Talk:Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co Ltd v Grant

Photograph

So: there is a picture on this page of firefighters dousing a burning building. It's a very nice photograph, but it doesn't seem to be relevant. This article isn't about fire or firefighters. It's barely even about fire insurance. It's about English contract law and how to determine when a contract has gone into effect.

File:Scottie Pippen mug.jpg

Not a bull.

Using a photograph of a 2006 fire to illustrate this article about 1876 English case law in contracts seems a little bit like using a photograph of a bull to accompany an article about the Chicago Bulls.

If it is really important to accompany this article with a photograph, I guess we could find some pictures of stock certificates somewhere? Or maybe a postman? But as much as I am a fan of adding photos to articles, this is not one that seems to need it. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, you're very funny, and I'm fully aware of your point. But the reason I want some picture there is that it probably helps people to remember the case with a form of visual. Please just put up a better one. In fact, this case is about whether, if you send someone a letter, that communication is effective (and so there's a contract you cannot back out of) when the letter is posted or it arrives. Another important point is... oh forget it; look I've found a picture of a nineteenth century envelope. Is that okay? Wik idea 20:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

The other issue I have with this page is that it seems overlong. I don't understand what the point is of this article, if it is just here to quote exhaustively from the original decision. I think this would be much more useful as an encyclopedia article if it were edited to include:

A summary of the legal issues at hand in the case
Why the decision was significant and what precedents it set (or overturned)
Some brief excerpts from the transcript of the case
Links to the full case text, if available

I've restored the cleanup template. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the point Tim. Most people reading this will be lawyers, rather than people who've stumbled upon it and felt they'd like to try to "clean" it up. Wik idea 11:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand why you're assuming that most people who read this article will be lawyers. Wikipedia is targeted at a general audience. Indeed, Wikipedia policy specifically directs against assuming a technical or specialized audience when writing an article. There's nothing wrong with supplying enough detail for the article to be useful to a law student, but it's important to make it accessible to the layman as well. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming, I'm pretty confident. I bet you haven't read the judgment! I think it is pretty accessible to an interested lay person: if you were interested you probably would have found this article through the English contract law page, or the postal rule page, or something like that. Please don't be boring! Wik idea 15:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that I haven't read the judgement. That is because I have a full-time job which does not involve the law, and Wikipedia is a hobby for me: i.e. I don't care to make the time for it. :-) But that's the point: articles like this would be helpful for a layman if they summarize the most important issues of the case up front, which is what I suggested in the first place. As it is, the length and bearing of the article are discouraging for someone who is not a lawyer or law student.

I think Wikipedia policy is pretty clear in discouraging this approach. Unfortunately for me, I don't presently have the time to read the case text and write a decent summary of it, which is something that would be better done by a scholar of the work anyway. I can only urge you to do so and hope that you or another legal-minded Wikipedian will come to agree. Best of luck and keep up the good work! Tim Pierce (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]