A Continuing Legal Education online seminar available in South Carolina:
Fans of the famous 90‘s sitcom, Seinfeld, may not have realized it, but they were watching a show rife with complex legal issues. Not only were there numerous lawsuits and potential lawsuits within the storyline of the show, but one episode even sparked a real-world suit against the network. In this unique seminar, Robert Rushing uses the milieu of Seinfeld to discuss a wide range of legal concepts. Don‘t miss this chance to brush up your legal knowledge in a unique and entertaining way.The following is a list of each episode mentioned and the related legal issues:
“The Puffy Shirt” — Contract law, meeting of the minds, the Mirror Image Rule, damages
“The Wink” — Real property conveyances, contract law, actionable conversions
“The Old Man” — Elder law, conservatorship, competency, informal agreements
“The Seven” — Contract law, promises, rhetoricals, warranties, ADR, quantum meruit
“The Soup” — Real property
“The Soup Nazi”- Libel, false light cases, intellectual property (real-world lawsuit)
“The Serenity Now” — Products liability, disclaimers, causation
“The Alternate Side” — Tort law, proximate cause, liability and agency
“The Pie” — Tort law, intellectual property
“The Sniffing Accountant”- Libel, slander per se (in-show lawsuit)
“Newman‘s Speeding Ticket” — Ethics, perjury, Rule 303
“The Marlborough Man” — Ethics, ex parte communication, Rule 7–104 (in-show lawsuit)
“The Finale” — Character evidence, modus operandi, relevancy (in-show criminal trial)
Malvolio says:
Another episode, “The Junior Mint”, also led to a real-life lawsuit. Jerold J. Mackenzie discussed the episode with his secretary, whereupon his employer, Miller Brewing, terminated him, allegedly for sexual harassment. He sued, claiming the harassment charge was pretexual, and after a three-week trial, was awarded a whopping $26.6 million, an victory that was subsequently overturned.
At my own office, we had to have a staff meeting to find someone who could explain what “Dolores” rhymed with.
Quote
December 14, 2009, 6:43 pmConstantin says:
Add to this “The Mom and Pop Store,” where George buys a car because the dealer says the former owner was “Jon Voight.” Only later does George find out the prior owner wasn’t that Jon Voight, but “John Voight.”
This was the fact pattern for one of the questions on my Contracts exam.
Quote
December 14, 2009, 7:01 pmGuy says:
Clitoris?
Quote
December 14, 2009, 8:10 pmleo marvin says:
Anyone who says “I don’t want to be a pirate” obviously lacks the capacity to contract.
Quote
December 14, 2009, 8:18 pmcorneille1640 says:
Constantin:
In the same episode you mention, there’s also a seen where an electrician claims he is required by law to report violations of the electrical and fire codes. I’m not a lawyer, but there might be something there.
Quote
December 14, 2009, 8:38 pmSueSimp says:
There’s a DC med school that has a Seinfeld club, which features lecturers speaking about medical topics raised in the show.
I know last year they had one on the Shrinkage episode. Kinda made me wish I was a med student.
Quote
December 14, 2009, 9:16 pmtmiller says:
What, no duty to aid a victim in peril as a legal issue in the last episode?
Quote
December 14, 2009, 9:26 pmMalvolio says:
Well, that was the general consensus at the meeting (and the answer given in the ever-helpful Wikipedia) but who the heck puts the accent on the second syllable?
Quote
December 14, 2009, 10:05 pmShelbyC says:
I WAS IN THE POOL!!! I WAS IN THE POOL!!! TELL HER I WAS IN THE POOL!!!
Quote
December 14, 2009, 10:05 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “Seinfeld and the Law: ‘A Seminar About Nothing’” -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sydney Law, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: “Seinfeld and the Law: ‘A Seminar About Nothing’”: A Continuing Legal Education online seminar available in Sou.. http://bit.ly/6WjR60 [...]
josh bornstein says:
Well, that was the general consensus at the meeting (and the answer given in the ever-helpful Wikipedia) but who the heck puts the accent on the second syllable?
I have a fairly firm memory (from the 80s??) when Bette Midler, as part of a bit re mermaids, asked the eternal question: The question before us is: Where’s her clitoris
Quote
December 14, 2009, 11:14 pmGuy says:
Yeah, I’ve heard it pronounced both ways; rhyming with “Dolores” is, I think, less common, but not unheard of.
