• Home
  • News
  • Court Quotes ‘Seinfeld’ Episode in Ruling Involving Author Tom Clancy

Contract Law

Court Quotes ‘Seinfeld’ Episode in Ruling Involving Author Tom Clancy

Posted Aug 26, 2008 9:04 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Maryland’s highest court is relying on a Seinfeld episode to explain why author Tom Clancy cannot harm a partnership with his ex-wife simply because of spite.

The Maryland Court of Appeals cites the Seinfeld episode in which Jerry tries to return a jacket he purchased after an unrelated personal quarrel with a salesman. The decision (PDF) issued today says a trial court will have to determine whether Clancy acted in bad faith when he withdrew from a television and paperback series that profited the partnership he formed with his then-wife, Wanda.

In footnote 27, the court reprints the dialogue between Seinfeld and a store clerk. Seinfeld tells the clerk he is returning the jacket for spite because he doesn’t like the salesman who sold him the jacket. This is part of the exchange:

Clerk: I don't think you can return an item for spite.

Jerry: What do you mean?

Clerk: Well, if there was some problem with the garment. If it were unsatisfactory in some way, then we could do it for you, but I'm afraid spite doesn't fit into any of our conditions for a refund.

A hat tip to the Legal Profession Blog.

Comments

1.

J.D.
Aug 26, 2008 11:50 AM CST

Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

Flag this comment

2.

Paul
Aug 26, 2008 12:46 PM CST

Being a jerk is not illegal.  Just ill-advised, stupid and unlikely to improve one’s reputation. 

What do you expect from an insurance salesman who said, in effect, if one had not made at least $100,000 in a single year, one has not done anything worthwhile.

Flag this comment

3.

b
Aug 29, 2008 5:28 AM CST

Even worse:  they cite Wikipedia.

Flag this comment

4.

Jack Ryan
Aug 29, 2008 5:40 AM CST

Not just an insurance salesman, Paul.  An insurance salesman who essentially lived vicariously through his buddies in the Navy, and hasn’t written a decent book in nearly 20 years (The Sum of All Fears.)

But while being a jerk might not be illegal, violating his fiduciary duty to his partner is.

Flag this comment

5.

chris, student
Aug 29, 2008 6:14 AM CST

WIKIPEDIA!!!! WIKI-FREAKING-PEDIA!!!!

I get lambasted for citing a Supreme Court ruling the Professor doesn’t like and this alleged justice of the alleged state of Maryland gets to cite WIKIPEDIA!!!!!

I’m going to wiki to change the content of that cite this minute.

Flag this comment

6.

mr. vanderlay
Aug 29, 2008 6:47 AM CST

Hey judge, I went to the jerk store and they are all out of you.

Flag this comment

7.

Judge Harrell
Aug 29, 2008 7:06 AM CST

What’s the difference, mr. vanderlay?  You’re their all-time best seller.

Flag this comment

8.

Kramer
Aug 29, 2008 8:18 AM CST

No, no ... just tell him you had sex with his wife.

Flag this comment

9.

Bill
Aug 29, 2008 8:20 AM CST

At least he didn’t say that Clancy was master of his domain.

Flag this comment

10.

MarylandLawyer
Aug 29, 2008 9:55 AM CST

And to think, a partner once told me I couldn’t site to the Brady Brides for the proposition that the spouses of brothers are not considered sisters-in-law (an later SEC release did prove me right).

Flag this comment

11.

Seinfeld
Aug 29, 2008 11:21 AM CST

Wikipedia.  Wow.

Flag this comment

12.

Paul
Aug 29, 2008 12:17 PM CST

Good point, Jack Ryan.

Flag this comment

13.

George
Aug 29, 2008 1:17 PM CST

Why be surprised? Every law school professor and BarBri lecturer I ever had used ridiculous characters in their hypos. “Batman & Robin” -sound familiar?

Flag this comment

14.

Rob
Aug 29, 2008 2:48 PM CST

I think it is extremely juvenile and quite pathetic that a judge would quote dialogue from Seinfeld which was a series about “nothing.”  I guess Justice Roberts started this idiocy when he recently quoted Bob Dylan in one of his opinions.  This is all part of the “dumbing down” , trivilalization and immaturity of the american judiciary which feels it has to demonstrate that the judges are just “regular folks.”  These judges are obviously so devoid of humor and work to do that they have the time to scour songs and dialogues from T.V. shows for fodder with which to support theiir decisions on important legal issues.  That’s why their opinions are so lacking in substance.  I guarantee you if I cited Jerry Seinfeld or Bob Dylan in a brief I would get chewed out bigtime by these very judges.

Flag this comment

15.

Goober
Aug 29, 2008 3:44 PM CST

Lighten up, Francis.

Flag this comment

16.

BS
Aug 29, 2008 6:35 PM CST

It’s called a hypo.  Those of you that can’t distinguish between authority and hypothetical obviously missed the most fundamental lessons in law school.  A judge can write whatever he wants to support his reasoning as long as it comports with authority.  To another point, a hypo has no place in a brief.

Flag this comment

17.

Rob
Aug 30, 2008 1:02 PM CST

Hypo or not, Bob Dylan and Jerry Seinfeld have no role to play in the consideration of serious legal issues.

Flag this comment

18.

Cinda
Sep 3, 2008 11:24 AM CST

Judges have often written more fanciful decisions, or injected humor into otherwise dry proceedings.  There are some that are poems.  There’s some case about a haunted house that quotes Hamlet and Ghostbuster and everything in between.  In no case (that I am familiar with) did these asides take the place of real legal analysis.  In other words, stop taking yourself some seriously.  The law can survive someone taking a break from being totally boring—though maybe not in your case, Rob.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.