The Case of the Uneasy Easement - T3BE45

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:00:08 Clip: I just know that you were going to kick that bar's butt out of here, you know? Come in here with a skull full of mush and you leave thinking like a lawyer.

0:00:31 Clip: My staff has flunked the bar exams six times.

0:00:36 Clip: You graduated from law school six years ago. What have you been doing since? Studying for the bar.

0:00:47 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments. It is Wednesday and that means it is time for a bar exam question. That's right. It's Thomas Takes The Bar Exam. We do it every Wednesday where bar prep expert Heather Veronini comes on to pose a bar question. Attempt to answer it using nothing but the raccoon that lives in my otherwise vacant, head. Folks, play along on and Patreon. We also learn a lot along the way about the law. It's really fun. Around. Is number 45, which means we'll have the answer to last week's question 44 involving pizza. Pizza, and who has to pay for it. Then we'll get a brand spanking new question after that. So we'll take our usual break, and then we're going to get on with Heather the answer to last week's pizza -related question, pizza predicament. If you'd like to both avoid the ad you're about to hear and support the show, there's amazingly a way you can do both those things at once. It's to go right now to patreon.com/law and pledge as little as a dollar. One dollar. How much could that cost? Ten Five dollars? Yet the feeling you get in your heart when you support the show and don't hear the adds, that's priceless. patreon.com/law.

0:01:54 Thomas: Heather, how are you doing today?

0:01:55 Heather: Good. How are you?

0:01:57 Thomas: I am craving some anchovy Pete. No, I'm not. I'm really not. I'm, it's because I'm a vegetarian, but I do sometimes eat fish because Lydia really likes fish. So I guess anchovies are technically, you Their relationship status is like, to me is available. Like the, you Know, it's complicated. It's complicated, I'd say it'S more in that category. Uh yeah let's find out uh uh asshole son uh who ordered a pizza and then didn't want it like a perfectly good hot delicious pizza uh their dad is gonna have to pick up the tab

0:02:27 Heather: Like who says no to Pete? Listen, don't know that I've ever said no to pizza in my life ever, but So you had said that this was a contracts question. Is that my recollection?

0:02:35 Thomas: Yeah it seemed seemed like it well it seems to be like a kind of an oral contract and it seems to be about collecting you payment and that kind of thing so yeah it seems like a contracts question?

0:02:38 Heather: And why was that? And you were exactly right. It's a contracts questions, kind of a classic contracts question in that regard. So. So the next thing that I always look at, too, with these questions is to try to narrow the focus. So these oral agreements kind of come in two flavors or they kind of pop up under two topics. One is statute of frauds and the other tends to be the parole evidence rule.

0:03:08 Thomas: Oh, that thing again.

0:03:09 Heather: Yeah. So I always tell students when you see an oral agreement between parties, a of times you can narrow it down to either one of those two. Statute of frauds will go over that. But the parole evidence rule is oftentimes when two parties are trying to incorporate into an agreement something was said either before, during and after the agreement. And that's a lot of times how you can differentiate. And

0:03:32 Thomas: I didn't think from that angle. Like if it's like, oh, the contract already happened and then the statement is sort of after the fact. Hmm. Interesting. Okay. That worries me a little.

0:03:43 Heather: Luckily, this is not a parole evidence question, but this is in the statute of frauds category. I'll just ask you, do you happen to know what that is?

0:03:51 Thomas: Did and then I went to say what it is and now I can't remember. Think I'll remember once you start talking about it.

0:03:56 Heather: This says is that some agreements have to be in writing in order for them to be enforceable. Luckily we've got a list. So this means that not every single contract has to be in writing to be enforceable, but we've got kind of a narrow list. And, you've you heard me say before, there's a ton of information that you have to memorize for law school and the bar exam. So if you've got a kind of device that works for you to help you remember, I always like to say you can lean on that. So you'll hear a lot of law students and bar studiers, they have their own device for remembering the types of contracts that fall within the statute of frauds. And I'm laughing because a lot times some professors have their own that they make up and that sort of thing. And I'll share with you the one that my first -year contracts professor taught my class. And my legs. So I'm not actually talking about my legs, but my legs . .

0:04:45 Thomas: I love it.

0:04:46 Heather: . To talk about my legs for a minute. Worry, this is still PG. The type of contracts that fall within the statute of frauds are those in consideration of marriage. So what I mean is not, are Thomas and Heather going to get married? Not that. Whether or not, let's say we were, we had a prenup. So it would be those kinds of agreements. So that's what the M stands for.

0:05:07 Thomas: The M is mawage. That is how I will remember.

0:05:09 Heather: Yeah, exactly. Y is for agreements that or longer to perform, right?

0:05:16 Thomas: Yeah, that is familiar. So this is great. I wonder if I will actually be able to remember this. Because I did have that one business law course I took, which I loved. I had a great professor, but that was 100 years ago. Definitely learn don't all of law and business law, but this is one thing that I did learn. And I have no memory. I often remember that like, oh, it's a little weird. Like it's kind of counterintuitive. Like I remember there's some things that you're like, there's no way that could be an oral contract and that it can, and then there's other things that can't. And so, okay. My legs, I got to, okay, marriage. Got it. Yep. 30 days has September. No, I I'm already going to do it. And then a year longer makes sense. I mean, it's like a long enough agreement that it's like, yeah, you know, people's memories are going to be, you harder to just rely on word, your good word for a long period of time, so that's logical okay, right

0:06:00 Heather: That's exactly it. And the L stands for land. So anytime there's a transfer of interest in land. So let's say I'm selling a house, That right. Makes sense. E is for executorship. So,

0:06:11 Thomas: The person's goingto be dead when they're know like, well it makes sense, like oh I had an oral contract with this dead guy, you can't ask him about it because he's dead but unless once again Princess Bride you can get Miracle Max going and he can say to to blame.

0:06:25 Thomas: But no, yeah. Okay. That's okay. So far it's pretty logical. Okay, so I'm actually genuinely trying to remember this because this will help. I've never studied. Heather, I've never studied I do all this without any study. Just what I can remember in my horrible brain. And now you're changing my life here because my legs okay, my land, we're on E executor. Okay? Got it.

