Prior Adams

Leave of Absence

2009-11-20T21:00:00.000-08:00

My time as a full-time philosopher was enjoyable, but not profitable. Thus, I regret to inform all my loyal readers that I must quit my work as a philosopher. I've found work as a waiter in Los Angeles. Thanks for all your support, and hopefully in the future I will be able to return to posting on my blog.

A True Fan Wears Something to Support his Team While at a Game

2009-10-19T14:35:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the true fan series, I present one more of the requirements that a person must meet in order to obtain the title of “true fan.” A person must wear at least one article of clothing that shows support for his particular team while attending a game. This requirement seems like a no-brainer, but every time I go to a sporting event there are thousands of people not wearing their team’s colors. The people most guilty of this are those that sit in the most expensive seats. If you can spend $100 or more for a ticket, why wouldn’t you at least buy something to show your support?

Embarrassment
One possible explanation is that the fans are embarrassed. When I was younger I was in the Boy Scouts and as a boy scouts I was required to wear a uniform. But I never wore my uniform in public, because I was too embarrassed. I was more concerned with what other people would think about me than showing my pride for the boy scouts. If a fan is ashamed or embarrassed to support his team then he can never gain true fan status. A true fan should be willing to take the abuse from rival team’s fans. You need to take pride in your team even when they lose. I hate to see a fan who is wearing a team’s jersey cover it up with a jacket after his team loses.

Tacky
I must admit that wearing sport’s clothes is somewhat tacky. As someone who considers themselves a sophisticated dresser, I find it hard to wear a bright blue jersey supporting my Dodgers. But a true fan doesn’t need to wear his jersey to work every day. People get dressed up for sporting events. It is like going to a Halloween party and not wearing a costume. A person who doesn’t wear a costume, is not considered suave or dapper, but is looked upon as a kill joy. You need to leave your fashion sense behind when you go to a sporting event. Who cares if your yellow Steelers’ jersey doesn’t match your brown shoes?

My guess is that this is the reason that a lot of people in the expensive seats don’t wear their team’s colors. They might be taking clients to the game on business, and feel that they must still wear business casual clothes. But you must remember a true fan doesn’t have to paint his face black and gold. All you need to wear is a hat, a tie, or a polo shirt, anything that shows your support. Most clients will appreciate your passion for the game. Furthermore, I always find it more enjoyable to watch a game with someone who is invested in the outcome.

Indigent Sports Fan
Another reason someone might not wear his team’s colors is that he cannot afford it. I want to make it perfectly clear that a true fan doesn’t need to be rich. You don’t need to wear an authentic game day jersey to be a true fan. However, even the poorest fan can afford to show support for his team. If you can afford to buy a ticket, then you can afford to buy something to wear to the game. You can find cheap clothes at thrift stores, or stores like Ross or TJ-Maxx. The clothing doesn’t even need to be officially licensed or even contain the team’s logo. I find wearing a plain blue t-shirt is adequate at a Dodgers’ game.

Exception for Tattoos
A true fan that has a visible tattoo of his team doesn’t need to wear an article of clothing. However, a person that is willing to get a tattoo of the team is most likely going to be the type of person that is decked out in his team’s colors. So for all particular purposes this is not much of an exception.

Exception for Safety
I lived in the Bay Area for a couple of years, and I had the misfortune of attending an Oakland Raiders game. Although I did not wear the opposing team’s colors, I felt scared for those that did. If your physical safety is put in jeopardy by wearing your team’s colors, then you do not have to wear an article of clothing and can still remain a true fan. I’m not talking about being hit by the occasional hot dog. I’m talking about being stabbed or beaten for wearing the other team’s jersey. I cannot list certain scenarios where this exception applies, because I haven’t been to every stadium. If you know of any, please list them in the comments section. I want to say wearing a Broncos’ or Chargers’ jersey to the Oakland Coliseum would be an example. I know that wearing a Dodgers’ jersey to AT&T Park is not an example, because I’ve done this and did not feel threatened.

Exception for Spur of the Moment Tickets
If a friend gives you tickets a couple of hours before the game and you cannot get back to your house before game time, then you do not need to wear an article of clothing and can still remain a true fan. If this exception were true it would place a fan in an unusual predicament. A fan would have to decline the invitation, because he doesn’t have anything to wear to the game and would lose his true fan status. The rules are to encourage fans to attend games. Thus, an exception must be made. Some might argue that a true fan should always have a hat or shirt in his car or at the office. There is merit to this argument, but I’m more inclined to not require a true fan to always have a cap ready in the off chance that he gets tickets to the game. Another argument is that a true fan would buy something at the game to show support. I think this is true if the fan is rich and can afford it.

