ContractsProf Blog

Limerick of the Week: Mill Street Church v. Hogan

Thisis a useful teaching case because it covers both implied actual authority and apparent authority.  The Church is bound by Bill Hogan's decision to hire his brother, Sam, to do some work in the church both because a past course of dealing made it reasonable both for Bill to assume that he could hire Sam and for Sam to believe that Bill could hire him.  In this case, the authority issue was especially important because Sam fell off a ladder very soon after beginning work, and the church (or its insurer) was trying to avoid liability for Sam's injury. 

Mill Street Church v. Hogan

Could Bill Hogan, employed by his church,
Hire his brother, who fell from his perch?
Yes, Bill's authority is wide
Even if just implied.
Thus the court leaves the church in the lurch.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week: Watteau v. Fenwick

It is worth teaching Business Associations just for this case.  It is the perfect illustration of the doctrine of inherent authority.  It has all of the necessary ingredients: a general agent for an undisclosed principal who exceeds his authority by entering into a contract for goods he was not authorized to purchase.  It also has a special added ingredient: Bovril. 

As I tell my students, Bovril was developed by French scientists after the Franco-Prussian War because they thought that concentrated beef extract would enhance the fighting ability of French soldiers.  In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of this technique, I instruct my students to go to the Google.com home page, enter "French military victories" and then hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button.  It's a crowd pleaser. 

Anyhew, here's the Limerick:

Watteau v. Fenwick

Inherent authority imposes
Liability where no one discloses
The one whose dinars
Are owed for cigars . . .
And other goods that offend noses.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week: Gay Jensen Farms Co. v. Cargill, Inc.

Gay Jensen Farms Co. v. Cargill Inc. is a great case for teaching the very important principle that contractual relations, including agency relations, can be implied through conduct.  In this case, the Warren Grain & Seed company defaulted on contracts made with farmers for the sale of grain.  Because Warren was judgment-proof, the plainitffs went after Cargill on the theory that Warren had become Cargill's agent.  The court found Cargill could be held liable as a principal both because of its creditor/debtor relationship and because of its buyer/supplier relationship with Warren.  Especially in connection with the former relationship, there was strong evidence that Cargill exercised effective control over Warren's business.

Gay Jensen Farms Co. v. Cargill, Inc.

Warren was deep in the hole,
So it went on the Cargill, Inc. dole.
No simple creditor,
Cargill's a predator,
And must pay, since it had control.

[Jeremy Telman]

New Topical Category: Limericks

Thanks to Joe Hodnicki of the Law Professors Blog Network and to Frank Snyder, whose limitless indulgence permits me to post here, we now have a new topical category for the Limericks fans out there.  It has not yet been fully populated, but I hope to do so over the next few weeks.  Then, those of you who want to gather the full collection of Limericks for Lawyers can do so by clicking on "Limericks" in our Topical Archive.  You can have a look at what's there now here.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week: Gorton v. Doty

After a long hiatus from Limerick posting, I have decided to share with the blog's readership a selection from Volume II of my collection of Limericks for Lawyers.  Volume II summarizes cases covered in my Business Associations course, but many of the cases for that course raise contractual issues, so I figure that's a sufficient hook to permit me to post them here.

I teach the course using Klein, Ramseyer and Bainbridge's casebook, so those of you familiar with that book will know the cases.  Volume I of the Limericks for Lawyers series was based on my first-year contracts course, in which I used Knapp, Crystal and Prince's casebook. For the coming year, I am switching to the Conracts: Law in Action book, which means new cases, and yes, new contracts Limericks coming in the Fall.  This is not a knock on the Knapp book, of course, which I have enjoyed using.  I just need to use some new materials so as to awaken from my dogmatic slumbers.

So, without further ado.  The first case I teach in Business Associations is Gorton v. Doty, in which a high school teacher (Doty) is repaid for her patriot efforts on behalf of her school (Soda Springs) football team with a tort claim.  She loaned her car to Coach Garst so that he could drive the team to a game.  The Gorton boy was injured when Coach Garst got into an accident, but Ms. Doty was held liable as the principal since the court found that she had effectively made Coach Garst her agent by conditioning the loan of her car on his agreement to be the sole driver.

Gorton v. Doty

The court made Ms. Doty the heavy
When Coach Garst demolished her Chevy.
When Soda Springs lost the game,
Coach accepted the blame,
But the principal pays the tort levy.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the . . . Month

It is great fun to teach Greiner v. Greiner as a companion case to Kirksey v. Kirksey.  Vive le difference! 