0:06:44 Thomas: Well, that's gonna be hard. Right. There's no way I'll remember the amount but goods that are five five five hundred dollars who came up with this rule and win yeah yeah

0:06:44 Heather: G And is for goods of five hundred dollars or more. Is that it's a quick detour. A lot of our contracts law is based in old English common law. Law. So my reflection is that some of this comes from that or and or the restate. And listen, there's a whole other thing called the restatement that our contracts laws come from. And so some of it also might be coming from the reststatement. So it was a kind of a little old and outdated. So if you're wondering why so little, it's likely that reason.

0:07:18 Thomas: But I just love that like I imagined that meant something different whenever like I I don't know but like if hypothetically we're talking something that derived from old english law that was codified in like 1850 that's like well yeah five hundred hours is a kingly sum of money that you know that's It's like buying a whole town back then. And now it's like, well, with inflation, that's like a couple of cheeseburgers and you're having to do like just forever. Like, because we can't revise these things. Apparently we're having to like do now written contracts, what more inflation goes, it'll go more and more ridiculous.

0:07:53 Heather: Just bought a bag of groceries for 500. No, just kidding.

0:07:55 Thomas: Yeah, you can, you go to Costco. You kidding me? You can rack up a bill that high.

0:08:00 Heather: Yeah. Quickly. Then our S is for suretyship.

0:08:03 Thomas: What's that one?

0:08:04 Heather: Yeah. When a person promises to pay the debt of another.

0:08:07 Thomas: Oh, oh. Oh, hey, oh, that's you left it to the end to you. Diabolical question. Are you?

0:08:17 Heather: So we've just covered my legs and the types of agreements that are covered by the statute of fraud. So again, not all, but there are some agreements that have to be in writing in order for us to enforce that agreement. So let's now take a peek at those answer choices. And you were saying that D was your favorite answer. So why don't we start with D? So yes, because Donald promised to pay, right? And this makes a lot of sense, like you were say, right, promised to play, he should have to cough it up, right.

0:08:43 Thomas: It's not only that. I think maybe this is one of those cases where I should have thought a little bit more just in case because that I was entirely in the mode of and a I made a little joke about it. Uh, reliance. And that I is, well, that, man, this is blowing my mind now because this has come up before. Oh, but it wasn't the debt of another. Okay. Yeah. Oh. What a diabolical question. I love it. I was in the realm of detrimental reliant, but it's, could have noticed now that I back that there wasn't really any facts along those lines. Like, I mean, there is a little bit, like you can just assume like, yeah, now they're, out of luck because they have this delicious hot anchovy pizza. No one's paying for it. But I feel like there could have been more fact pattern about how the pizza place relied on it in a way that was detrimental to them, maybe. And maybe that could have Been a cue that something else was going on. But I'll be honest. I still don't think I would have gotten there.

0:09:36 Heather: And also remember that detrimental reliance requires like an injustice that usually requires some kind of, you an injustice. And do we think that there's a massive There's always a good question with detrimental reliance. Do we think that there's such an injustice here? Is the pizza parlor, are they so aggrieved, right, right, of being out one pizza?

0:09:53 Thomas: Heather, we have a delicious,

0:09:55 Heather: Listen,

0:09:55 Thomas: Quote, delicious hot Anchovy pizza with no owner. So you tell me what level of injustice we're talking. And choose your words carefully.

0:10:05 Heather: I think you and I are very much aligned on this point. However, do we think contracts law views this as a grave injustice? Justice.

0:10:17 Thomas: Don't fight the question. It's a delicious, hot answer.

0:10:22 Thomas: Yeah, I mean, I don't know. Because like, I actually didn't remember from the detrimental reliance question I've had. I think it was with Matt, but time just blends together for me. So sorry if that was with you. But it enough that they like spent money and did stuff. It was the one where someone, and now I'm realizing, okay, might as well say it. I was going to wait until we get to the answer, but I think we all know where this is going. Was where someone said, I think on TV, hey, I'll pay a million dollars to whichever, something like that, whichever university can do some research that I want, something like that, or I'll donate a wing of a building, funding for a wingof a building. Yeah, something something like that. And then the university started making plans based on that. And was enough. I remember I got it wrong, I think, because I thought that wasn't enough. Like, oh, OK, they made some plans, but they didn't really do anything. And I feel like the detrimental reliance test was pretty weak. Like it wasn't it didn't need to be like that crazy for you to have relied on it. It just was like you relied on and incurred some cost. Are you you saying that there's like a really high threshold for that though yeah

0:11:29 Heather: Right in the sense that it's not a crazy test in the sense that a party, what it is is it requires a party to make a promise. It's reasonably expected to induce reliance, which is what you're talking about. Like let's say in the sentence, yeah, I promise I'm going to donate a million dollars for this wing. Then the promise E reasonably relies on that and then takes detrimental action, right? So they go, oh, you are going to give me a million dollars. I am going to start building the building, right. It is all very very reasonable. It makes sense. And then this last part is that injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. That's that last part that's kind of tough, which means that the only way that ensure...

0:12:05 Thomas: To eat this pizza right in front of me it's the only way yeah

0:12:11 Heather: I need to see it happen. That's the last partthat makes detrimental reliance kind of tough is this injustice canonly be avoided. And contracts law takes the injustice part pretty seriously. And that's that part with a wing, right? We have a university there. Let's say it's a library wing. We can only avoid them being severely harmed, right, unless we give them money to finish up the wing.

0:12:12 Thomas: I feel like that applies here though the only difference being crucially it's about someone else's debt but like promising rely like hey if you make me a very expensive delicious hot anchovy pizza I will We'll donate a million dollars. And then for it to be like, well, you only made a pizza that wasn't much cost. So you can't, you won't be charged for the, I don't know. It feels, I Don't remember it being that test, but maybe the way the question was just happened to satisfy that. And we didn't really go into it, but yeah. Like, is there some threshold, like or something to, to make sure it's serious enough? Cause in my mind, just even if it's not serious, it still feels like, yeah. Okay. Okay, but you shouldn't give people your word, have them incur some costs and then take it back. That doesn't feel like it should be cool.

0:13:20 Heather: It's it's not. But the injustice is in contracts, at least in the context of the bar exam, is something that tends to, you'll see that in those instances, like you were talking about, like, it'll of dollars for a wing, or somebody does something, like hard for them to kind of take back or walk back from unless we're really enforcing the promise. And here we see the, the counter example being not just a pizza. Like it's a, maybe it's 20 bucks. You know what I mean?

0:13:43 Thomas: It's just a pizza. Wow.

0:13:45 Heather: Listen, between you and me, listen,

0:13:46 Thomas: Okay, we'll see if you survive this week without getting canceled. All right. Okay, I'll go with you. I'll get with you all right.