Quote
December 14, 2009, 11:37 pmCareless says:
This was not a problem for high school students at the time
Quote
December 14, 2009, 11:39 pmCareless says:
And what was the lawsuit with the Soup Nazi? I’m not seeing anything obvious with Google, and you’d think there would be tens of thousands of hits
Quote
December 14, 2009, 11:45 pmShelbyC says:
Well, many of us have a tough time finding what Dolores rhymes with.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 12:02 amcorneille1640 says:
Careless (re: soup nazi):
The rumor I heard was that the character was based on a real life soup-seller and he sued for defamation (or something like it).
I have no idea if the rumor is true, but that hasn’t stopped me from spreading it.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 12:14 amRandy says:
Master of your domain: A bet that turns into a contract. But the contract is unverifiable other than the person who has an interest in lying about it. In this instance, the players supposedly told the truth, and we can assume that’s true, as Kramer was the first one to be ‘out’ and paid up.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 1:10 amCareless says:
The Wikipedian page has a link to the real life Soup Nazi and a description of his business. A brief search of those doesn’t come up with a lawsuit. He’s one of the most famous minor characters in television history and this post claims that he sued one of the most famous shows in history for his portrayal or something related to that. That should be an exceptionally easy google search.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 1:42 ambenji says:
Maybe after Elaine acquires (against the Soup Nazi’s knowledge, via gifting through Kramer) and publishes his recipes putting him out of business?
Quote
December 15, 2009, 5:22 amMichael Stack says:
Hilarious. I wonder if they can come up with a list for “Curb Your Enthusiasm” as well, which is a product of the genius Larry David (co-creator of Seinfeld).
Quote
December 15, 2009, 5:42 amFedya says:
I’m surprised “The Pick” (Kramer’s Christmas card photo of Elaine reveals her nipple) hasn’t been mentioned yet.
In addition to Elaine’s cause for action, Kramer would have the right to sue Calvin Klein, who stole his idea for a beach-scented perfume.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 9:10 am“Seinfeld and the Law: ‘A Seminar About Nothing’” « Sassy Wire says:
[...] December 15, 2009 · Leave a Comment Fans of the famous 90‘s sitcom, Seinfeld, may not have realized it, but they were watching a show ... [...]
Joseph Slater says:
I hate to be pedantic, but to clarify what really happened in MacKenzie v. Miller Brewing (Wisc. 2001).
This case did indeed involve an employee who was fired because of a sexual harassment allegation based at least in part on the “rhymes with Delores” bit from “Seinfeld.” But his victory in a lower court was (i) later overturned on appeal, and (ii) was not because he showed he was wrongly accused of sexual harassment.
It was a contract case. A Miller Brewing supervisor told the employee that he would not be downgraded after a reorganization. He was then downgraded. He was unhappy about this. He was later fired, after a female employee accused him of making sexually inappropriate remarks. At the trial court level, plaintiff won because of the misrepresentation about the downgrade, on a contract theory.
Then, the decision was reversed on appeal. The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to recognize an action based on an intentional misrepresentation to induce continued employment. The Court said, among other things, “if employers have to discuss future plans, then so would employees.”
Having said all that, “Seinfeld” ruled.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 10:13 amBill Mullins says:
Add “The Package” — Tax Law
Kramer: It’s a write off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write off?
Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off of what?
Kramer: They just write it off!
Jerry: You don’t even know what a write off is, do you?
Kramer: No. Do you?
Jerry: No I don’t!!
Kramer: No, but they do. And they’re the ones writing it off.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 10:42 ammike says:
The taping of Curb Your Enthusiasm did famously lead to an exoneration. A guy charged with murder was filmed by CYE crews during the taping of an episode at a Dodger game, which provided him with an alibi.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/national/main620661.shtml
Quote
December 15, 2009, 11:34 amJoseph Slater says:
Mike: I’m a big Curb Your Enthusiasm fan, but I hadn’t heard of that. Thanks for the link!
