Canada Avoids "Fish Royal" Tragedy

A few days ago, I blogged about a recently-beached whale in Canada. Inhabitants of nearby towns worried that the whale would explode, but the Canadian federal government was reluctant to remove the whale. It appears that there are now three beached whales. I noted that the scenario was eerily similar to the "Fish Royal" case in A.P. Herbert's Uncommon Law where the Crown's refusal to take action over a beached whale results in the complete abandonment of a town due to the whale's stench.

In the Fish Royal case, the first option the Crown considered was that the beached whale be sent to a museum:

[A] letter was addressed to the Director of the Natural History Museum informing him that an unusually fine specimen of Balaena Biscayensis was now lying in Pudding Bay and that the Minister was authorized by His Majesty to offer the whale to the Museum in trust for the nation, the Museum to bear the charges of collection and transport. 

On July 3rd . . . the Secretary to the Natural History Museum replied that he was desired by the Director to express his regret that, owing to lack of space, the Museum was unable to accept His Magesty's gracious offer. He was to add that the Museum was already in possession of three fine specimines of Balaena Biscayensis.

Here, Canada's federal government expressed  the towns of Rocky Harbour and Trout River will not undergo the same experience as Pudding Magna. The BBC reports:

Canada's Royal Ontario Museum will take two blue whale carcasses that washed up on the coast of western Newfoundland. 

Whales on the beaches of Rocky Harbour and Trout River were among several believed to have died in heavy ice. 

The towns did not have the resources to move the decomposing whales, which experts fears could bloat and explode. 

"The chance to preserve, study and examine up to two skeletons is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," the museum said in a statement.

It looks like Rocky Harbour and Trout River will avoid the stench and potential explosion of these beached whales. But now that it is in possession of two whale skeletons, this solution may not be available to future towns who seek to rid themselves of whale carcasses.

The Legal Treatment of Beached Whales

The BBC reports:

The residents of a town on Canada's Newfoundland island fear a blue whale carcass that washed up on its boardwalk last week could explode at any time. 

The 25m (81ft) whale on Trout River's rocky beach is one of several believed to have died in heavy ice weeks ago. 

Town Clerk Emily Butler says the body is bloated with methane gas caused by decomposition and will soon reek, regardless of whether it explodes. 

Local and federal authorities disagree which are responsible for its disposal.

Wondering what the stakes are in this case, I turned to the internet and found this (warning, graphic) video of an exploding whale. It would seem that the bloated whale on the shore by Trout River poses a real threat.

On reading this story, my thoughts turned immediately to the (fortunately fictional) case of Tinrib, Rumble, and Others v. The King and Queen or the "Fish Royal" case from A.P. Herbert's Uncommon Law. In that case, the inhabitants of Pudding Magna, a small town, bring a lawsuit in an attempt to prompt the Crown to remove the body of a whale which has washed up on the shores of the town. The whale was "Fish Royal" and was therefore the property of the King, so the people of the town turned to the Crown to oversee the removal of the whale.

The case describes the Crown's elusive behavior, noting that it punted at the suggestion of using the whale as a military target, and was leery of destroying the whale with explosives because it would be using public resources to destroy the government's own property. At the end of the case, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries refuses to handle the matter because the whale is a mammal and not a fish. At that point, the townspeople have all left, due to the overwhelming stench of the decomposing whale.

While Herbert's Fish Royal case was a joke, The inhabitants of Trout River, and another nearby town, Rocky Harbour, are in an eerily similar situation as the townspeople in Fish Royal. Canadian federal authorities claim that they aren't responsible for removing the whale. CBC News has detailed coverage of the story, including the towns' dispute with the government:

Rocky Harbour Mayor Walter Nicolle said the government and DFO [Department of Fisheries and Oceans] are telling the communities they have to deal with the carcasses. 

Nicolle said it's a difficult task to get rid of such a big animal, and small communities like his don't have the resources. 

"We talked to DFO and they don't want to take responsibility to remove the whale. The whale is in the Rocky Harbour boundaries, so the cost should be [covered] by the town," said Nicolle. 