0:13:54 Heather: That's the lawyer answer. It's pizza.

0:13:58 Thomas: Territory. And it's I mean, I could have maybe realized that because do should have been looking for more facts along those lines, maybe if it were that question? Because there's really not much about that at all in the fact pattern.

0:14:11 Heather: And we don't, we don't see the pizza. So for example, you would see in that type of instance, you'd see the pizza parlor, doing or taking some action that would really be in big reliance. It would be a situation, maybe they catered a really huge, like they cater to big party at the White House, and then they hired a bunch more staff, and then, they did all this stuff in preparation for this big event, like that sort of thing.

0:14:35 Thomas: Yeah, no, that makes sense. So it is kind of like a bit of a question of scale. Like, oh, I ordered the biggest pizza ever made and I had to like get, you know, truckloads of ingredients. And I started ordering the ingredients and then the person's like, oh, no, I didn't mean it. And then we're talking. Okay, makes sense.

0:14:51 Thomas: Well, never a good sign when my obvious, it's definitely this answer is eliminated first.

0:14:51 Heather: That's Sorry.

0:14:55 Thomas: Thanks, Heather. But yeah, I hear you.

0:14:58 Heather: Obvious trick answer because is one they want you to lure into because it makes the most sense. Somebody says they're going to pay, right? And then they don't, And right. They have an agreement. Shouldn't they cough it up? Well, and that's where we get a little bit of the contract sauce stepping in. So let's talk a little bit about surety -ship, right? So do we have a situation in which there's a debt and then somebody else is promising to pay?

0:15:20 Thomas: Does seem to be that. Yes,

0:15:21 Heather: So we have our friend, the son, Scotty, who, he orders a hot pizza. And then, listen. How dare he change his mind? He has this debt when the food comes and he decides he doesn't want to pay, right? Pizza parlor is still owed money for the pizza. We also have this fact about the father saying, hey, if my son doesn't pay, don't worry, I've got it covered. We have a third party promising to pay in the event that Scotty doesn't. So, we are squarely within the S portion of my legs, the suretyship.

0:15:54 Thomas: I'm squarely within the S portion of this question.

0:15:56 Heather: I'm sorry.

0:15:56 Thomas: That's for sure. I'm in the deep S portion of this questions.

0:16:02 Heather: Part of why D is our wrong answer choice, is because although Donald promised to pay, it wasn't quite enough to satisfy. So D is out.

0:16:10 Thomas: Crazy. Easy.

0:16:11 Heather: I'm sorry. We move to C. So yes, because a parent is liable to pay for the necessities. So you talked a little bit about this and you had kind of talked about Arlo, your son, and Scotty, the son here in the question. Just do me this great favor and tell me what's the main difference between Arlo and this?

0:16:27 Thomas: Well, Arlo is five and a half and Scotty is Donald's adult son.

0:16:32 Heather: So the rule here in contracts um is that parents are liable to pay and you really nail this parents are liable to pay for the necessities provided to their minor children so you are right in saying that when something happens to your minor son um are responsible and that includes things like necessities so for example if your son he to eat. Got to pay for that. That's normal, right? Friend Scotty, he is not a minor. So that means that the dad, Donald, is not responsible to pay for this reason here. That's how we eliminate C. So you did a great job eliminating the C answer choice. So C and D are out. So unfortunately, Benzinos cannot cannot collect, cannot collect. So we're now in the no portion, but we're trying to figure out why.

0:17:16 Thomas: Did you take it personally that I got three or four of these right in a row? Heather with a Michael Jordan meme and I took that personally. Now she's like, hey, hey Thomas, I'm going to do a question that not only not only will you get wrong, everything you say about it will be wrong. I'm gonna make sure that you you you're like, it's definitely a yes. No, sorry. It's a no. No, everything you say is going to be wrong. Received, Heather. This is an intimidation tactic, but, you know, occasionally, you be put in your place as a not lawyer and to get back to the studying that I don't do.

0:17:45 Heather: I'm, I was, you know, maybe this is just a sick joke. I actually really like this topic a lot. So it wasn't personal.

0:17:50 Thomas: No, it's a fantastic question. Okay, so we're in A and B and I have my guesses, but you never know because sometimes there's a twist and then a twist of a twist. And sometimes that means I still get it right. But in other cases, it's been like, oh, crap, I got it wrong. And then there's a twist of a twist and a twist, and it goes back to being right.

0:18:08 Heather: If I recall correctly, you eliminated a, is

0:18:11 Thomas: Also just did not think the wording, no, because a third party will not be held liable for the contract obligations of another. Wording. Am I crazy? I know I fixate more on the exact wording, I think, than you do, but, like, that was a weird way to say it.

0:18:24 Heather: Is a little little bit of a weird way to say it, but it's also incorrect because it incorrectly states the law. So this is basically saying that surety ship agreements.

0:18:33 Thomas: Can never happen.

0:18:34 Heather: Exactly. What we know now is that they can. And so this is just saying that the wrong way. And it's just, again, this is that weird, listen, you'll see this all the time. A lot of weird language weird stuff.

0:18:45 Thomas: Yeah. I didn't explicitly say it, but but yeah, that didn't really even consider it because it's like, yeah. This answer can't be right. Like examples of where of this could be possible and it was no good. So, yeah, want to at least, you some credit for at the last minute getting my second chance answer to be B, because, hey, that saved my Thomas's second chance bar exam law firm from going out of business. That last minute switch bump

0:19:07 Heather: You did. And that was the correct answer. No, because Donald's promise was made orally. Because that's our rule. Surety ship agreements in which one person promises to pay the debt of another, they exactly. They have to be in writing to be enforceable. And our friend, Donald, the dad here, he yelled instead of writing that down. And so that's why Benzinos cannot collect.

0:19:12 Thomas: Bump on up. Yeah, even it's for a mere pizza.

0:19:31 Thomas: Yeah, he needed to put it in all caps in In language, yeah. Boy, sure, don't tell certain people this, because I feel like my friend Eli Bosnick would just go around promising to pay for other people's stuff all the time and then just pranking businesses this way. And like, I actually am surprised that doesn't happen more often.

0:19:34 Heather: Did. Do you want me to throw a wrench in it?

0:19:51 Thomas: Okay.

