Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Reflections of the Fairytale Creatures Intention
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay


Plaintiff and Respondent, )

) Case CJ — 2012-1014


Defendant and Appellant )


Shrek the Ogre has for a fair amount of years, owned a property near the swamps — a place more or less undesirable by the rest of the community of the town. He has lived a quiet existence, keeping out of everyone way, and in this regard has been a model citizen. He has made the claim on the property known in no clearer terms by posting signs which indicate that the property belongs to him, and any intrusion of any sort would not be appreciated. He stresses a great deal of importance for the need of privacy and therefore prefers this seclusion.

The sudden injection of the fairy land creatures to this part of the town and on the property of Shrek the Ogre has caused considerable harm to him and violates his rights. The property has been designated as the resettlement facility, as per the claim being made by the fairytale creatures. They claim that they were not invited and didn’t want to come to the swamp even, in the first place; instead they were made to come there by Lord Farquaad. They were given no choice, and are in a fact the victim themselves in this situation. Shrek the Ogre claims that this is trespassing, since no one had sought his consent in any way for the use of his swamp. The fairytale creatures have testified that this is not trespassing since they never had any intention of stepping on the Ogre’s property but were forcefully evicted, and therefore their intention needs to be considered firstly in this case.

Lord Farquaad himself does not deny that he took these actions, but backs them with the theory that they were done in the interest of the community and the greater good. For him the removal of the fairytale creatures does conform to the standard of being considered as the greater good. He considers them evil and therefore the best course of action, as per him, is the restraining of these creatures in a secure facility, where a look can be maintained upon them. It is for this purpose that the chose the site of the swamp, which as per him, would serve in the public interest. He has sought the counsel of his Courts and Noblemen, which is as close as a Congress form that he has, and it is upon their decision and advice that he has acted. Therefore, there is no question of acting out on the basis of self-interest.



The Elements of the Action. A trespass is considered to have occurred when a person intentionally, recklessly or negligently enters land in the possession of another. (Gallin v. Poulou (1956) 140 Cal. App. 2d 638, 645) (Gallin v. Poulou). But the defendant’s intrusions are not of any possessory kind. (Halperin v. Pitts (2011)) (Halperin v. Pitts). However, for the greater good of the community and for redevelopment purposes the Government does have the right to occupy private property. (Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)) (Kelo v. New London). This act was in consent with this Governors and Court members and therefore didn’t imply any wrong doings on his part. (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343, U.S. 579 (1952)) (Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer).

Lord Farquaad Actions is not reflective of the Fairytale Creatures Intention. The fairy tale creatures are making their argument by giving a detailed account of the events which have led to their eviction and finally finding themselves on the private property of the Ogre. They claim that since there actions do no imply as trespassing, since they didn’t have any intention of doing it.

Furthermore, they claim that it is the actions of Lord Farquaad, which should be taken into account. His actions stem from his dislike of the fairytale creatures and therefore planned to remove them from the surrounding of this own constituency and resettle them far away. It is for this purpose that he had selected the swamp.

The fairytale creatures knew that this was a private property but they were forced onto the land, whose status had been changed by Law and Lord Farquaad as that of a “Resettlement facility.” As per this new designation of the land in discussion, there is no claim against them, since their actions do not conform to any of the clauses that have been mentioned as a must for being considered an act of trespassing.

Lord Farquaad however is of the opinion, that since the land is for the greater good of the community, as it would control the fairytale creatures, therefore, he has done nothing wrong. More so, he had consent from his court and as per that he has exercised his right only and that too within the jurisdiction of the Constitution.


The case should be heard separately, against the Fairytale creatures and that against Lord Farquaad. There is no evidence which indicates that the Fairytale creatures were in the wrong. And by extension, their actions are only the reflection of what Lord Farquaad had ordered.


1. Gallin v. Poulou (1956) 140 Cal. App. 2d 638, 645

The case was filled by the tenant against her landlord, who had ordered some construction to take place in her basement. The result of this construction was an injury that was endured by the plaintiff on her back and shoulder due to a block of plaster falling off from the ceiling, something she claims would not have had happened, if the said construction was not taking place. This construction work by the landlord was considered as an intrusion and a trespass on the property. Had this trespassing not taken place, the injuries would not have taken place. It was decided that the result of this trespassing was associated with this, however direct or indirect, link to the injury.

2. Halperin v. Pitts (2011)).

The intrusion in this case was not of any physical sort, but was in a fact the dispute on the property line which was taken to the next level. The decision of the court made it very clear that trespassing can be in any form, whether physical or not, and even flooding the other’s person’s property with an ill-willed desire would be counted as intrusion.

The decision also made a clear distinction between the intent of possession that the other party may have in such cases, which needs to be taken into account when property dispute cases are being heard.

3. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)).

The case was filed by Susette Kelo whose private property was being taken up by the City of New London for development, which would have resulted in producing jobs and housing for many people. The area had been much affected by the recent economic upheaval. The decision upon the case was clear and made the argument that since such an act didn’t violate any of the state and federal constitutions and it was important to take into consideration the greater good of the entire community.

The decision came under much fire, for the misinterpretation of the property laws and the Fifth Amendment.

4. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343, U.S. 579 (1952)

The case was the result of the seizure of the Nation’s steel mills by the Secretary of Commerce, Charles Sawyer, upon the direct directive from the President of the United States, Harry Truman. The action was taken in the light of the emergency that is the Korean War, which had taken grip of the American economy. A nationwide strike of the steel mills would have jeopardized the entire economy and all that is linked to it, and therefore it was important to take such a step. The result was that the case was taken to the courts, however the judgment that was received upon it, has been the subject matter of much debate.

Where an agreement was reached that the President has no power to take such a step, the point raised by Justice Jackson in his judgment has been of crucial importance. The judgment states that the action of the President needs to be judged only after it has been transcribed a category. The categories which he created categorized the action as having been taken by the consent of the Congress, or the Congress having remained silent about the issues or as being defiant of the congressional orders.

Works Cited

Gallin v. Poulou. No. 16602. California . 10th April 1956.

Halperin v. Pitts. No. A139639. Washington County Circuit Court. 19th March 2010.

Kelo v. New London. No. 545 U.S. 469. Supreme Court of the United States. 23rd June 2005.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer. No. U.S. 579 . United States Supreme Court . 2nd June 1952.