Still, I didn't teach the case last year, perhaps because I had not written a Limerick for it.  This year, I have attempted to correct that slight to this most deserving case.  I'm not all that happy with the Limerick.  The Limerick is true to the decision, in that it treats it as a promissory estoppel case, but it's hard to see why the court did not simply find a binding promise supported by consideration. 

Greiner v. Greiner

At wheat-sowing time, in a bank,
Maggie promised some acreage to Frank.
"He did nothing for me!"
Averred Maggie, with glee.
For his land Frank has Corbin to thank.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Parker v. 20th Century Fox is certainly a fun case to teach, and it raises all sorts of interesting policy questions.  In my class, I show a sequence of Shirley MacLaine images purporting to illustrate the facts of the case.  Unfortunately, copyright concerns prevent me from posting them here.  The image at left (available from the Wikipedia commons) hardly reflects her success in the case. 

Anyway, here it is, the last (for now) in my collection of contracts Limericks:

The studio's conduct was terrible,
And the actress's damage repairable
Only with a lead part
In a great work of art:
A film that is at least comparable.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Nora Ephron feels bad about her neck, and I feel bad that I can't come up with a better Limerick for Hadley.

Hadley v. Baxendale

Foresee that things can end badly
And keep that in mind, or else sadly,
A life of regret
Is all you will get
If your harm's consequential -- poor Hadley!

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Through some incomprehensible oversight, I forgot to include Limericks commemorating these old chestnuts.

James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Bros.

When they offered a bid to James Baird,
The Brothers egregiously erred.
They were in deep shinoleum
For not laying linoleum,
But Judge Hand, their bottoms he spared.

Drennan v. Star Paving

After reading the views of Judge Hand,
Star Paving could not understand
What the fuss was about.
Bidders used to bail out;
Now all bow to estoppel's command.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

In rejecting Mama Rizzo, Inc.'s arguments in Brookside Farms v. Mama Rizzo, Inc., Judge Kent wrote as follows:

"For the Court to allow Defendant to invoke the no-oral-modification clause after MRI itself induced and participated in the extended course of action it now complains of would be to convert the sale of basil leaves into a 'basil sale carcinoma' that would devour all reasonable commercial standards of behavior between merchants" (emphasis added).

Now I have my own standards for reasonable behavior, and I just didn't find the case Limerick-worthy.  But some of my students felt the phrase "basil sale carcinoma" needed to be memorialized in verse.  Facing an inevitable student rebellion, I composed the following in self-defense:

Brookside Farms v. Mama Rizzo's, Inc.

Addressing the judge as "Coxcomb-a,"
Mama Rizzo flew back to Roma.
In rejecting her Answer,
This judge has cured cancer,
The dread basil sale carcinoma.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

As I said before, my casebook does not include the classic coronation cases, arising out of the postponed coronation King Edward VII, pictured at left.  I therefore expect my students to learn the history of the frustration of purpose doctrine solely by studying Limericks.  It's a very rigorous curriculum, and I still get complaints that some contracts doctrine is easily reduced to Haiku.

Krell v. Henry

Was Henry's whole purpose frustrated
When the King burst appendix dictated
That the crown must delay
It's coronation day?
Yes! So contract doctrine's updated.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

This case may be so well known as to need no introduction, but if people are in the market for visual aids, at left are public domain images of the Surrey Music Hall and Gardens, the former of which was the music hall that burnt down in Taylor v. Caldwell.

Since neither this nor the coronation cases are included in the casebook that I use, and since I am usually way behind by the time I get to this subject matter, this is a portion of the course that I teach entirely through Limericks. 

Taylor v. Caldwell

• Taylor rented a hall like the Met's
  For the purpose of concerts and fetes
  When fire the hall downed,
  The court wisely found
  A way to excuse Taylor's debts.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

I always have a hard time teaching Donahue v. FedEx, in which an employee-at-will is terminated after attempting to blow the whistle on his corrupt boss.  The court recognizes that there is a public-policy exception to the at-will doctrine but states that there is no public policy protecting whistle blowers.  There isn't?

Plaintiff, an employee at will,
Thought his boss had a hand in the till.
FedEx is correct;
"Bad faith" won't protect
Where policy contentions are nil.

I also have a problem because I can't get the last line of my Limerick to scan.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

The end is near!!  Not only is the semester (and for some readers, the first year of law school) nearly over.  But I am almost out of Limericks.  Contracts Limericks, that is.  I still have a boatload of business associations Limericks (bwahaha!), but those will have to appear on a different blog, I suppose.

