Blog of law articles

Did anybody else watch Manhattan on TCM last night?

And another thing -- where is everybody? Judges are on vacation, lawyers are gone for the hills, everything is getting rescheduled or postponed.

So let's talk Walkman.

I remember when the Walkman first came out, some 30 years ago this week.

Oh how hip and cool to have one on the school bus, or at the mall, or while jogging.

I see the BBC gave one to a 13-year old, and here is his review:

As I boarded the school bus, where I live in Aberdeenshire, I was greeted with laughter. One boy said: "No-one uses them any more." Another said: "Groovy." Yet another one quipped: "That would be hard to lose."

My friends couldn't imagine their parents using this monstrous box, but there was interest in what the thing was and how it worked.

In some classes in school they let me listen to music and one teacher recognised it and got nostalgic.

It took me three days to figure out that there was another side to the tape. That was not the only naive mistake that I made; I mistook the metal/normal switch on the Walkman for a genre-specific equaliser, but later I discovered that it was in fact used to switch between two different types of cassette.

That's right, kid -- your Dad's Supertramp cassette has two sides, and the Walkman will eventually eat both.

It's a good thing we have so much franchise litigation here in South Florida. Like the cruise line stuff, all the contracts have SD FL venue provisions (which keep us happy and well-fed).

Here's a rather tough ruling by the 11th, affirming Judge Cooke's grant of summary judgment to BK over a franchisee's failure to comply with the "value menu" and holding that they failed to request a waiver in writing.

The appellants argued that BK waived the requirement that a request for an exemption to the value menu be made in writing, and argued that there was a genuine issue based on various emails, letters, and a meeting held between BK representatives and the franchisees and their lawyer.

The 11th said nope:

Here, there is scant evidence regarding a meeting between Mr. Sadik and
BKC representatives at which they discussed Appellants’ eligibility for a Value
Menu exception - too scant to create a genuine issue. Appellants have not alleged
when exactly the meeting was, where it was held, who specifically attended, what
the attendees said, or what sort of information was exchanged. Indeed, although
Mr. Sadik referred to such a meeting in an affidavit, he said only this: “I met with
the FBL and other BKC representatives and explained to them that the Value Menu
was going to drive me into insolvency . . . .” D.E. #115-2. Further, he stated:
“[t]hese BKC representatives told me that they were going to report back to BKC
corporate and then give me an answer as to whether or not I would be excepted
from the Value Menu (as in line stores qualify, and my stores were in line stores).”
Id.12

In contrast to Appellants’ vague evidence of a meeting in which BKC
waived its written request requirement, every communication in evidence from
BKC to the Sadiks on this topic invoked that requirement.13 Indeed, as is apparent
from Ms. Doan’s email exchange with Mr. Griffin, as late as April 22, 2006 BKC
representatives still assumed any Value Menu exception would be requested in
writing. On that date, Ms. Doan wrote to Mr. Griffin: “I asked the [DVP], the local
business person and the local marketing person and nothing was submitted to them.
Can you tell me where [the Sadiks] sent the exemption request?” Mr. Sadik also
admitted in his deposition that no one ever told him not to submit a written request.
We find there is simply not enough evidence to create a genuine issue as to
whether BKC waived its requirement that the Sadiks request a Value Menu
exception in writing.

I don't know if I agree with this ruling based on the evidence presented by the appellants, but I'm happy Judge Cooke got a straight affirmance without any sturm und snark by the 11th.

Now, about Tracy's face.......