0:19:51 Heather: It? There's also an exception to this rule. One of the terms for it is called the main purpose exception. And I can give you an example. So let's say, let's just change this a little bit. So let'S say that when Donald, the dad says, if Scotty doesn't pay, don't worry, I've got it covered. And he does that specifically because he loves anchovy pizza and he wants it for himself.

0:20:13 Thomas: Ah, that would have been interesting.

0:20:14 Heather: Okay. If he does not specifically because is he wants the pizza entirely for himself, that agreement would have been enforceable and Benzino's could have collected from Donald. Because you have to pay.

0:20:23 Thomas: You find anchovies delicious? Answer the question. Do Intense, like, yeah, intense deposition happening here. 2010, you hosted on Facebook, oh, sure could go for a delicious hot anchovy pizza right now. Case closed. We know your real motivation.

0:20:43 Heather: Under that exception, when a party agrees to pay the debt of another and they do so with a specific intention of benefiting themselves, have to be in writing that oral agreement can be enforceable yes all

0:20:54 Thomas: Hard to like police that, but yeah, that makes sense. Well, I got it wrong, but my second chance bar exam, just barely. Just a barely decided to get the, and I'm glad I did. Cause I, I did think like, okay, if, if I'm going to be wrong, how's it going to me? And I did at the last minute, I was like, well, maybe there, you know, maybe there will be something weird about the oral promise. And I'm Glad I switched it. I can at least take comfort in that. I got it wrong. And, um, I'm very curious to, uh, see who got this one right and declare winners because that was, that was tricky. But that now puts me at 26 out of 40 for an even 65%. That's interesting. Cool numbers.

0:21:31 Thomas: 65%. Oh man, I'm doing great. See why you wanted to smack me down and teach me humility because I'm doing too well at this test for never studying.

0:21:40 Heather: Right just doing two again no yeah

0:21:43 Thomas: Heather, as we look to reddit.com/args and patreon.com/law for the winners, I am very encouraged. I would like to thank everyone in the world. First off, I think people took my, you mad. I was just disappointed last week. And we got so much participation, which I really appreciate. And everyone, I feel like, I know, I'm not sure. I think in solidarity decided to also get this one wrong, which which I do like, I don't know. I think they all got together and they're like, Thomas, he's been having a rough time. Like, let's just, we all know the answer is B, but like, let'S all pretend we don't Know. No, this one was super tricky. Heather, you just tricked us. I I, think you committed some sort of tort, tort of tricus trick, interferis. I don'T know. Had lots of participation and only Only one on Reddit get it right, and only one on Patreon get it right, which makes it pretty easy to choose the winner, which is crazy. I don't know if I've ever seen anything like that before. So, why don't we we go ahead and anoint our, all odds, winners our here.

0:22:42 Heather: Reddit we had a immature 20 year old get our correct answer so congratulations to you and also I really like that it sounds like we use the same mnemonic device so

0:22:51 Thomas: Right. They said, since everyone seems to think D, I'm going with a contrary answer. I pick B. serving as a surety to the debt owed by his son, and the S in my legs, that's your mnemonic thingy, means that a suretyship must be in writing in order to be enforceable. I don't understand why you said, since everyone is going with D, I'm going with a different thing, and then you have the exact logic for the correct answer. It seems like you should just use the second part of your answer.

0:23:20 Heather: Well I love and I also love this answer because we get um 20 years old which I have a feeling that you're not uh you're getting it right for the right reason so you didn't oops into this answer, which sometimes happens when we're studying, and we get it right for the wrong reason. You But got it right from the right one. So congratulations on this answer. Hooray.

0:23:38 Thomas: And you better not be 20. I hope that's an old username. Otherwise, all of us should feel pretty dumb because we all got this wrong. Like literally everybody. It's crazy. There's so many answers and they all they pretty much all went with D. Like all of them. So, usually like to shout out some more. Let's Avi Physics said, when my parents co -signed my home loan, they would have been responsible if I didn't pay. If my parents cosigned my pizza, I presume they also would have Been responsible if I answered D is correct. However, the key word there is co - signed, you know, like they, when you co - sign a loan, it's in writing. And this is, that's the whole thing, right? Right. I mean, this is had they had the parents or had the dad co -sign the pizza in writing, then would be a different story. Right.

0:24:21 Thomas: That's why I never signed for my pizza.

0:24:23 Heather: You only yell from the couch

0:24:26 Thomas: It's a weird rule, but it also makes sense. I think I think the bar is dastardly by making it an insignificant item, you know, because like had the that's interesting. Had the had been like, oh, yeah, he's he's buying a pizza, you restaurant. Then his dad's like, hey, I'll pay for it. You know, like then you'd be like, well, that seems seems, like you need that in writing because because it's a pizza, it like kind of tricked me into not even considering that.

0:24:47 Heather: Tuning complacency no no more no pizza complacency

0:24:51 Thomas: Guess I'll give honor, mention here because I just enjoy doing this, uh, winner's segment with you. I'm so glad we added this. Honorable mention to Bukowskified, who almost got there. Like, this is like the, the person who who almost got to the top of Mount Everest and then just not quite, you know, fun question. I did notice that the question doesn't say that the pizza place heard and agreed to Donald's statement. So I don't like answer D unless we are assuming a fact, the question. Now that's interesting because it didn't end up being any part of it, but they, that led them toward a different thing. But then they said throwing out B because oral contracts are a thing. And back in the day, you paid cash at the door and didn't need to write anything down when ordering on the phone. Final answer, I'm going with A, which which was No, because a third party will not be held liable for contract obligations of another. They almost got there. They were so close, but no, not quite. But one winner on Reddit. Immature 20 -year -old.

0:25:41 Heather: So immature.

0:25:42 Thomas: Yeah, when comes to the bar, very mature. More mature than all of us, apparently. Now it's time to turn to the patron winner again. Again, thanks so much for more people playing. Really appreciate it. Let's keep that energy up. Lots of fun. patreon.com/law for only winter is gender enthusiast. Just in just enthusiastic about gender. I like it. It. My guess is B, considering how frequently you've all been saying oral matter. Why is there no E? No, because it's pizza. And if you don't pay, then they just don't give you the food. So again, that's the only person who picked B. I don't, Heather, correct me if I'm wrong. I wouldn't say that's correct logic there though. Oral agreements very much do matter so

0:26:23 Heather: You're right. And under the statute of frauds, what it tells us is that oral agreements are can be enforceable with certain types of contracts. And that's where we get that rule. Role in suretyship, agreeing pay the debt of another is one of those kinds of agreements where you can get into an oral agreement and it's still enforceable. And so that's how we know that B is our answer. Because

0:26:46 Thomas: Right but what if what if you there was some way to make Make them both the party or if that is because it's like, OK, no, actually, they are two members of corporation together that are, you know, and then I'm trying to just technically get it to be not be.

