Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Before we leave the Seinfeld case behind, I would like to report that I viewed the proceedings last night. The defendant argued the contract point: that the plaintiff got what he bargained for. The plaintiff did not really articulate his case but Judy J helped him along. She took the hypothetical case (it is just like the Year Books really ... sorry Paul Matthews) of Jerry Seinfeld's announcing that everyone should look under their chairs, and some lucky audience members would find a prize. Even the defendant agreed that in such a case, any prize under the plaintiff's seat would belong to the plaintiff. From this Judy J extracted the proposition, in very similar terms to Dan Friedmann's argument, that the plaintiff "bought the tickets and everything that flowed from them." Following (a) a slight detour via the proposition that if the law and morality gave divergent results, the law should bend, and (b) an introduction of the litigants to the saying "the law is an ass" (although, illustrating the dictum that the US and England are two countries divided by a common language, this was seemingly under the impression that this maxim refers to a part of the human anatomy rather than a barnyard animal), the learned judge gave judgment for the plaintiff.

I think I am going to show this tape in my restitution course next term.

L