Welcome to the fourth edition of Ghost Mail Weekender! Yes, it's been nearly a month since we surprised you on a Sunday morning with something new.

Speaking of surprises, you probably remember the first time you found out what true luxury actually costs. You know, that section of the most expensive malls where everything seems to go quiet and names like Louis Vuitton or Burberry replace the usual combo of Mr Price and a lekker smoothie at Kauai. When you do catch a glimpse of a price tag, it usually looks more like a telephone number than a handbag price.

In that part of the mall, you have to be absolutely loaded to participate. And even then, it might not be enough.

Renowned luxury brand Hermès is being sued for requiring shoppers to buy other products before they are allowed to buy a Birkin bag. If that sounds a bit like buying your way into an exclusive club, then you’re not wrong - but the practice just might be.  

The proposed federal class-action lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco earlier this year, claims that the average customer can’t just walk into a Hermès store, find a Birkin on display and buy it. Rather, customers that are “deemed worthy” will be shown a Birkin in a private room. Hermès sales associates are tasked with choosing customers that are qualified to buy Birkins, according to the lawsuit.

It's all very handbag-and-dagger.

The lawsuit is seeking class action status for all US residents who, over the past four years, bought or were asked to buy ancillary products in order to purchase a Birkin. Plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount in monetary damages and a court order barring the selling tactics it claims Hermès employs.

Buying secondhand luxury sounds a lot easier, which is a trend that Dominique Olivier touched on last week in her weekly column.

This week, she writes on the fascinating global trends around the birth rate and changes in population demographics. Interestingly, Investec wrote on this topic from an investment perspective in this article that went out in Ghost Mail last week.

For Dominique's thinking (and to learn about the massive issue that Japan is facing, along with the opportunity for tiny pineapples), read her article here>>>

Enjoy the rest of Ghost Mail Weekender and have a terrific day!

The Finance Ghost (follow on X) | Dominique Olivier (connect on LinkedIn)

TL;DR: Harvard University has promised to remove the binding from a 19th-century book that is currently housed in its library. That’s probably a good idea, since the binding on this particular book is made of human skin.

We’ve all had that one book that’s gotten under our skin at some point in our lives, right? Well...

The book in question, a copy of Des Destinées de l’Ame (or Destinies of the Soul), has been housed in the Houghton Library of the university since the 1930s. It gained global notoriety in 2014 following tests confirming its binding to be made of human skin.

On its face (ahem), it doesn’t look very different from any other leather-bound book, but the inscription on the inside tells a different story. Originating from the 1880s, the book contains a notation by its binder, Dr. Ludovic Bouland, asserting it to be "bound in human skin parchment devoid of ornamentation to maintain its refinement." Bouland elaborated, "Upon close examination, the pores of the skin are readily discernible. A book concerning the essence of humanity warranted a human casing. I retained this fragment of human skin sourced from a woman's back."

It’s a bit of a gross story, if we're honest, and perhaps the awkwardness around the whole situation is what prompted Harvard University to make a rather poor public statement upon confirmation of the binding’s origins. Jokingly, they went on record to call the discovery "good news for fans of anthropodermic bibliopegy, bibliomaniacs and cannibals alike".

Unsurprisingly, that statement caused some public uproar, with many demanding that the book be removed from public access out of respect to the unknown woman whose skin was used, most likely without her consent or knowledge. Harvard has since said that it now regrets the “sensationalistic, morbid, and humorous tone” in which the discovery was announced, and that it would work with relevant authorities to “determine a final respectful disposition of these human remains”.

1. Heir Jordan

Allen Heckard of Portland, Oregon bears a striking resemblance to Michael Jordan, and he is not happy about it. Tired of constantly being mistaken for a superstar athlete, Mr Heckard sued Jordan and (for some reason) Nike founder Phil Knight for $832 million in 2006. The case was withdrawn when Heckard was unable to provide a reasonable explanation for the amount that he was suing for.

2. The kids and the kidney

In Long Island, New York, a man sued his ex-wife for the return of his kidney, which he had donated to her while they were still married. When their marriage ended bitterly, he demanded either his kidney back or compensation of $1.5 million. The court rejected his claim, citing the legal principle that human organs cannot be considered property in a divorce settlement.

3. Beer goggles

In 1991, Richard Overton filed a lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch, the maker of Bud Light, for $10,000, claiming to have suffered emotional distress, mental injury and financial loss. Overton alleged that the company’s advertising campaign, which featured beautiful women, falsely promised him that he would attract such women if he drank their beer. The Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed Overton’s case.

4. Taxes are evil

In 2011, a man in Tennessee quit his job after his W-2 tax form had the number “666” printed on it. He believed the number was a mark of the devil and sued the company for constructive dismissal. Surprisingly, he won his case in court and the jury awarded him $150,000 in damages.

5. The devil's advocate

And speaking of the devil himself - in 1971, a man named Gerald Mayo sued Satan and his minions for causing him distress and challenging his life. The US District Court in Pennsylvania actually considered this unique case before ultimately dismissing it. The reason? The court stated that Satan, being a foreign prince, could not be served a lawsuit without an address.