Magnitude of Clothing
There are always those fans that excessively dress-up for a game. There are those Raiders fans that wear spiked shoulder pads and Darth Vader helmets. There are those fans that paint words on their chest, and sit shirtless in freezing temperatures. Often people remark to me that these people must be the biggest fans. However, there are no levels in true fanhood. Either you’re a true fan or you’re not. I think it is great that people wear these crazy outfits, but don’t be fooled into thinking these people are some sort of super fans. A person that wears only the team’s baseball cap can still be just as much a fan as the person who paints his face. Furthermore, you never know if these people are complying with all of the other requirements of the true fan series. For example, the person with the Darth Vader helmet might leave games early if the Raiders are losing. So don’t be awed by such extravagant displays of support.

Church of the Second Coming

2009-09-25T21:41:00.000-07:00

For your reading pleasure, I’ve posted the first section of a field manual I wrote a couple of months ago for the Church of the Second Coming

Field Training Manual for the Church of the Second Coming

Area: West Los Angeles

Section 1.0: Introduction
It is my humble charge from the all mighty himself to collaborate with my fellow prophets in order to bring to light a field manual for the West Los Angeles area. As head prophet of the West Los Angeles chapter it is a great honor to assist you in this calling. There is no more important message than the one you will bring to the people of Los Angeles, which is that all should repent because the return of our king is nigh at hand. You will be blessed for your faithfulness and diligence in sharing this message. The purpose of this manual is to instruct you and give you the practical knowledge that you will need to be a successful prophet for the Church of the Second Coming. Before beginning the more formal part of the manual, I feel it would be advantageous for you to hear the story of how I was a paralegal at a major law firm not less than a year ago, and now I’m the head prophet of this great chapter. I also want to relate a confrontation that I had with a member of the irreverent group ALA (Atheists of Los Angeles). I’m afraid to say that many of you will come in contact with this group. In section 6 of this manual we will discuss in more detail how to confound these heathens, but it would beneficial for you to hear at the outset what type of arguments they make and how to properly confront them.

Section 1.1: My Conversion Story
We’re currently facing one of the greatest recessions in our country’s history. In California, the unemployment rate is around 11.5%. Most of us have been affected by this economy, but I felt it especially hard. Last year I was working as a paralegal for a law firm in Santa Monica. I had been working there for almost four years when I was laid off.

On September 19, 2008, a partner of the firm called me into his office and said, “Prior, you’re one the best paralegals we have but we have to let you go. Our law firm isn’t bringing in the money like it used to, and we need to make some cuts. I’m sorry for this, but we need to keep the firm afloat.” I was fired, and it was worthless to search for a job because there were no jobs out there. Fortunately the firm gave me a decent severance package, so I had enough money for the next four months.

At this point, the problem wasn’t the money, but having nothing to do. I’ve always considered myself an industrious person, and without a job I didn’t know what to do with myself. I decided that I would write an economics’ paper about the real cause of this depression (click here to see the article). The paper was published. In the paper I argued that the cause of the depression is due to all of the commemorative coins and paper bills that have been minted. Ever since the introduction of the commemorative state quarters in 1999 people have had such a fascination with the aesthetic value of money; and because of this they don’t want to spend it. Because of this spending is now down and the economy has come to a slow crawl. The paper received a lot of attention because people think it was humorous but let it be known, my prophets in training, that this is the main cause of this great depression.

I was handsomely rewarded for my essay. People visited my website—www.prioradams.com—and clicked on my adds. I was able to live off my website. However, I was still faced with the dilemma of what I should do with my time. I was a lost soul, wandering aimlessly amongst the inhabitants of Los Angeles, and the inhabitants were just as lost as me. I was depressed. I never bathed nor shaved. I spent most of my time walking the streets of L.A. with no place to go. It was during one of my walks that I found my purpose in life.