0:27:02 Heather: Get it to be, not be.

0:27:04 Thomas: Yeah, it is being the third party that is the problem. So maybe if they were like taking it on together in some way, but maybe the law just does not work that way. I

0:27:11 Heather: Ends up being a little bit different, but at least for the purposes of the bar exam, specifically because he's offering pay as place of his son.

0:27:19 Thomas: True because it was the wording was like if he doesn't pay I'll pay which is like it isn't like hey us as a unit are responsible yeah no that's true they thought of everything those bastards they always do well

0:27:31 Heather: You just say those bastards in the bar our exam a

0:27:33 Thomas: Yes they and I have a rivalry you know what I mean like they're they're a nemesis they're my nemesist they don't know about me but I I, in my mind, we're we're nemesises. Do want to give a shout out to Keeping the Plate Spinning, saying Heather's laugh is so delightful. Appreciate the way she and Thomas work through these. It. Just as much a winner, actually, I'm going to say. I'm gonna go and say that.

0:27:37 Heather: Beef oh oh thank that's so kind thank you what

0:27:57 Thomas: Did like this one though just for fun what oh I can already tell this is gonna an out and out winner for patron name change of the week what is the process and how how much are you? Boo. Says, how many long years working as a pizza smith gives me the background knowledge I need to identify the correct answer is D. If someone tells me over the phone they're gonna pay for the pizza, they're gonna pay for that pizza, especially if it's got anchovies. I'm not putting that thing back in my car. I love that one. But once again, unfortunately incorrect because Because the real got She us. Her and Big Bar just totally wrecked us. Right when we're feeling confident. You know? Big Bar. They're in a dark room filled with smoke. And they're like, we can't have people like Thomas passing the bar exam. Send them the pizza question.

0:28:47 Heather: This will be my nightmare for the Halloween season is me and Big Bar in a room together.

0:28:51 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. I feel like either you'd never be in Cahoots or it's the perfect crime. You're what's his name from that movie keep down it names can't do it kaiser soze you're really you're a real kaiser sos heather walks off her delightful laugh turns into a normal laugh and then we're like wait a minute she's evil all right well that was ton of fun seriously it was so much participation which uh fills our hearts with joy and uh even though pretty much all of us got it wrong and Heather made I'm going to say victimized us. I'm going to Say it. It was still fun. And we'll, yeah.

0:29:28 Heather: Have been personally victimized by Heather and the bar.

0:29:30 Thomas: Have you been victimized by Heather Baranini in the bar exam? Let's this energy and our dignity with question 45.

0:29:40 Heather: Like a plan.

0:29:41 Thomas: We'll do that after this break that's This episode is brought to you by Quince. Well, it's finally, maybe, different season than summer here in California. And It's I love it because fall is just the consensus best season. Fall offers the chance to Finally Ditch the Shorts & Crocs and to pants and crooks. Socks and maybe a cozy cashmere sweater I offers affordable, high -quality essentials for any wardrobe. That includes seasonal must -haves like Mongolian cashmere sweaters from $60 and comfortable pants for any occasion. Only works with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible responsible manufacturing practices, along with premium fabrics and finishes. They partner with them directly, cutting out the cost of the middleman and passing the savings on to you. Means Quince items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands, so look without breaking the bank. Live in Quince, it's good quality and has not worn down despite me wearing it entirely way too much so upgrade your wardrobe with pieces made to last with Quince go to quince.com/OA for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns that's q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash OA to get free shipping and 365 days 365-day returns quince dot com slash OA

0:31:03 Thomas: Right heather let's have it I've see. Question 45.

0:31:06 Heather: Years ago, Orion owned a vast estate with many acres of rolling green Hills. He gave an amusement park company, an easement to build and operate as well as maintain a go -kart track on his estate.

0:31:17 Thomas: Life goals.

0:31:18 Heather: Written easement was promptly and properly recorded, but the track was never laid. Years ago, Orion sold the land to Betty, a botanist. Deed of sale did not mention the easement. The amusement park company contacted Betty to let her know that it planned to install the go -kart track on its easement, would be double the amount of go - karts than when the easment was granted by the original owner, Orion. Amusement park Company, which had since purchased an alternative energy company, also wanted to install several wind turbines on the same land covered by the easement. Has refused to allow the amusement park company to install the go -kart track and the wind turbines. The amusement part company install the go -Kart track and the win turbines?

0:32:01 Thomas: Okay.

0:32:02 Heather: A. as to both the go kart track and wind turbines B. No as to the go kart track but yes as to win turbines as to go kart but no as to wind turbines D. Yes as as to both the go -kart track and the wind turbines well

