The actual 'teacake' debate.

[[TC]►Cam◄]

Interestingly, Image 2 has been legally determined to be a 'cake' as opposed to being a 'snack' following a 13-year dispute. A snack was defined as covering 'chocolate covered biscuits'.

This arose out of a legal dispute surrounding VAT. A snack incurs VAT whilst a cake does not.

M&S won the dispute in favour of Image 2 being a cake and so they do not need to incur tax on them. Therefore it was not a snack and thus it is not a biscuit. I guess a legally binding decision helps us in asserting Image 2 is a cake, but it does not give us answers in regards to the first part of the name 'tea'. Nor does it refute any claim that Image 1 cannot also be a cake because no such comparison was made here.

Perhaps it would be useful (although not determinative) to see whether Image 1 falls within the same VAT bracket as Image 2...

It is important to note that this was in the context of VAT and from a commercial point of view, but given that a court has made a ruling on this specific matter probably means a fair bit of meaningful debate had already taken place over the last 13 years. But as mentioned already, it does not prove or disprove anything in regards to Image 1 - The debate continues.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news...cakes.html

Oh, and this source also confirms that somebody has already successfully argued in court that a Jaffa Cake is in fact a cake. @Taz .