Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: "Here's Another Clue for You All, the Walrus Was..."


To continue the title: Paul. As in Sir Paul McCartney. But in 1969, there was a problem: several radio stations broadcast a conspiracy theory: Paul died in a car crash in 1966. And the remaining Beatles covered it up and replaced the dead Paul with an (apparently equally-talented) imposter. Fans began scouring Beatles songs for evidence of the ruse; they pointed to "The walrus was Paul" line from the song White Onion, concluding that "walrus" was the Greek word for corpse (it isn't). in reality, John Lennon was messing with fans' propensity to find meaning to those lyrics when there was none. In an interview for what later became the Beatles Anthology television documentary, John said: 

I threw the line in—"the Walrus was Paul"—just to confuse everybody a bit more. It could have been "The fox terrier is Paul." I mean, it's just a bit of poetry. I was having a laugh because there'd been so much gobbledygook about Pepper—play it backwards and you stand on your head and all that.

Despite John's explanation for Paul the walrus, the Paul is dead urban legend continued long after 1969; in 2009, Time magazine included the tale in its article on ten of "the world's most enduring conspiracy theories." 

Because there's something in the human psyche that won't let go of patently false assumptions. Psychologist  Valerie Tarico observes that "false ideas can be sticky...they can spread from person to person, getting elaborated along the way until they become virtually impossible to eradicate." Examples of widely-adopted beliefs that aren't grounded in facts abound. Climate change is not happening. An American president was born in Kenya. Wind turbines cause cancer. Vaccinations kill children. And I have another candidate for that list: Legal jargon benefits society.  

Time and again this argument has been debunked but persists as a sticky false assumption. Professor Joe Kimble, in his book Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please: The Case for Plain Language in Business, Government, and Law (2012), cites empirical evidence (summaries of 50 case studies) for the enormous benefits of using plain language. And see this Michigan Bar Journal article that my colleague Michael Braem and I wrote describing several proposed justifications for legal jargon and why they must fail.

This brings us back to last month's post where we pulled apart the purchase and operating agreements for the ICON A5, the snazzy, pricey "jet ski with wings." I reached out to ICON's senior management with predictable results. They first thought that I wanted to purchase one of their planes. (No, can't afford it, no place to park it.) Then they thought that I wanted to discuss "jet card options." (What are those, my precious?) When I stated that I was simply giving them the link to my constructive critique of their contract documents, I was met with stony silence. 

As the venerable Cully Wilson said, "I tried, puppy." ICON has the right to preserve the useless accuracy of their legal jargon (thanks to Professor Patrick Barry for coining that fitting term). Perhaps I planted a seed, ICON will take another look at their contracts without telling me, and revised, cleansed versions will miraculously appear on their website. (Hope springs eternal, so I'll have to keep checking their website.)

Or perhaps ICON has another motive. One of my constant readers remarked that ICON may want to force a purchaser (or their counsel) to figure out how many ways jargon-filled and vague contract language could be interpreted. Like first having to scale the medieval wall of jargon before getting inside the castle of contents. "It works well, so no reason to 'monkey' with success!" ICON claims that they have sold around 100 A5s, but who's to say that they couldn't have sold more (or the same number with less deal fatigue) with clear and concise contract language?

False ideas and fanciful conspiracies aside, we are left with this truth, so well put by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "The law should be a literary profession, and the best legal practitioners do regard law as an art as well as a craft." Designing sleek, innovative airplanes (and cars and boats and rockets) is an art too. It's time that the purchase contracts for these marvelous machines join the team!
If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is www.busklaw.blogspot.com and my website is www.busklaw.com. And my email address is busklaw@charter.net. Thanks!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW April Newsletter: Pulling Apart the Purchase Agreement for the ICON A5: "The Jet Ski with Wings"

The ICON A5 is an amphibious "light-sport aircraft" that is marketed primarily to adventurous amateur pilots with deep pockets (and spacious home garages in which to store their ICONs). The plane has a recreational focus; it can seat only two, has limited load capacity, and isn't intended to go very far. The cost of the plane was $139K when first introduced in 2006 but is now $389K for a "fully-loaded version."

YouTube is full of videos showing how much fun you can have with an ICON A5 (especially with water landings and take-offs), bringing to mind the "jet ski with wings" analogy. So the ICON A5 is perhaps the ultimate high-tech, outdoor adult toy (unless you're afraid of heights). There have been several fatalities with the A5, but these apparently resulted from pilot error in one case and reckless flying in another rather than from mechanical defects or design flaws. 

The ICON A5 Purchase Agreement (including the Operating Agreement as Exhibit B…

A BUSKLAW Newsletter Aside: We Speak Information Technology Law

When I describe my legal specialty as information technology ("IT"), the common response (along with a puzzled look) is, "what does that mean?"

Short answer: "It means a lot." 

Because there isn't a business in existence that isn't affected by something IT related. Does your firm have a website that collects personal information? Then you should have terms of use (and a cookie policy) that comply with state and federal laws, regulations, and the GDPR. Do you sell things on your website and accept credit cards as payment? Then you must institute payment card industry data security standards to protect that credit card data from hackers. And you also must have credit card agreements with your card companies and processing bank that contain indemnity and other "bet your business" obligations. In my experience, credit card agreements are notoriously one-sided and chock full of legal jargon. Have you read yours?  

Apart from those considerations…