In Re Bassett: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m Amwelladmin moved page In Re Bassett - Case Note to In Re Bassett |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cn}}{{Casenote1|In Re Bassett|}} 285 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2002) is a leading case ruminating on the [[Uniform Commercial Code]] and the meaning of [[conspicuous|conspicuity]], and casting aspersions on the mental states of [[mediocre lawyer|attorney]]s who think that this gives them carte blanche to embark upon a [[CAPS LOCK]] extravaganza. | {{cn}}{{Casenote1|In Re Bassett|}} 285 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2002) is a leading case ruminating on the [[Uniform Commercial Code]] and the meaning of [[conspicuous|conspicuity]], and casting aspersions on the mental states of [[mediocre lawyer|attorney]]s who think that this gives them carte blanche to embark upon a [[CAPS LOCK]] extravaganza. | ||
===What the judge said=== | |||
:“[[Mediocre lawyer|Lawyers]] who think their [[CAPS LOCK|caps lock]] keys are instant ‘make [[conspicuous]]’ buttons are deluded. In determining whether a term is [[conspicuous]], we look at more than formatting. [...] A sentence in capitals, buried deep within a long paragraph in [[capitals]] will probably not be [[deemed]] [[conspicuous]]. Formatting does matter, but conspicuousness ultimately turns on the likelihood that a [[reasonable person]] would actually see a term in an agreement. '''''Thus, it is entirely possible for text to be [[conspicuous]] without being in capitals'''''.” | |||
The case | ===What didn’t happen=== | ||
The case did not concern the ministrations of a domesticated (“'''[[mansuetae naturae]]'''”), yet flatulent, dog. On his collar he carried a warning: | |||
:“''Careful: this dog will eat your sandwich and actually any other part of your picnic if you let it even the scotch eggs. He loves Scotch eggs. But they make him fart so. If it not nice when he farts. You will not enjoy it. No-one but the dog will enjoy it. PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS DOG HAVE YOUR SCOTCH EGGS.''” | |||
The reference to the dog’s flatulence was not in capitals. The plaintiff, an itinerant picnicker who encountered the dog by a lakeside summer camp in [[New Hampshire]], allowed the dog to scarf some surplus scotch eggs. The plaintiff brought suit for permanent damage to her eyesight inflicted by series of pungent, canine Bronx cheers. It evidence it transpired the plaintiff had seen the collar warning, but had not read it properly. The defendant claimed the disclaimer was effective. The question came down to whether the warning was sufficiently “[[conspicuous]]”. | The reference to the dog’s flatulence was not in capitals. The plaintiff, an itinerant picnicker who encountered the dog by a lakeside summer camp in [[New Hampshire]], allowed the dog to scarf some surplus scotch eggs. The plaintiff brought suit for permanent damage to her eyesight inflicted by series of pungent, canine Bronx cheers. It evidence it transpired the plaintiff had seen the collar warning, but had not read it properly. The defendant claimed the disclaimer was effective. The question came down to whether the warning was sufficiently “[[conspicuous]]”. | ||
In alternative pleadings the plaintiff cited the principal in {{casenote|Rylands|Fletcher}} that the escaping gas from the animal’s rear aperture was broadly analogous to an escaping wild animal or a poorly-tended reservoir and gave rise to a duty of care to neighbours. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Conspicuous]] | *[[Conspicuous]] | ||
*[[CAPS LOCK]] | *[[CAPS LOCK]] | ||
*[[Uniform Commercial Code]] | *[[Uniform Commercial Code]] | ||
*[[Mansuetae naturae]] and [[ferae naturae]] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:12, 19 December 2020
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
|
In Re Bassett 285 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2002) is a leading case ruminating on the Uniform Commercial Code and the meaning of conspicuity, and casting aspersions on the mental states of attorneys who think that this gives them carte blanche to embark upon a CAPS LOCK extravaganza.
What the judge said
- “Lawyers who think their caps lock keys are instant ‘make conspicuous’ buttons are deluded. In determining whether a term is conspicuous, we look at more than formatting. [...] A sentence in capitals, buried deep within a long paragraph in capitals will probably not be deemed conspicuous. Formatting does matter, but conspicuousness ultimately turns on the likelihood that a reasonable person would actually see a term in an agreement. Thus, it is entirely possible for text to be conspicuous without being in capitals.”
What didn’t happen
The case did not concern the ministrations of a domesticated (“mansuetae naturae”), yet flatulent, dog. On his collar he carried a warning:
- “Careful: this dog will eat your sandwich and actually any other part of your picnic if you let it even the scotch eggs. He loves Scotch eggs. But they make him fart so. If it not nice when he farts. You will not enjoy it. No-one but the dog will enjoy it. PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS DOG HAVE YOUR SCOTCH EGGS.”
The reference to the dog’s flatulence was not in capitals. The plaintiff, an itinerant picnicker who encountered the dog by a lakeside summer camp in New Hampshire, allowed the dog to scarf some surplus scotch eggs. The plaintiff brought suit for permanent damage to her eyesight inflicted by series of pungent, canine Bronx cheers. It evidence it transpired the plaintiff had seen the collar warning, but had not read it properly. The defendant claimed the disclaimer was effective. The question came down to whether the warning was sufficiently “conspicuous”.
In alternative pleadings the plaintiff cited the principal in Rylands v Fletcher that the escaping gas from the animal’s rear aperture was broadly analogous to an escaping wild animal or a poorly-tended reservoir and gave rise to a duty of care to neighbours.