Decizii "Inspirate" si "Inspirationale"

Sub acest titlu, vreau sa vorbesc despre decizii memorabile ale unui jude sau altul, din tara sau de pe mapamond.

Incep seria deciziilor cu una dintre preferatele mele, din cartea de Contracte a regretatului Allan Farnsworth: Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. 190 F.Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960), apartinind judecatorului Henry Friendly. Citez din scriitura irezistibila a lui Friendly(am pastrat linkurile profesorului Gary Neustadter la a carui pagina cu decizia am facut trimitere):

The issue is, what is chicken? Plaintiff says 'chicken' means a young chicken, suitable for broiling and frying. Defendant says 'chicken' means any bird of that genus that meets contract specifications on weight and quality, including what it calls 'stewing chicken' and plaintiff pejoratively terms 'fowl'. Dictionaries give both meanings, as well as some others not relevant here. To support its, plaintiff sends a number of volleys over the net; defendant essays to return them and adds a few serves of its own. Assuming that both parties were acting in good faith, the case nicely illustrates Holmes' remark 'that the making of a contract depends not on the agreement of two minds in one intention, but on the agreement of two sets of external signs -- not on the parties' having meant the same thing but on their having said the same
thing.' The Path of the Law, in Collected Legal Papers, p. 178. I have concluded that plaintiff has not sustained its burden of persuasion that the contract used 'chicken' in the narrower sense. .."

Lectura placuta!