So, where would contracts profs be without celebrity contracts?  I mean, is there anything more certain to promote student interest than a law suit featuring Clint Eastwood?  Can any contract prof resist inviting Sondra Locke to ask herself, "Do I feel lucky?"  And then add, "Well do ya, punk?"  Now that's educatin'!  Of course, the time may eventually come when referencing "Dirty Harry" is about as hip as referencing "True Grit."  It's already quite hard to get students to care much about Shirley MacLaine.  And I think this is one reason why Sullivan v. O'Connor has dropped out of most casebooks.  On the other hand, in a few years, it should be possible to build an entire curriculum around Anna Nicole Smith.

Locke v. Warner Brothers

There once was an actress named Locke
Whose Ratboy is said to be schlock
Old Clint and Warner
Thought they could scorn her
In bad faith.  Now they're in hock.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen is a great teaching case.  It never ceases to outrage at least some students and thus leads to a very fruitful discussion of the pitfalls of the parol evidence rule.  In addition, it shows that a formal approach to contracts law is still with us, as the following Limerick illustates:

Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen

Behold, parol's bitter fruit:
Sherrodd's claim was deemed moot!
If he'd only known,
The great Corbin would groan
To see Williston's rule win repute.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

This is a pretty poor Limerick, I admit it.  But let's face it: the facts of Thompson v. Libby are not such as to inspire great art.  In order to have anything to work with here, I had to make up some facts and pretend that the logs at issue in the case were defective because they were intended for the Christmas hearth but were not as fragrant as promised. 

In addition, this is one of several Limericks in which I defy conventional wisdom and employ the poetic device of enjambment in a Limerick.  Consider this an example of why conventional wisdom prevails.  But you see, that's what makes this Limerick so gosh darn funny!!

Thompson v. Libby

A plan to buy logs fit for Yule
Met up with the "four-corners" rule.
The parties, they feuded,
But the court, it excluded
Parol.  How Grinchy!  How cruel!

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

In a recent post, I complained about the difficulty of rhyming estoppel.  To my surprise, nobody wrote in to offer suggestions.  Very disappointing.  So this is what I'm left with:

Alaska Democrats v. Rice

This just in from our anchor, Ted Koppel:
The Statute of Frauds may just topple!
Politicians are snarky,
And yet their malarchy
Is binding if backed by estoppel.

Todd van Poppel is in the on-deck circle.  Be thee warned!!

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Winternitz v. Summit Hills is a useful case for illustrating why the difference between law and equity might still matter in a modern court.  It is also a useful case for illustrating why tort law might matter in a modern court, if anyone is interested in such things.  The interplay between the real and the imaginary in the case gives it the feel of a Dr. Seuss book, and so this Limerick has a bit of a Seussical feel to it:

Winternitz v. Summit Hills

Hard cases result in bad laws.
But there's a solution because
The court can resort
To a sort of a tort
To remedy equity's flaws.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Sometimes you really can sum up a case in five lines:

Normile v. Miller

As if sensing what lay ahead,
The counterofferor said,
You snooze, you lose!"
That's enough to excuse
Her for selling to Segal instead.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

I know I'm a bit ahead of schedule, but I will be traveling on Monday and unable to post.

The best scenarios out there for explaining the doctrine of restitution are provided, IMHO, by Seinfeld and The Incredibles.  In a late Seinfeld episode, the Elaine character, suffering from back pain, offers to give anything to anyone who could relieve her of the pain.  Kramer grabs Elain's head, and as she objects, proceeds to twist it until her neck cracks.  Elaine feels immediate relief and thanks Kramer, at which point he demands payment for his services.  In my book, he was an officious intermeddler who deserved no payment for his services.  In any case, Elaine's pain soon returned with a vengeance.  But Elaine didn't ask my advice.  I believe the dispute was settled by Newman.

The Incredibles provides two illustrations of the doctrine.  In the first, Mr. Incredible saves the life of a suicide, but in so doing causes some bodily harm to the man.  The would-be suicide then files suit for damages, and the improbable success of this suit is then the vehicle for the film's premise -- a world in which plaintiffs' attorneys destroy the entire culture of the superheroes.  But if Mr. Incredible were simply in the habit of demanding payment for his good deeds, he would have a slam dunk defense, just as a doctor who causes some injuries in reviving an unconscious patient could not be sued for assault. Inded, rather than being sued, Mr. Incredible would likely succeed on a restitution claim.