0:32:10 Thomas: That would be hard to believe. Okay, all right. This is very silly. So never mind everybody. Our dignity back is canceled because Heather decided to throw real property at us. So that's next year. We'll see. Is not the kind of question I want want to see when when I'm at my lowest, but the and big bar do not care about my feelings. So real property here. We've got an easement. So it's a written easement it's promptly and properly recorded and real property just truly sucks because it's know what's going to matter. I feel like okay, agreeing, so gave an amusement park company an easement to build and operate, to build and operate as well as maintain a go -kart track on his estate, estate with many acres of rolling hills, okay. So it's just giant, I don't know if that matters, but giant hills are alive of the sound of go -karts and uh the person orion who seems like a saint I'm can I just say life goals is like yes I've got all this land you can build and and that's interesting because it does say I didn't notice this the first time an easement to build and operate and cooperate as well as maintain a go -cart track he's I be looking at it as that? Easement to build and operate as well As maintain a go -kart track. Or is it like, oh, you can build and operate and you know, because if you take build by itself, it's like, yeah, you're allowed to build and cooperate like your business kind of thing. But I guess if I'm the, there's a comma in there, which threw me off, but maybe as I read it, build and operate comma, that's why I read it as a different thing. Now I realize it might've sounded stupid, but it's because there's a comma there. There. Easement to build and operate comma, as well as maintain a go -kart track on his estate. I feel like this comma matters. Am I crazy? Because if if I Were giving you an easement, to build an operate and maintain a Go -Kart track, I think I would say an easement to build, operate and Maintain a go kart track. It's weird to be build and Operate comma as well well as maintain a go -kart track on this you know it's almost like yeah because it's an amusement park company I don't I don' know if this is gonna matter but it's kind of weird I think it might matter maybe because if they end up being allowed to do stuff at first I was like thinking oh this is an obvious answer C yes to the go -cart but no the wind turbines I was thinking that was gonna be my first my instinct because it' s like oh it sounds like he gave them an easement to operate a go -kart track. If it's like, hey, amusement park company, you may build and operate as well as maintain a go kart track. That mean they're allowed to, like, build and operate an amusement park as well as maintain or something? I just that language worries me, but maybe it doesn't matter. I'll try to move on here. Written easement is promptly and properly recorded but the track was never laid so thing the last asshole said that I do think is actually good advice for property property is the bundle of sticks so orion gives a bundle he's got a bundle ofsticks that is this rolling green hills he gives a one of the sticks which is a pretty sizable one here to this amusement park company but the company never used the stick it's kind of just like there they just like have this stick and 15 years later they're like oh what's the stick I don't remember but we have it 15 years ago because that was 30 years ago we were orion sold the land so then orion sells the bundle of sticks not knowing that orion is given away or forgetting or something that he's given away one of the sticks and then he's like here betty botanist you can have all the sticks because the deed of sale did not mention the easement but that's not proper I don't think he can do that uh one of those things that even just buying a house usually you go through the like are there any easements are there anything else you have to know if any of those The sticks are missing. I don't think that Orion can just undo, can just forget. Recently, the amusement park, now we're in present time. Amusement park company contacted Betty to let her know that it planned to install the go -kart track on its easement. Now, there would be double the amount of go - karts than when the easement was granted by the original. Is That nonsense to me. Was no talk of how many go - carts there were. I as an interpreter of the was going to say test ease like like you know when we used to say something ease is like that's the language you it would be even funnier saying test ease bar exam ease you an interpreterof the language of the bar exam that strikes me as a fact they're throwing in there just to like throw something off that because that doesn't make any sense there would be double the amount of go -karts an amount of Go -Karts wasn't part of the easement that we ever talked about it's to build and operate as well as maintain a Go -kart track and so like am I to believe that gone unsaid was an explicit number of Go Karts that they agreed to I double the number of go karts and when the easment was granted but there there weren't any, that's okay. The amusement park company, which had since purchased an alternative energy company. Don't think that matters. Can't imagine how that matters matters. Also want to install several wind turbines, or as some people say, turbines, and it's actually the correct pronunciation. Crazily enough. Also but I'll never believe it. It still turbines to me. Several wind turbines on the same land covered by the, so the same land when you give an easement well specific is that on was this originally written was it like hey you have this plot of land huge track of land to do whatever on like I mean it was build and operate as well as maintain it just said an easements to build and operate. In the past I've thought of easements as like, okay, you're allowed to drive across my property to get to your, you know, like that, that's usually like the the most common easement that I, at it seems to me is like, Hey, allow road access here or something like that. Like the easement is just that you're allow to drive across this part of my property. Cause it's like a shorter way to get your property. And so we'll agree you can do that or something like that. That's kind of how I was thinking of easements where it's you've given them that land, but it could, but maybe it could be. I don't know. I'm not sure if it's like, it depends on how you write it. It's interesting that wording install several wind turbines on the same land covered by the easement. So if the easment is based on like this section of land and it said, hey, you can build and operate as well as maintain a go -kart track. Also, allegedly, maybe it said you may have exactly eight go -karts because that's how many are in Mario Kart. Like you can have a race that's the Mario Kart characters. And I'm talking old Mario Kart because the new ones are just infinite. There's just so many characters. But back in the day, you'd have like these specific eight Mario Kart drivers and they'd be in every race. Also And important to note, this was 30 years ago. So Orion would have been working in that Mario Kart paradigm. Time would have been like okay it's 1994 what do I know about mario kart there's always the same eight racers therefore eight carts this is important um now actually makes sense too the amusement park company is like hey it's 2024 mario cart is way different like yeah when thomas tries to play with his kids there's characters there's 50 characters I don't even understand where they all came from it's too many actually too many characters but we need more more carts we can't just have the original eight that was agreed to that was we agreed to eight back when it was literally like eight bits that's how many bits we had you know this is 16 -bit gaming there's just nothing now we got so many bits I don't even know how many you would say I don' t even think we think of it in terms of that anymore so we need more go -karts is what this easement is now saying um but also the wind turbines um I If the wind turbine thing was under some sort of Mario Kart logic, like Go Kart related logic, then I almost feel like it could go into that build and operate thing. Like specifically the is like, oh, they're just, you know, there's the end of alternative energy. Like if it said like in order to power you know wario's go now wario uses uh diesel wario wants to pollute the environment in order zu power what is one of the more sensible mario characters is electric toad toad I feel like toad would be into like wind turbine energy toadstool it would go under the maintain build and operate thing I think could you still make an argument that it's like well we have the easement for this entire land we can do whatever we want I don't think so I think it has to be pretty specific so ultimately I sort of am still just leaning toward yes they you still have the easement to operate the go -kart track but the wind turbines on what's throwing me off because I really feel like if they just said it's for the go -kart track I feel like that would be covered but if you're specifically not saying that maybe it doesn't say why I guess it doesn'T say why hmm that do I have one where I do feel like it would make depend on the argument for your reasoning because if it's under the build and operate because like part of operating something is powering it but like but I feel Like the bar questions don't normally do do this where like so something feels off about all this so maybe there's something weird and none of this matters like when it spins off sorry spins spins out into uh like it hit a little oil slick there on the mario kart track sometimes when spins off into all these other little things like double the go karts oh also the winter like it it's because the real answer already happened you the time passing and them not using it was already yeah because now I think about 30 years I mean shit do we get into that squatters rights thing no no what is that because there's stuff where it's if you don't use something no but I don't think we're talking that 30 years is a specific amount of time like I feel like that's a I 30 years is like a real property amount of time one real property unit time ago happened and so and the sale was 15 years ago but that might not matter I think that like what we're dealing with here is that if you just don't use an easement for 30 years years, you can't go back and just ease it, ease into it. Me, that would fit logic of what, like, I feel like I speak, I not be so arrogant as to say it's like Neo and the Matrix. It's definitely not. It is like Neo and The Matrix and seeing that code, but then not knowing what all those symbols are. Like, I see that code behind it, I'm like, ah, not entirely sure what that means, but I feel like just by the logic of this question, the bar does that where feel like the real answer was 30 years ago. Like that pretty much was the end of it. It years again, I gave an easement, but but this company company never used it. They never used the easement. It's been 30 years and they come back and they're like, Hey, carding is back in a big way. And we would like to use our easement from 30 years years ago I that's going to be the key so the reason my my is saying that is because I think there's a bunch of well does the bar exam do this I think There's several unanswerable questions that I do unless are irrelevant you know like I think they're things that I couldn't answer maybe but like that's a sign that they're irrelevant is like if they were relevant, I wouldn't be able to answer them anyway. And the question wouldn't work. Here's what I'm thinking. Answers were the expect, it's sort of like the classic 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 one for any programmers. I don't know, just talk about bits. It's just two bits, two bits of answers, all the combinations. And going to go with the 0 -0 answer, as in no to both the go -kart track and the wind turbines, because I think the 30 years ago is actually the key here. I think that's what's really happening. But second chance answer, I think, will be the 1 -0 answers. That'll be answer C. Second chance will be answer C because maybe there's a chance that they do it, but it's the go -kart track and not the wind turbines because those were not agreed to originally. Man, no confidence in this, but I'm gonna with final Answer A, second chance answer C, and boy, I cannot wait until next next week when we find out, did I get it right or did that spiky turtle that you can't dodge just come and whap me when I was in first place and I was definitely going to win if it weren't for the very improper cheating of the spikie turtle. Hey, a red turtle, that's cost doing business. A red turtle is a red, a spikye turtle that takes out first place. This is communism. What are we talking about? Is America. Just kidding all right you stop me talking Heather anytime

