and I swipe a tube of an untested formula of skin cream that later gives me a terrible rash, it can't really be their fault because it's not intended for human use at that point
Wonka: Don't forget what happened to the man who suddenly got everything he always wanted.
Charlie: What happened?
Wonka: He realized that he had reached the peak of his existence without earning it and without anything to work towards, he became despondent and ended up living an empty life of excess until he lost everything. He went to the grave penniless, friendless, emotionally empty, and miserable.
Great quote
Except that’s not what happens in the real world
Willy Wonka: **Breathes**
LegalEagle: *_Hol' tf up._*
Wonka: "I moved the entire population of Loompa Land to my factory."
*ICE has entered the chat*
Wonka: Pays a few million to the head of the immigration department
ICE leaves the chat
Willy Wonka the world's most successful human trafficker. Taken 4 Neeson vs Wonka
ICE would just talk to the Oompa Loompas about Mexican Joker
Objection!! I held a paper route job from twelve to thirteen years old in Washington State from 1985 - 1986. Do your research. This film took place in 1971. I highly doubt the labor laws were more restrictive in 1971 than they were in the '80s.
Ohsa was made a year after the year this movie is set in. Theirs a theory that wonka left the company to Charlie so he would be stuck with all the legal troubles while he ran off with his money. Seem like a good idea to leave all the trouble to a poor family with no idea of safety laws.
Well what if it happen in that year
R.I.P. Gene Wilder, he was truly one of the greatest legends of his time.
Objection: Charlie Bucket is not in the USA - so question jurisdiction and point of law - Roald Dahl was a British novelist and set the beginning of his book in a small English town. ... also in the UK no law existed preventing minors to hold a paper route when the film was made - I had a paper route in the late 1970s. I was 12
That's cool and all but the whole point is to show how none of this shit would fly today because of current laws
@@clementinetea252 Is it? Feels like the point is more about applying law to the absurd events in the story. I don't recall him saying anywhere that applying modern laws to old media was the point.
@@MrVisualHigh Well, the movie was based on a book that was made in 1964 that's meant to have the story itself take place in the 1920s, with Cadbury and Rowntree's being the biggest confectionery giants in Britian.
Overruled.
The movie is being watched by an American lawyer on American soil.
Therefore, it shall be judged by American law.
If it was being viewed by a lawyer in the UK, it would be judged by UK law.
but the news anchor said the United States