August 26, 2008
Seinfeld v. Shakespeare. Clancy v. King (MD 2008)
posted by Gary Rosin
The difference between the Maryland and the Delaware judiciaries? Seinfeld and Shakespeare. The recent opinion by Chancellor Chandler in R & R Capital, LLC v. Buck & Doe Run Valley Farms, LLC (discussed here and here) began and ended with references and quotations from Shakespeare. The majority opinion by Justice Harrell of the Maryland Court of Appeals in Clancy v. King, No. 112/2007 (August 26, 2008) (slip op.) quoted from an episode of Seinfeld. Id. at 28-29 n.27. "Not that there's anything wrong with that [or that]."
Clancy v. King has so much going on that perhaps only a spy thriller could do it justice. Start with the dramatis personae, which include the author Tom Clancy, his former wife, a limited partnership and a joint venture. Add in provisions in the LP agreement allowing competition with the LP, and--surprise!--the application of the good faith standard.
I'll have something to say about the opinion itself, but for now, the "brilliant" (perhaps I've been watching too much Doctor Who) use of what the Legal Profession Blog (Author! Author!) referred to as the "Wigmaster" episode, in which Seinfeld tries to return a suit "for spite." According to the opinion by Justice Harrell, such an exercise would be in bad faith (not in good faith?).
There's a lot to be said about the Clancy v. King opinion, but let that be later. For now, just reflect on a world of judicial references opened up by both the traditional and the contemporary. Shakespeare and Seinfeld. Though we may have to wait a bit for The Simpsons and South Park.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Seinfeld v. Shakespeare. Clancy v. King (MD 2008):
» Seinfeld on good faith in partnerships from Ideoblog
We don’t usually think of Jerry Seinfeld as an authority on partnership law, but a very recent Maryland case reveals this other side. (See also Unincorporated Business blog, and the WSJ Law Blog.) In Clancy v. King, famous writer Tom [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 27, 2008 10:32:22 AM
» What "Property" Was Initially Contributed to Jack Rayan Limted Partnership? Clancy v. King (MD 2008) from Unincorporated Business Law Prof Blog
posted by Gary Rosin Do we know enough to be able to judge the reasoning of the Maryland Court of Appeals in Clancy v. King, No. 112/2007 (MD August 26, 2008) (slip op.)? That court's opinion can only begin to [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 29, 2008 1:11:43 PM
» More Musings on Good Faith from Unincorporated Business Law Prof Blog
posted by Gary Rosin Doug Moll recently asked a variation of the Tina Turner question: “What’s good faith got to do with it?” While he’s right in one sense, he is missing something. Doug focuses on the role of good [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 8, 2008 11:59:17 AM
So I get no credit for my scholarly citation to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy ??
Posted by: Tom Rutledge | Aug 28, 2008 3:29:26 PM
Well, you're not a judge. If you were, that would be extra credit. I quote from its "cover" when talking about the final: "Don't Panic." I have yet to see or accept "42" as an answer.
Posted by: Gary Rosin | Aug 28, 2008 3:57:47 PM