Maryland Appeals Court Invokes Seinfeld To Zap Tom Clancy

« Judge Hands Veoh -- And Maybe YouTube -- Major Victory | Main | Jury Deliberations Restart in Christensen/Pellicano Trial »

Maryland Appeals Court Invokes Seinfeld To Zap Tom Clancy

Fri Aug 29, 2008 @ 01:31PM PST

By Eriq Gardner

Clancytom A decision earlier in the week by the Maryland Court of Appeals has been making the rounds in the legal community. The ruling concerned a dispute between author Tom Clancy and his ex-wife and business partner, Wanda King. Allegedly, Clancy tried to harm the business partnership by removing his name from a series of  books called "Tom Clancy's Op-Center."

The court ruled why the circuit court was in error in allowing Clancy to do this and remanded the case back to the trial level. Here's the entire ruling.

However, the real reason why the case is getting a bit of buzz is a single footnote that borrows dialogue from an episode of "Seinfeld" to explain why spite isn't a valid reason to void a partnership.

Read footnote 27 after the jump:

The Appeals Court writes:

"Jerry Seinfeld, perhaps an unlikely legal illustrator, once epitomized the duty of
good faith in contract.  In an episode of his television show, Jerry's character purchased a
jacket at a men's clothing shop.  The terms of the contract permitted Jerry to return the item
for refund at his discretion.  When Jerry attempted to return the jacket after an unrelated
personal quarrel with the salesman, the following discussion took place.

Jerry: Excuse me, I'd like to return this jacket.
Clerk: Certainly. May I ask why?
Jerry: For spite.
Clerk: Spite?
Jerry: That's right.  I don't care for the salesman that sold it to me.
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.
Jerry: That's ridiculous, I want to return it.  What's the difference what the reason is?
Clerk: Let me speak with the manager . . . excuse me . .. Bob!
(walks over to the manager and whispers)
Bob: What seems to be the problem?
Jerry : Well, I want to return this jacket and she asked me why and I said for spite and now she won't
take it back.
Bob:  That's true.  You can't return an item based purely on spite.
Jerry: Well, so fine then . . . then I don't want it and then that's why I'm returning it.
Bob: Well you already said spite so . . . .
Jerry: But I changed my mind.
Bob: No, you said spite.  Too late."

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Maryland Appeals Court Invokes Seinfeld To Zap Tom Clancy:

The Hollywood Reporter
The Hollywood Reporter, Esq. blog focuses on how the entertainment and media industries are impacted and influenced by the law. It is edited by Matthew Belloni with contributions from veteran legal reporter Eriq Gardner and others. Before joining The Hollywood Reporter, Belloni was a lawyer at an entertainment litigation firm in Los Angeles. He writes a column for THR devoted to entertainment law. Gardner is a New York-based writer and legal journalist. Send tips or comments to [email protected]

The Hollywood Reporter
Contact: Patrice Atiee at 323.525.2014 or [email protected]

The Hollywood Reporter is Your Complete Film Resource

The columnists and bloggers who write for The Hollywood Reporter have their collective finger on the pulse of the boxoffice. Martin Grove and the other THR columnists deliver their thoughts on the film industry in an uncompromised style. Subscribe to THR today and get the latest views from these film experts and get the latest movie reviews as well.