In the second, Edna Mode, having prepared a new supersuit for Mr. Incredible, prepares matching clothing for the rest of the family.   Mr. Incredible's wife, Helen (aka Elastigirl), at first expresses shock and outrage that Edna would make such a presumption, but then, for reasons that need not concern us here, ends up using Edna's supersuits.  This may well illustrate ratification, but it can also be a basis for a good discussion of restitution. 

Alas, I have yet to find a casebook that includes discussions of these scenarios, perhaps because Newman does not publish his opinions and it is not clear whether Helen paid Edna for the supersuits or if Edna needed to bring suit to collect.  So, I am left teaching the Pelo case, which is not nearly as entertaining. 

Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc. v. Pelo

Does the doctrine of restitution
Provide a fair resolution?
It keeps doctors secure
When consent is obscure
And thus prevents self-execution.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

As Frank Snyder put it in the early days of this Blog:

[On] December 2, 1980, the Missouri Court of Appeals decided Katz v. Danny Dare, Inc.,  610 S.W.2d 121 (Mo. Ct. App.1980), a popular casebook follow-up to Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co. in the promissory estoppel part of the course.  In the case, the president of the company wanted to get his brother-in-law to resign instead of having to fire him (thus ticking off his sister) so he promised him a pension.  After the man retired, the company reneged on the promise, claiming that there was no consideration for the promise because the employee would have been fired anyway.  The court's holding -- that there was no consideration but that there was reliance -- is just off base enough to make for great class discussion.

And also off-base enough to inspire a Limerick:

Katz v. Danny Dare

Shopmaker could have fired Katz.
Instead, they held family chats.
Now a pension is due,
Though Katz' work days aren't through.
Estoppel here seems a bit bats.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

In order for my students to appreciate this week's Limerick, I first have to instruct them in the patois of New York pick-up basketball.  You see, those of us who frequent the hard-scrabble asphalt courts of the City have developed our own expressions.  For example, sometimes a call in a game can be simultaneously fair and charitable.  For example, a player may travel or double-dribble, but only because -- oh, I don't know -- perhaps the sun was in his eyes, or he got scared when a bigger player came up to guard him.  In such a case, the traveling player might call out that he was fouled and the other players might agree that allowing the foul would be both fair and charitable, or to use the vernacular "fairitable." 

I swear, the word is used all the time in pick-up basketball games.  If you don't believe me, just try using it.  When someone calls a foul on you, just look him in the eye and say, "Okay, that's fairitable."  You will get no argument.

It is for that reason, and not (heavens forfend) because I was desparate for a rhyme, that the word, "fairitable" appears in this Limerick.

Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank

Although her estate was inheritable,
Ms. Johnston chose to be chartible.
A bargain was struck;
Her heir's out of luck:
To the College Cardozo was fairitable.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Last week's Limerick explored the difficulty of writing a metrical poem that includes the word "consideration."  This week, we begin an investigation into the difficulties of finding a rhyme for "estoppel."

Ted Koppel might do, but how to work him into a poem?  I'm stumped.  Todd van Poppel, perhaps?  Dated, I think.  Well, you can see the bind I'm in.

Ricketts v. Scothorn

Such was the start of estoppel:
Said Grandpa to Katie, "Poppop'll
Set you up nice."
She took his advice,
And quit her old job in the shop-pel.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

The casebook that I use does not include a case that addresses the peppercorn theory of consideration, so I supplement the book with Fischer v. Union Trust Co.  In that case, one of the brothers of the incompetent Bertha Fischer gave her a dollar, which she then passed on to her father, William Fischer, Sr., as purported consideration for a deed on certain property.  William Sr. descirbed the deed as "a nice Christmas present." 

I love this case, with its sweet (and remarkably precise!) details of a deal that had occurred nine years earlier.  But I can see why casebook editors would want to steer clear.  There is a disucssion of "three classes of consideration," which students find completely opaque.  It's also an uncomfortable vehicle for teaching peppercorn theory, as the opinion conclusorily states that Bertha "paid no valuable consideration" for the promised conveyance.  That's silly.  The 1895 dollar pictured above is now worth $750!

But what really bothers me is that it is very hard to work the word "consideration" into a Limerick.

Consideration provision is tough:
One dollar isn't enough.
Has this court grown weary
Of peppercorn theory
Or is the transaction a bluff?