0:44:15 Heather: What I was going to tell you is that the amusement park company's

0:44:17 Thomas: Yeah

0:44:18 Heather: Name was actually Nintendo? Have to ask you before I forget who is your go -to mario kart character yeah

0:44:22 Thomas: Oh that's the thing is it depended on the game back inthe day you Mario Kart which I have played somewhat recently because I my of my hobbies I don't have time for is my old nostalgic video game stuff. I love it so much. And I got Arlo into it and, uh, okay, now we're going to talk because why not? We have the time. It's T3BE and people don't listen to T3B. They're missing out on this hot Mario Kart talk, hot cart talk with Heather and Thomas.

0:44:36 Heather: Me too yeah listen

0:44:51 Thomas: Yeah.

0:44:50 Heather: Is our new podcast yeah

0:44:51 Thomas: Yeah, yeah. And, Super Mario Kart, I I, remember it fondly, but holy shit, the controls are weird. Like they just didn't have the controls of a cart figured out very well, but you would, like, it mattered who your character was. Now, Mario Kart 64, oh my god, did I play that. I played the hell out of that game, and I love being, I think Toad was probably my go -to, or like, I Think Peach was really good, right? Of those?

0:45:06 Heather: Too yeah yeah yeah up my go to was also beach

0:45:15 Thomas: Of it was weight -based, you know, because like Bowser or somebody, like Wario, yeah they're heavy, you can't knock them off their cart or whatever, but then their acceleration and stuff nowadays there's all these other variables I again I was playing it with the kids it is still fun actually but the it's like everything else now as an adult where the first time I looked at it I was like no no no like and maybe that's adhd as well the the resistance to like getting into a thing that's going to be a whole thing you know because I look at and there's 400 characters and there're all these there's like different carts you can earn and like wings and crap but answer is I they have the stats so now they Have that like if you look it says like acceleration and speed and whatever and I'm very analytical and so I ignore all personal allegiances and biases toward any character and I was like look here's what I think you need insider tip from not an insider at all from somebody who's played the new mario kart for like five seconds I think acceleration is the key you might think speed's the key I think acceleration is a geek because when you're playing mario cart you get hit by so much bullshit you know you're like you're hit by a turtle hit by a spiky hit by whatever the being able to get going really fast again that was my theory and uh I did win the races but I was playing against a seven -year -old and a five -year So there's not a whole lot of bragging rights, but that was my theory of the case. So the answer to, very long -winded answer to your very short question was, I don't have a favorite anymore. It's gone. It's all about the numbers.

0:45:46 Heather: Dance love

0:46:43 Thomas: Mario Kart Analytics.

0:46:47 Heather: It that's so good that's because the opposite of how I've played in the past because that that's literally When I was growing up, Peach was really the only girl character for most of the games that I was playing. And so I just defaulted to her because I was like, look, it's a girl. Yay.

0:46:56 Thomas: That's true. They got some other princess.

0:47:02 Heather: Her face in my mind. Listen, this thing happened last night. I promise this is related and I'm going to embarrass the shit out of myself by telling this story.

0:47:07 Thomas: Love it.

0:47:08 Heather: So I'm exhausted last night and I finished another book yesterday and I was trying to tell my husband about it. What I do is I I look over at him and I say, well, you know, as I'm telling the story and I'm trying to relay it to him, I said, well you know this woman, I'm explaining the woman who wrote the America the Beautiful. I said well you she's from a town where the bell was made by and then I start to try to describe because I can't think of the name. I end up saying I guy who rode around on a horse and yelled things.

0:47:33 Thomas: Are you talking about what's his name yeah

0:47:39 Heather: Yeah, literally he looked at me and And he looked at me and he knew exactly who I was talking about, right?

0:47:44 Thomas: I'm the redcoats are coming guy or

0:47:47 Heather: Yeah, the guy who made bells. And it turns out that was like something also that he did. Yeah. And again, I can't remember his name. I thought I should have done that. But yes, yeah. Yeah, that's who you're talking about. And

0:47:56 Thomas: That guy the red coats are coming guy yeah

0:47:58 Heather: I'll think of it in a minute. I was like, I don't know what's worse, the fact that I can'T remember or the fact that you knew exactly what I was taking about, that I've done this enough times, right, which it's paul revere yeah like one of the most famous people in american history and I was like the guy who yeah yeah my husband's like oh my god he's like so patient with me yeah

0:48:04 Thomas: That's not oh is it paul revere oh okay yeah yeah and so he made the bell Well, this is also how I tell stories. Is this ADHD or are we just dumb? Is there something wrong with us? You know, because I do this too. And the more tired I am, the more my brain's like, look, no. Yeah, I go.