A man with a black tie, black suit, and purple collared shirt approached me, and said nothing but gave me a card which said:

The Church of the Second Coming might need you. Searching for men with beards and a spiritual side. All training included. Starting pay is 15.00/hr. Please visit us at: 15675 Wilshire Blvd, M-F 10:00-6:00

I’m sure many of you received this exact same card. I don’t know about you but there was something powerful about this card. I now know that it was the power of God coaxing me to go apply for this job.

That same day I took the bus to the building and applied for a job as a prophet of the Church of the Second Coming. I will spare you the details of the hiring process because if you are now reading this manual you are fully aware of the strict hiring process, but I would like to spend some time describing my conversion to this church in hopes that it will strengthen your knowledge of the validity of this work.

At first I was skeptical about a church that was only devoted to teaching the principal of the second coming. I wondered why the church didn’t focus on the Old Testament. And why they only talked about Christ’s teachings regarding the second coming. Why is there such an emphasis on this one point of the gospel? The answer is that right now this is what we should be preparing for. The Mosaic law prepared the way for the first coming of Christ. Our church is now preparing the way for the second coming of our lord. When you are on your street corner holding your sign and prophesying that the end is near, please remember this point: you are the modern day John the Baptist paving the way for the return of our king.

Ever since I’ve accepted my job as a prophet of the Church of the Second Coming, I’ve worked without rest, delivering our important message, which is that the Lord is returning soon, and he will start a new world, where God’s rule is law. Thus, all inhabitants of Los Angeles should repent and prepare to receive him.

Section 1.2: My Conflict with the member of Atheists of Los Angeles
I was prophesying at my usual corner—Wilshire and Westwood Blvd. The date was May 23, 2009. Below is the transcript from a recording that was taken that night—I always record my prophesying for teaching purposes:

Prior Adams (“P”): For it is written that the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. And it is also written in Revelations that Jesus is coming soon. This means that. . . . .

Warner Jacobs (“W”): Don’t listen to this man—he’s a liar and a phony.

P: Such scathing accusations, without even an introduction. Before leveling such allegations, could you be so kind as to tell me who you are?

W: My name is Warner Jacobs, and I’m an associate of the group Atheists of Los Angeles. And I’m sick of you preaching such nonsense to the fine people of L.A.

P: Good sir, if I’m wrong please tell where I go astray. It’s better to be corrected than to spend life walking in error, and by correcting me I would consider you doing me a favor.

W: Please, dispense with the pleasantries. I know you hate me, and think that I will spend eternity burning in Hell.

P: I only have charity for you, and earnestly care for your eternal well being. That is why I spend every night on this corner, so that these people may avoid God’s wrath.

W: If this is true then you yourself have been deceived. And because I want you to see this and because I don’t want all those gathered here to think that the second coming is soon, I accept your challenge to prove you wrong.

P: Well then please come up to the front, and instruct these people. Obviously, you will have to forgive me if I don’t take everything you say at face value. I would be doing myself and those here a disservice if I didn’t question your views.

W: Thank you for giving me the floor. Most fanatical Christians usually don’t extend such courtesy. They mostly drown me out with yelling, so thank you. . . . . There’re a lot of problems with the Church of the Second Coming. The scripture you mentioned in Revelations chapter 22, verse 12, Jesus says “Behold, I am coming soon.” Scholars believe that Revelations was written around 70 A.D. 1,939 years has passed since Jesus said he would be coming soon. I understand that “soon” isn’t an exact measurement of time, but I don’t think that anyone could consider 2,000 years soon. If I said, “I will have your car repaired soon,” and I finished it 2,000 years later, you would think I was a liar.

P: I understand your point, but you fail to realize that the prophet Isaiah wrote that the Lord is an everlasting God. So when he says that he comes soon, for God that could be thousands of years.

W: But why would he say “soon” when talking to mortals? The Bible was written for the benefit of mankind, so his audience was humans. And he must have known that humans would interpret the word “soon” in the context of human years. Why didn’t he qualify his statement by saying, “I come soon, but when I say soon, I mean soon for a God, who is not subject to human’s concept of time?”

P: No one can fathom God’s understanding, and I will not dare opine on God’s intent. But the NIV uses the word “soon,” but the King James Version uses the word, “quickly.” Thus, a fair interpretation of the scripture would be that when Jesus comes, it will be quickly, like suddenly.

W: I don’t think that is an accurate interpretation of that scripture. Either way, you just said that the second coming will happen soon. And you sir, are no God, so when you say “soon” it must certainly mean in the next year?

