Warning spoilersssssssssssss warinnnnnggg
More warnings.
Warning etc.
After the movie I couldn't help but chuckle about how the legal business would be booming. Think of all the people who would have been remarried, inherited property, replaced missing staff at work...
Spontaneously having half the population back would be such a cluster fuck.
Posted May 10, 2019, 12:18 PM UTC
It's like the situation Bilbo faces at the end of The Hobbit, times nearly 4 billion (and that's on Earth alone). Astonishing to think about.
Parliaments may well legislatively validate acts done between the two snaps.
Also the administrative chaos of having half the population of earth disappear then reappear 5 years later. Yikes.
Food supply. Energy supply. Insane.
People who have mourned, metaphorically buried and moved on from the Snapped, nightmare for family law and property law, as OP identified.
But also...
... How many government's would have taken the chance to slash public services by shutting schools, hospitals, etc when half the population disappeared? Now they're back and there's no where for people to go to school or get hospital treatment... Imagine the changes to public transport and infrastructure!
Probably just build a wall or something
I suspect the legal business wouldn't really be booming. The scale is too big to have any policy beyond "please sort yourselves out and be reasonable; unreasonable ones will be dealt with by the superheroes". So if you suddenly found yourself with two spouses; there are squatters in what was your house; there is suddenly a huge queue at the soup kitchen until food production can be turned up; there are rolling blackouts until a few more of Tony Stark's super power generators can be brought online etc, people won't be sueing, it will be more of a "put up with it" situation.
Food and counselling howeverare going to be problems.
[removed]
Literally just finished watching it.
Is it bigamy if your wife was dead?
Is that any different to re-marrying after having your wife declared to be dead?
As to which, see Arden v Arden (1940).
i guess i wanna know. did u have that case in ur card catalogue of cases or did you know what catchwords to search on the Lexis to find that?
either way im terrified of u
Check the link...