[Jeremy Telman}

Limerick of the Week

Park 100 Investors v. Kartes

The Karteses signed the "lease papers,"
A guaranty hidden in vapors.
The court found this coarse
And would not enforce
A contract procured through such capers.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

There was a lot of talk about tobacco barns and Buffaloe v. Hart last week on the Contracts Profs Listserve.  I think we established to our satisfaction that students should come away from their first year in law school secure in the knowledge that tobacoo barns (pictured) are moveable. 

And while we are on the topic of useful knowledge, here is a Limerick memorializing the case:

Acceptance of "goods" was the start
Of Buffaloe's barn deal with Hart.
A torn check was the end,
Evincing a trend
To bind through Llewellyn's black art.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Ray v. William G Eurice & Bros., Inc.

Ray's specs were enough to confound
These "hatchet and saw" men, whose ground
For breaching the pact
Was mistake of fact,
But they signed it and so they are bound.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

A Limerick to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. and the King v. Boston University case:

Coretta Scott King's defiance
Could not overcome legal science.
The gift is a fact
Because it was backed
By consideration (or reliance).

[Jeremy Telman}

Limerick of the Week

Okay, I'll be honest.  I've posted all of my contracts Limericks that I think are ready for prime time.  And, at Valparaiso, Spring semester is the off-season for contracts, so I'm mostly working on developing my beer belly at this point.  So, this semester, I will be sharing works in progress in the hopes that some of you can suggest ways to improve these Limericks.  In addition, if any of you out there have a favorite case that I have not yet written about, I am willing to take requests.

Knapp, et al. start their book with a case call Burch v. Second Judicial District.  It introduces students to a number of topics to which we return later in the course, but the posture of the case is a bit odd, as its a mandamus case, which is a confusing way to being the first semester of law school.  Then again, at least it's not Pennoyer.

If you don't think to file for mandamus,
Your client may shout, "Ignoramus!"
Now after appeal,
The Burches can squeal
"We may not be rich but we're famous!"

Well, they get to squeal only if they realize that their case will be the first in a first-year contracts casebook. Ahem.

[Jeremy Telman}

Limerick of the Week

I skipped a week so that I could focus on grading.  Then, I got behind due to weather delays that kept me stranded in Boise, Idaho for three days.  Actually, it's quite a pleasant place to be stranded.

In any case, to make up for the unintended hiatus, I offer a Limerick two-fer, representing the majority and dissenting opinions respectively in Borelli v. Brusseau:

Is only the one in the blouse
Expected to care for her spouse?
No, the same law applies
To the gals and the guys
Who must care for their partners in-house.

Is only the one in the blouse
Expected to care for her spouse?
Love, Honor, Cherish
And clean bed-pans -- that's marriage!
A housewife's still wed to a house.

[Jeremy Telman]

Happy Holidays!

Limerick of the Week

Once again, I thank Knapp, Crystal and Prince for including Syester v. Banta in their casebook, as I would otherwise never have come across it.  For those unfamiliar, I recommend looking it up, as the facts are terrific.

In the shallow end of the gene pool
Met a widow and a young dancing fool
Who had to teach her for squat
How to waltz and foxtrot
Becasue misleading widows is cruel.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Many of my students, faced with the prospect of their first set of law school exams, find the system unconscionable.  They have no bargaining power, and the terms are unreasonably favorable to law professors, who give no feedback all semester and then administer exams in environments that could hardly be more stress-inducing for students.  I suggest they raise their claim in D.C.

When he learned of Ms. Williams' plight,
"Unconscionable!" said Skelly-Wright.
If you sell door-to-door,
The court might abhor
You, and void all your contracts for spite.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

I find everything about Jacob & Youngs v. Kent difficult.  Even the name.  I always want to call it Jacobs & Young.  But this is one of those great Cardozo opinions that, like a great poem, repays re-reading.  And speaking of poems . . .

Kent called for beheading or stripes
When his builder eschewed Reading pipes.
There was no harm financial;
The court found substantial
Performance, ignoring Kent's gripes.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Frank has now deluged us with Too Much Information on Kirksey v. Kirksey.  Alas, Casto and Ricks' research lends no support to the pet theory of some students who read the case.  To wit, whenever I teach this case, at least one student is convinced that Isaac was a bit sweet on Angelico (Antillico), that his love was unrequited and that he avenged himself through eviction.  But the research doesn't disprove the theory either . . . .   And so, the Limerick survives. 

Bwahahaha!