[Trout River restaurant owner, Jenny] Parsons said the council in Trout River is dealing with the same problem — what to do with the world's largest mammal when it washes up on your shore? 

Nicolle said the DFO won't pay to remove it, and has to grant clearance before the town is allowed to move it. 

"It's in their jurisdiction when it comes to us removing the whale, but it's in our jurisdiction when it comes to costs of removing it." 

Nicolle said time is running out for Rocky Harbour to find help getting rid of the whale, and every day the stink is getting worse.

The threat of an impending explosion makes this case even more dramatic than the Fish Royal scenario. Rumors that this is a publicity stunt for the upcoming season of 24 have not been confirmed. Hopefully the federal government gets its act together so that the citizens of Trout River and Rocky Harbour avoid the unpleasant fate of the citizens of Pudding Magna.

New Canadian Regulations Threaten Importation and Sale of Irn Bru and Bovril

The BBC reports:

The owner of a British food shop in Canada says he has been ordered to stop selling Marmite, Ovaltine and Irn Bru because they contain illegal additives.

Other affected products include Lucozade, Penguin Bars and Bovril.

. . .

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is reportedly cracking down on the sale of such goods and increasing its inspections of suppliers.

Irn Bru contains at least one additive - Ponceau 4R - which has been linked to hyperactivity and does not appear on the approved food list in Canada.

The other products are banned because they are "enriched with vitamins and mineral" while some canned foods and soup contained too much animal product.

Sounds like these are troubling times for those with British and Scottish culinary inclinations. But the CFIA is now conducting evaluations of the banned products to determine if they are safe.

While Irn Bru, rather than Bovril, seems to be the star of this story, I cannot post about a story like this without an honorary citation to Watteau v. Fenwick, 1 QB 346 (1892), where a pub manager, Humble (who was the agent of the pub's owner, Fenwick), bought Bovril and cigars even though he had not been given the authority to make these purchases. The seller thought that Humble owned the bar and did not realize that he was anybody's agent. In the absence of Humble's actual authority or apparent authority (as the seller did not realize that there was any principal involved), the court held that Fenwick was still liable for the purchases, concluding that in cases like this, the principal is liable for all acts which are within the authority usually confided to an agent of that character.

I have not traveled extensively, so I did not know what Bovril was until last year, when Stephen Bainbridge gave an extensive and opinionated description of the product when he taught Watteau in his Business Associations class. For any reader who is still unfamiliar with this product, Wikipedia seems to give a thorough and accurate account.

More Perils and Prospects for Bitcoin Investment

It has been an interesting and informative day for people interested in Bitcoins.

Fausto Sanchez writes at JD Supra that "Bitcoins Mean Business," and notes that even though Bitcoins are a new currency, their increase in value and the increasing attention that businesses have continued to pay to Bitcoins means that the currency may become a significant force in the market.  The article does a good job of summarizing what Bitcoins are and why they have become so popular.

Nathalie Beauregard writes, also at JD Supra, in a more measured manner.  She points out the uncertainties in Canadian law when it comes to investing in Bitcoins and highlights numerous areas of the law that will need to be clarified for those interested in investing Bitcoins in Canada.  Ultimately, she recommends holding off on Bitcoin investment in Canada until investors get clarification of the issues she highlights through prior approval or guidelines from regulators.

Meanwhile, however, The Guardian reports:

The price of bitcoin has plummeted following an announcement from China's largest bitcoin exchange that it would no longer be accepting new yuan deposits. 

BTC China said that due to action by a third-party payment provider, YeePay, it could no longer accept deposits in the Chinese currency, although it would still be able to process withdrawals. BTC's chief executive, Bobby Lee, said that YeePay gave notice on Wednesday morning Shanghai time that it would no longer provide services. 

Lee blamed government regulation for the decision. China's central bank warned in early December that bitcoin was not legally protected and had no "real meaning", and barred financial institutions from using the currency.

Further coverage on this incident from Ars Technica is available here.  Also, Dan Harris of the China Law Blog thinks that "this is the end of Bitcoin in China."  The previously-mentioned concerns arising from the regulatory uncertainty of Bitcoins in other countries and from the nature of the currency may end up being overshadowed by this incident if Harris' assessment is correct.