0:48:28 Heather: The worst it gets yeah it just like like could

0:48:31 Thomas: I, when I'm exhausted, I'm like, I don't know. I go to my brain, hat in hand. I'm, like, could you, could You, yeah, like give me one. Please, sir. I want some names. And then my brain is, like not even going to start the name engine. Like I'm not even it's it's like when you go to a restaurant like the kitchens, it's that we already shut down all the stuff. My brain's like, you're tired. We shut down the name region of your brain. Normally, it'S not even running. There's like one chef in there and it's trying to do a whole McDonald's like as though Trump actually was doing like if he was really doing

0:48:31 Heather: You try no it sounds

0:49:04 Thomas: That. And that's bad enough. But now that guy, he needs a night off. And so I'll just tell Lydia things in those exact terms for an hour. I'll just be like, so the guy who did that and the person, you know, from this thing and that person. And she has to, poor Lydia, has to translate all of it. It sounds like maybe your husband and my wife should start a support group, I think is what it is.

0:49:24 Heather: Like they should and also like a translation translation support group

0:49:28 Thomas: A handbook, you now. All right, well, this delightful new podcast about Mario Kart aside. Oh, wait, I thought you were in the middle of getting to who your current character is, though, right?

0:49:38 Heather: Sorry yeah so I'll anyway so basically um ends up happening is that as a kid growing up right she's really the only like girl character um and so anyway as an adult because I've played video games my whole life fact that's how my husband and I met um yeah that's

0:49:48 Thomas: Cool. Oh, we got to talk about this sometime.

0:49:50 Heather: Yeah I promise it's a whole story um always thought I do what you do and I sometimes I do like I'll look at the stats I'm like oh yeah I should do this and then what I end up doing is I like feel that like deep nostalgia creeping up and then I like I feel what it's like to I like remember what it'S like to play um her and I'm Like oh no and then like default to her every single time like every once in a while I'll be like I wonder what it's like to play as bowser and I play a game and then I'm like no

0:50:13 Thomas: Oh, yeah. We all did that as kids. Oh, I'll play as Bowser. No, I hate this. This is the worst thing to ever happen. Same with Mario. Oh, I used to have Mario Golf back in the day, which I love for 64. And I was like, oh, Bowser. I play as Bowser. He hits with one arm. I was, like, yeah, that's a super cool Bowser thing to do. You know what would be better? Play with both your arms, Bowser! And then you could drive at 600 instead of 300, you know? And then we're not even... What are we doing here? Why one arm? But anyway our new nintendo podcast uh this is a just a teaser uh that but no so the point is my answer was a and the second chance answer was c and uh anyone got through this for much of our nonsense depending on how much stayed in from my edit um go to patreon .com slash law and play along that's the best place to support the show to get announcements about our new new Nintendo Mario Kart podcast stuff. You are not a patreon, we understand, go to reddit .com slash r slash open args, play along as so many of you did last time. And if you re a patron I really think you should do both because then your answer gets tracked on Reddit and also you have a better chance to shout out on Patreon. So please play along and can't wait to find out if I got bamboozled again, again by Heather in the bar exam or not next week. So thanks, Heather. And everyone look on iTunes, search your podcast players for our new podcast name. Not yet there. And Heather talk Mario Kart irrelevantly.

0:51:35 Heather: Thank you we'll see you next week is

0:51:40 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

0:51:50 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our patrons each and every week. I give a shout Shout out to our top patrons, our Hall of Famers, as well as a couple new patrons at patreon .com slash law. You to Megan McGuire and Danny. So much for signing on. Really appreciate it. Then we get to our Hallof Famers. Our all -time greats. And those are the brilliant folks. The Saints. Pledged at that $5 tier and above for at least a month. They get to change their name each week if they want. Get a little shout out. A little metagame. Let's see who. I think I already know who the winner is going to be this week. Week we'll see. Thank you to Goatius Maximus, gender enthusiast. Chandler, Rickets Is In The Bones.

0:52:26 Thomas: Stare Decisis has gone into hospice. Is she talking about me? Logomancer, sex and gender are different things and people should stop using them interchangeably. Apprentice of Adventure, D. Myers, cavalry, unfrozen caveman lawyer. Justice is a dish best served with cold hamburgers. What is a process and how much are you boo so stupid that's number one so far although I also love many of these Rickets Is In The Bones is quite good too the Dear Old Dads reference, A Negative Phenomenon, Raw Meatballs, (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Ex Parte). Jaysank. You got me. I'm a witch. E.T., Oh, great. Now I have to go back to changing my name every month. Got Me, I'm A Witch might be a good reference to the last episode as to how to avoid, you know, being executed in Salem in 1590, 1692, 1590. I don't know. One of them. E.T., Oh, great, now I have go back changing my name ever month. Freeman, a lawyer, but I'd play one in court. J.D. Vance looks like the Unabomber dressed up for family court. This isn't a Patreon name, and I'm not reading anything right now. I just personally think Legal Legal is so handsome. Mark Schultz, hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report. Port, The Cincinnati Kid, Bob Loblaw's Law.... Podcast, Philly Basement Bars Knocking Doors for Harris, you should too, absolutely, gosh, have you seen the polling lately, I don't know if it means anything, but get out there everyone, Edgy Veggie, Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association, Ate, Philip Kizer, Chapman, The Solutions Archaeologist, these poems you may not seek, at some point you might freak, but rip into it, I will write one every week.

0:54:19 Thomas: Another dear old dad's reference. I think we got rip into It, though. I'm pretty sure. We'll see. Stuff. The 501st and Rebel Legion want you. Cosplayer's doing good. Milo Meadsong is on to the post-conviction process now that his petition was denied. A string of unpronounceable characters. Malaika Chandler. Malcolm the Dragon, the precious variant. FRED R GROOTHUIS. Big Easy Blasphemy, RhondaTheDork.com, Chris Waltrip, Mitchell, and by Felicia. Still on top, but only barely. Thanks so much, patrons. You make this show up, and you really do. Hall of Famers, triply so. Double, quadruple, octuplely so. For your support. Right, that's the show. Can't wait to see you for Rapid Response Friday. Might be a topic that I requested that I think you'll be very pleased to hear. Here. But I can never commit in this day and age because 12 news things may happen in between now and then. So we'll see. But tune in on Friday. I'll see you then.

0:55:10 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.

0:55:27 Thomas: Bump on up. Yeah, sure could go for a delicious hot anchovy pizza right now. Case Hey, a red turtle, that's cost doing business. Play with both your arms, Bowser!