From a house to a hut to the street
Was the course of Ms. Kirksey's retreat.
She could not recover
From her in-law (her lover?)
Who'd nakedly promised a suite.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

I had never heard of Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly before I adopted Knapp, Crystal and Prince's Problems in Contract Law, but I congratulate them on the choice, as the case teaches quite well in my experience.  For those unfamiliar with the case, the facts of the case are that the Pickles bought from the Messerlys a 600-square-foot property, which housed a three-unit apartment building.  The Pickles agreed to take the property "as is," but soon thereafter discovered a sewage leak that rendered the apartment building uninhabitable.  A nonconforming septic system, installed by a prior owner, was the culprit.  The trial court found no fraud or misrepresentation.  The case serves to address the doctrine of mistake.

I can never quite get my mind around the idea of a 600-square-foot plot of land upon which a three-unit appartment building is situated.  One of my students this semester hales from Lenawee County and tells me that it is a rural area where people seldom deal in tracts of land smaller than one acre.  Equally baffling, how can it be that nobody had any knowledge of the nonconforming setpic system and the attendant sewage leak until the Pickles quite literally stepped in it?  Do these people lack a sense of smell?  My students always raise these worldly questions, but conveniently they play no role in the opinion.  This allows us to focus on mistake:

The sewage leak, that was no trickle.
Now the property ain't worth a nickel.
When "as is" you take,
You eat your mistake,
So bon appetite, Mr. Pickles.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

The language in Mills v. Wyman is enough to inspire some great poetry . . .

and other poetry as well:

Seth Wyman's interior forum
Is not the law's sanctum sanctorum
With this none would quarrel:
Seth's conduct's immoral.
Still, he breaches not law but decorum.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

It's a bit late in the season, but I always like to introduce the UCC with a Limerick:

There once was a man named Llewellyn
Commercial contracts' Megellyn
All stand in awe
Of his modernized lawe . . .
Hey!  He modernized contracts, not spellyn!

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Judge Cardozo seems not to have been a slave of fashion.  I wonder what prompted the supersilious tone with which Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon begins.  Be that as it may, this is a highly Limerick-worthy case:

The Titanic's wreck, that was rough,
But nothing could sink Lady Duff!
Lucy's couture
Is now de rigeur
But Wood gets to market her stuff.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

I taught both Frigaliment and Peerless last week.  What a great week to be a contracts professor! 

Helen of Troy's face may have launched a thousand ships, but Peerless is the ship that launched a hundred Limericks.  Hmmm, perhaps a lesser boast.  In any event, this was my first Limerick, and since I was assisted in writing it by my wife, the poet Catherine Tufariello, I think it is one of my best.

In Peerless, a contract for cotton
Was found by the court to be rotten.
To Liverpool sailed
Two ships that so hailed:
No consensus ad idem was gotten.

There are pedagogical principles underlying my Limericks for Lawyers project.  The Limericks are supposed to summarize facts and law in a way that helps students remember both the cases and the principles that they stand for.  But sometimes the cases themselves are so memorable, pedagogy takes a back seat to frivolity.

Of Judge Friendly's great chicken coup,
Shakespeare's witches could make much ado.
With defendants they'd howl,
"Fowl is fair, fair is fowl
(That is, chickens) fit only for stew."

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

With all this talk of Webb v. McGowin, I have decided to post this attempt at a Webb Limerick, even though I am not yet satisfied with it.  As always, suggestions for improvement are most welcome!

While giving the pine block a toss,
Webb spotted McGowin, his boss.
As preventing the harm
Cost him a leg and an arm,
The estate must extinguish Webb's loss.

[Jeremy Telman]

Limerick of the Week

Last week, I taught the companion cases, Hill v. Gateway 2000 and Klocek v. Gateway.  I thought it appropriate to provide my students with companion Limericks:

Hill v. Gateway 2000

Could a problem with contract formation
Save the Hills from forced arbitration?
No, the court will compel
(And consign you to Dell).
It ain't court, but it sure beats damnation.

Klocek v. Gateway

UCC Section 2-207
Provided the unlikely leaven.
Ralph Nader is smiling,
And consumers are filing
In Kansas, the new plaintiffs' heaven.

I welcome suggestions for improvements of these Limericks.

[Jeremy Telman]

Contract Law Limerick of the Week

Hamer v. Sidway

by Jeremy Telman (Valparaiso)

Did dissolute William fulfill
A contract with rich Uncle Will?
Yes, forbearance from vice,
Said the court, will suffice
As performance, and so it is still.