Feasing torts

In my job, I see and hear a lot of the same humor I loved in law school.  While it makes me happy, it probably makes 98% of the public groan... and that's assuming lawyers make up at least 12% of the public.  Here's a sample anyway.

We have a table everyone visits at least once a day.  On it is a bowl full of yummy things kept stocked by various generous people.  Coworker Smith took the last peanut butter/chocolate bell-shaped bit of yumminess.  After eating it, he put the foil back, carefully arranged to appear as if the chocolate was still inside.

Coworker Jones entered shortly thereafter.  She picked up the chocolate, opened it and made a dramatic complaint about how she had been taken in that was overheard by several other coworkers.  Someone suggested a lawsuit... naturally.

Supervisor overheard all of this.  Supervisor sent an email to all employees.

I predict that in the future case of Jones v. Smith, our Supreme Court will state:  “We conclude that intentionally misleading a coworker about the availability of a delicious peanut butter and chocolate snack is extreme and outrageous as a matter of law.”

Jones replied:  "I trust your instincts, Supervisor.  Although I predict that the dissent will conclude that, in lieu of 'snack,' the plain meaning of the word 'treat' encompasses the peanut butter and chocolate based edible object in question.  The dissent will probably have an analysis reaching a different conclusion on that basis."  

Supervisor replied:  Hmmm, I may have to join the dissent.  If we were dealing with a mere 'snack,' outrageousness would be a question of fact for the jury.  With a 'treat,' its outrageous as a matter of law.