pageok
pageok
pageok
Another Contracts Limerick:

An ode to Cricket Alley Corp. v. Data Terminal Systems (from a poet in my Contracts II class):

Facts:

DTS sold registers to Cricket's

To automate bookkeeping wickets.

The shop owner said, "Dang!

These won't talk to my Wang.

We're stuck with hand entered sales tickets."

Holding:

Cricket's needs were expressed or implied.

On salesmen's claims Cricket had relied.

Damage was foreseeable

And so we're agreeable

Consequence relief can't be denied.

Michael Lopez (mail):
Your meter needs work. Try this:

Facts:
DTS sold consoles to Cricket's
To automate bookkeeping wickets.
Cricket's said, "Dang!
These won't talk to my Wang.
We're stuck with hand entered tickets."

Holding:
Cricket's needs were expressed or implied,
And on DTS' claims they relied.
With damage foreseeable
We must be agreeable
Consequentials cannot be denied.
4.6.2006 12:17pm
DNL (mail):
Your poet's meter sucks.
4.6.2006 12:17pm
Michael Lopez (mail):
OK, so I reread that and it's not *your* limerick... still, it needed work.
4.6.2006 12:18pm
DNL (mail):
Michael's wins.
4.6.2006 12:18pm
CEB:
Some more fine-tuning to the meter of Michael's version:

DTS sold some consoles to Cricket's
To automate bookkeeping wickets.
Cricket's said, "Dang!
These won't talk to my Wang.
Now we're stuck here with hand entered tickets."
4.6.2006 12:32pm
Tom952 (mail):
Law schools overemphasize language skills as entrance criteria.
4.6.2006 12:38pm
Sasha (mail):
Here's my three-stanza summary of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997):

In Clinton v. Jones, the Court spurns
The conclusion for which Clinton yearns.
"The President's torts
Are fit matter for courts,
So to trial this issue returns." [1]

But in Clinton, the reader soon learns
Further truths Stephen Breyer discerns.
"The Prez, with impunity
Can't claim immunity --
Rather, it's something he earns." [2]

Justice Breyer explains in concurr'n'z
That the Prez doesn't just chase interns.
A Congress or judge,
They can all of them budge,
But "the President never adjourns." [3]

[1] 520 U.S. at 684.
[2] Id. at 710 (Breyer, J., concurring).
[3] Id. at 713.
4.6.2006 12:39pm
Bob Loblaw (www):
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

There once was a man named Zywicki
Whose young student (I know this seems picky)
Wrote some verse for his Prof
But his cadence was off
The construction of Limericks is tricky
4.6.2006 12:54pm
Scotty:
Your blogging is terrible, Zywicki.
4.6.2006 1:05pm
Master Shake:
Our friend Sasha scores one for the Volokhs
Abstract artwork much like Jackson Pollock's
Harvard wins, yes it's true
Stick to Hoops GMU
Your poetical skills are the bollocks
4.6.2006 1:24pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Ok... I'm sure I'm not the only one here with this problem. Others are just afraid to ask.

For those of us who haven't read (or can't remember) this case, please explain the signifigance of the line "These won't talk to my Wang."

Thanks a lot!
4.6.2006 1:24pm
rbj:
Wang was a brand of computer in the 1980s (IIRC).

Now Wang is the number 3 starter for the Yankees.
4.6.2006 1:33pm
Bob Loblaw (www):

For those of us who haven't read (or can't remember) this case, please explain the signifigance of the line "These won't talk to my Wang."
Wang is an old computer from the 60's. I gather the problem was that there wasn't interoperability between the registers and the computer.

What I'm wondering is, what is a "bookkeeping wicket"?
4.6.2006 1:35pm
Bob Loblaw (www):
Or the '80s. Whatever.
4.6.2006 1:36pm
Steve Donohue (mail) (www):
A wicket is an instrument, sort of like a base in baseball, used in the game of playing cricket.
4.6.2006 2:01pm
abb3w:
Daniel: Wang was one of the nine canonical computer makers from the Big Iron age.
4.6.2006 2:06pm
Fern:
Awww, some of you are overly harsh.
4.6.2006 3:00pm
Thief (mail) (www):
There once was a lawyer from Nantucket...
4.6.2006 3:22pm
Guest2 (mail):
CEB's version is the only one that seems to scan without major mis-em-PHA-ses.
4.6.2006 3:44pm
Tal Kedem (mail):
"Wang" -- the surname from which Wang Laboratories took its name, is actually better romanised (for English pronounciation) as "Wong", and so wouldn't really rhyme well with "Dang"
4.6.2006 4:01pm
Peter Wimsey:
"Wang" -- the surname from which Wang Laboratories took its name, is actually better romanised (for English pronounciation) as "Wong", and so wouldn't really rhyme well with "Dang"

Interesting, although in the US the computers were universally pronounced "Wang" as in "Dang" or "Rang."
4.6.2006 4:12pm
Siona Sthrunch (mail):
Are there any legal double dactyls?
4.6.2006 4:33pm
BobH (mail):
Are there any legal double dactyls?

Higglety-pigglety
Justice Ruth Bader G.
Onliest woman a-
Mong the Supremes;

Does she get treated dis-
Criminatorily
When they choosing up
Sides for their teams?

If there weren't any before, there's at least one now.
4.6.2006 5:17pm
Anonymous Jim:
I took contracts from Prof. Douglass Boshkoff at Indiana University. Sure my degree is not as fancy schmancy as some of yours but he did teach a good portion of Contracts law using poetry and limericks.
4.7.2006 1:20am
Bob Loblaw (www):
Edit for Bob H?

Higglety-pigglety
Justice Ruth Bader G.
Onliest woman a-
Mong the Supremes;

Does she get treated dis-
Criminatorily
When they [ARE] choosing up
Sides for their teams?
4.7.2006 3:21pm
NYU Jew (mail):
Where was the first Contracts limerick?
4.7.2006 4:53pm
NYU Jew (mail):
was is
4.7.2006 4:54pm
BobH (mail):
Thank you, Bob Loblaw. Your correction is ... correct.
4.7.2006 7:38pm
Bob Loblaw (www):
No problem. It's an excellent double dactyl, btw.
4.7.2006 7:45pm