Quote
December 15, 2009, 11:57 ammbsch13 says:
Randy said: “In this instance, the players supposedly told the truth, and we can assume that’s true, as Kramer was the first one to be ‘out’ and paid up.” Actually, if I recall correctly, in the last episode, as the plane was going down, George shouted out that he had cheated on the bet. this was also, I believe, the first indication we had of who–Jerry or George–won the bet.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 12:56 pmmbsch13 says:
Sorry, don’t know what happened with that last post. I was trying to say, re: Randy’s observation regarding the participants’ telling the truth, IIRC in the final episode, as the plane was going down, George shouted out an admission that he had cheated on the bet. (I also think this was the first indication the show gave of who one the bet. While Kramer and Elaine eliminated themselves, I recall that episode ending with Jerry and George tossing and turning in their beds).
Quote
December 15, 2009, 1:03 pmMalvolio says:
In “The Puffy Shirt” George becomes a hand model and is warned of the dangers of self-love. Not to worry, he assures his manager, “I won a contest.”
Yeah, that I don’t get. The company deliberately lied to him, he reasonably relied on their representation and in consequence suffered a great deal of harm, how can have no recourse?
Quote
December 15, 2009, 2:00 pmJoseph Slater says:
Malvolio: Yeah, I didn’t buy the court’s reasoning either. The idea seems to have been, “what if an employer asks an (average at-will) employee if he plans to stay at the company; the employee says, ‘yes, I will,’ but in fact he’s lying; and the company reasonably relies on the employee’s statement. Do we really want to let the employer sue the employee?”
But I don’t buy that the legal theories and remedies have to be exact mirror images of each other. The power relationship usually favors the employer, which a whole host of employment statutes and common law rules already recognize. I could go on, but getting back to the specific topic. . .
Re “Seinfeld” and still on employment law, I recall an episode in which George was trying to milk an unemployment compensation award and wanted Jerry or Kramer to say that he had interviewed with them, using the standard “Seinfeld” fake-company name, “Vandelay Industries.”
Quote
December 15, 2009, 2:14 pmMalvolio says:
If the employee already has plans to leave? Yes, why not? He’s deceiving someone.
I don’t buy that at all. If the employer had more power, he would immediately use it by lowering salaries, or at least failing to raise them, until the power equalized (assuming he’d rather have money than “power”).
Quote
December 15, 2009, 2:30 pmJoseph Slater says:
Malvolio: I didn’t buy the court’s reasoning either. The idea seems to have been, “what if an employer asks an (average at-will) employee if he plans to stay at the company; the employee says, ‘yes, I will,’ but in fact he’s lying; and the company reasonably relies on the employee’s statement. Do we really want to let the employer sue the employee?”
But I don’t buy that the legal theories and remedies have to be exact mirror images of each other. The power relationship usually favors the employer, which a whole host of employment statutes and common law rules already recognize. I could go on, but getting back to the specific topic. . .
Re “Seinfeld” and still on employment law, I recall an episode in which George was trying to milk an unemployment compensation award and wanted Jerry or Kramer to say that he had interviewed with them, using the standard “Seinfeld” fake-company name, “Vandelay Industries.”
Quote
December 15, 2009, 2:38 pmJoseph Slater says:
Yikes, sorry about the double-post.
Malvolio: This imbalance of power in most employment relations is a fundamental assumption (I think a correct one) in the labor and employment laws of the U.S. and pretty much all other nations. Debating that premise is a bigger issue than is appropriate for this light-hearted thread. But if you want my thoughts on the topic, feel free to e-mail me.
Quote
December 15, 2009, 3:24 pmdisconnect says:
Yeah, that whole setup just didn’t sit right with me. What were they supposed to do, stop the attack? They’re not sworn peace officers with weapons and training, they’re four chuckleheads with a videocamera. In fact, I’d argue that by videotaping that criminal act, they generated evidence in a non-hazardous manner, which could be used to aid the police in searching for the suspect.
I read that the original finale was supposed to be their combined funeral, and they would have had key characters eulogizing them (the Soup Nazi, Teri Hatcher, etc.). They would have started out kind of nice, but by the end of the episode everybody would have been talking about what complete shitdicks Jerry et al had been. They could have even had the callback to the first episode by having the funeral director and assistant do the “second button” banter as the last dialogue.
Quote
December 16, 2009, 2:22 pmYour excuse for writing off those ‘Seinfeld’ DVDs as a business expense « The Michigan Lawyer says:
[...] HT: The Volokh Conspiracy [...]
bernie greenspoon says:
i say curse word, she hang up
Quote
December 20, 2009, 1:18 pm