ContractsProf Blog

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]

Still Waiting in Florida, But Rhode Island Makes 28

While Florida SB 252, which was enrolled on May 3, still has not made it to Governor Charlie Crist's in-box, Rhode Island SB 105 was enacted May 23, making Rhode Island the 28th state to adopt a version of Revised Article 1.

Like the 27 other states to have enacted Revised Article 1, SB 105 rejects "uniform" R1-301 in favor of a choice-of-law provision tracking pre-revised 1-105.  SB 105 is the ninth enactment to eschew uniform R1-201(b)(20)'s unitary good faith standard in favor of retaining the bifurcated standard of pre-revised 1-201(19) and 2-103(1)(b).

SB 105 also includes a new statute of frauds designed to retain the "default" personal property statute of frauds in pre-revised 1-206.  The new provision, to be codified at R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-4(7), states:

No action shall be brought … [e]xcept in cases to which the Uniform Commercial Code (Title 6A) applies, … to charge any person upon any contract for the sale of personal property beyond five thousand dollars ($5,000) in an amount or value or remedy, unless the promise or agreement upon which the action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some other person by him or her thereunto lawfully authorized.

Rhode Island is the second enacting state to have codified a new statute of frauds outside of its UCC to fill the gap -- real or perceived -- created by Revised Article 1's narrowed scope provision. Last year, California added a similar provision to its Civil Code (Cal. Civ. Code § 1624.5) as part of its enactment of Revised Article 1.

Rhode Island SB 105 is one of three recent enactments -- along with Indiana SB 419 (enacted May 3, 2007) and Iowa SF 535 (enacted April 4, 2007) -- slated to take effect on July 1, 2007.  Once these three new statutes take effect, Revised Article 1 will be the law in more the one-half of the states.

[Keith A. Rowley]