Journal Chacham's Journal: (Penn.) State Supreme Court Includes Poetry In Opinions 2
Apparently, he's been doing this for a while as a Superior Court justice. But now, on the Supreme Court of his state, a couple other members are making a stink over it. In truth, they're correct, but, I like this guy.
Anyway, here's a quickie link. You can find any number of links by searching google for "A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium".
Apparently, a girl got married but the ring, which she was told was worth 21k, turned out to be a fake. The Supreme Court ruled against her, and said she should've had it checked out. Weird, that was the liberal standpoint, the conservatives voted for her. (I'm basing this on the rhyming justice, in that he is reportedly Republican). I'll bet he's a Democrat and She's a Republican. That'll explain this discrepency.
Anyway, I'm trying to get the full decision, but the Supreme Court's website is not responding.
So far, though, here's what I've found:
A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium
when his spouse finds he's given her a cubic zirconium
instead of a diamond in her engagement band,
the one he said was worth twenty-one grand.Our deceiver would claim that when his bride relied
on his claim of value, she was not justified
for she should have appraised it, and surely she could have
but the question is whether a bride-to-be would have.
Hey, he's pretty good.
UPDATE:
Their website is up, and here's the link to the justice's dissenting opinion.
And for those of you who hate PDFs as much as I do:
A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium
when his spouse finds he's given her a cubic zirconium
instead of a diamond in her engagement band,
the one he said was worth twenty-one grand.Our deceiver would claim that when his bride relied
on his claim of value, she was not justified
for she should have appraised it; and surely she could have,
but the question is whether a bride-to-be would have.The realities of the parties control the equation,1
and here they're not comparable in sophistication;
the reasonableness of her reliance we just cannot gauge
with a yardstick of equal experience and age.This must be remembered when applying the test
by which the "reasonable fiancée" is assessed.
She was 19, he was nearly 30 years older;
was it unreasonable for her to believe what he told her?Given their history and Pygmalion relation,
I find her reliance was with justification.
Given his accomplishment and given her youth,
was it unjustifiable for her to think he told the truth?Or for every prenuptial, is it now a must
that you treat your betrothed with presumptive mistrust?
Do we mean reliance on your beloved's representation
is not justifiable, absent third party verification?Love, not suspicion, is the underlying foundation
of parties entering the marital relation;
mistrust is not required, and should not be made a priority.
Accordingly, I must depart from the reasoning of the majority.===
1 We cannot measure the justification for this appellee's reliance as if she were of equal age and experience.
It is held by the weight of authority that ordinary representations are not actionable unless the hearer was justified in relying thereon in the exercise of common prudence and diligence. But the respective character, intelligence, experience, age, and mental and physical condition of the parties are considerations which may vary this rule....
Emery v. Third National Bank of Pittsburgh, 171 A. 881, 882 (Pa. 1934).
Determining whether reliance on a misrepresentation is justified is generally dependent, at least in part, upon such factors as the respective intelligence and experience of the parties....
Benevento v Life USA Holding, Inc., 61 F. Supp.2d 407, 417 (E.D. Pa. 1999)(citations omitted). See also Fort Washington Resources v. Tannen, 858 F. Supp. 455, 460 (E.D. Pa. 1994)(court may consider sophistication and history of parties); Siskin v. Cohen, 70 A.2d 293, 295 (Pa. 1950)(rescission for purchase of bar granted based on fraud; purchaser working under "handicap of inexperience").
Anyway, except for the line, "was it unreasonable for her to believe what he told her?", it flows really well. If the words "for her" were able to be omitted, it would flow better.
Anyway, I'm beginning to like this guy. I like the opnion, the poetry, and that he is a Republican.
cool! (Score:1)
Re:cool! (Score:1)
Or, perhaps they see it as normal and thus not noteworthy.