March 04, 2005

Just a thought

You know that you need a quick break when, in the middle of working on a $40 million dispute, you realize that Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious has fewer syllables than tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and that you want, in your reply brief, to define T.I.W.P.E.A as Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious because you think that it might be quicker to type.

Such that, your sentence, "[t]he proposed amended verified answer with counterclaims states a good claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage", might read instead as, "[t]he proposed amended verified answer with counterclaims states a good claim for Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". What do you think? Think the judge'd like it?

More coffee? check.

Posted by Random Penseur at March 4, 2005 09:56 AM

If I were the judge I'd give it a thumbs up. Then again I've been carrying a flame for Julie Andrews for nigh on thirty years now.

Posted by: Jim at March 4, 2005 10:58 AM

i had to learn to say that backwards when doing a play in highschool.

i think - if i make it to 107...i will still be able to do so without thinking.

good thing it is such a useful skill in the 'real world'.

Posted by: standing naked at March 4, 2005 11:17 AM

If it weren't a FOURTY MILL-YUN-DOLLAR dispute (said in my best Dr. Evil voice), I would double-dog dare you to put that in.

Of course, I know some judges in the Oklahoma state court that wouldn't even notice it was there.

Oops. Was that out loud?

Posted by: Margi at March 4, 2005 08:22 PM

I think that Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious should be used in legal contracts with wild abandon. Forward and backward.

Posted by: Scott at March 5, 2005 03:34 PM

Go for it! See what happens!

Posted by: Mark at March 6, 2005 10:20 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?