P: I don’t know whether it will be next year, but I know that it will be soon.

W: Well, here is the problem: you can keep saying that the second coming is soon, and there is no way to prove you wrong. Unless you gave me a specific date, it’s hard to prove you wrong, because you can always say “it will be soon,” but no one knows when soon has passed. In fact, people have been saying that the second coming will be soon for the past two thousand years. When can we just say it is not going to happen?

P: Jesus will come like a thief in the night. No one can know the date of his return. If we all knew when he would come then we would just repent the day before.

W: If you don’t know the exact date, then why do you spend all of you time telling people that the second coming is soon?

P: It is written that when you shall see certain things then you will now that Jesus is coming soon, and many of the signs have already happened. Right before the second coming there will be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, and famines; Christ’s followers will be persecuted; false prophets will appear and perform miracles; the gospel will be preached to the whole world; and Jerusalem will be surrounded by enemies. All of these signs have come to pass, and that is why I know the second coming is soon.

W: All of these signs are too general. There are always wars, earthquakes, and famines. All of these things happened during World War II, so by your thinking the second coming was soon in 1945, but it has been seventy years since then. These signs have been happening for hundreds of years, and will continue to happen. You cannot honestly say that these signs are any indication that the second coming is soon.

P: What about the signs of the gospel being preached to the whole word and Jerusalem being surrounded by enemies? These are specific. It is quite amazing that because of recent advancements in technology, missionaries can share the gospel message to everyone.

W: You fail to realize that this sign is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you have enough followers then they will do everything in their power to make sure your prophecy comes true. If I were the leader of a congregation of 50,000 and I said that the Lord’s temple will be built in the Rocky Mountains, then my prophesy will most likely come true. Not because I was able to see into the future, but rather because I knew my 50,000 followers would build the temple. So it is here. The preaching of the gospel throughout the world isn’t a sign of the second coming, but just shows that there are enough Christians to make sure Jesus’ prophecies come true.

P: I understand that if you had 50,000 followers at the time of the prophecy then it wouldn’t be much of prediction, but you forget Christianity started with one man, and his teachings weren’t popular during his lifetime. Being able to foresee the popularity of Christianity is quite amazing. Also, do you think that nations are at war with Israel because of the prophecy in the New Testament? Or do you think that maybe Jesus accurately predicted the wars in the Middle East? Surely, Muslim nations aren’t hostile towards Israel, because they want Jesus’ prophecy to be correct?

W: The prophecy of Jerusalem being surrounded by hostile enemies isn’t much of a prophecy, because there have always been wars in the Middle East. You’re right that Jesus didn’t have many followers during his lifetime, and at first glance it appears that his prediction of global missionary work was remarkable. But you fail to realize there’re thousands of people who make crazy predictions every year; one of them is bound to get it right by mere chance, and when he or she does everyone is amazed. If I make the prediction that a man named Francis from Wyoming will discover the cure for cancer, and it doesn’t come true, no one will pay attention to it. But if I’m correct, then everyone will marvel and consider me a clairvoyant, when it truth it was a lucky guess. It’s also so with Jesus. He made some lucky guesses and now people think he was a prophet, when in reality he was just the person who guessed correctly.

P: You’re wrong. First, if Jesus’ prophecies were just guesses then the chances of them being correct are like a billion to one. Also, Jesus performed miracles. He walked on water, healed the sick, and rose from the tomb. If you saw someone doing these things, and then afterwards he made a prophecy about the future you will pay close attention. He wasn’t just someone who happened to guess correctly, like you said. He is our God, and as such he is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. He knows the future, and when he makes a prophecy it must be true, because he cannot lie.

W: I suppose we’re now on a different topic--you believe Jesus is God, and I believe there is no God. This is our real disagreement, and because it is getting late we must save this debate for a different day. But before I leave I want you to know the truth about the Church of the Second Coming. CSC was founded as a government program to increase consumer spending. If people believe that the second coming is soon then they will be less inclined to save their money and more inclined to spend it. This increased spending will jumpstart the economy.

P: That is outrageous, you and your paranoid conspiracy theories. Our church was founded when Jonah appeared in angelic form to the major-prophet, Brandon Cooley. Noah told Cooley that the second coming is soon, and that Cooley should preach this message to the inhabitants of earth. I’ve received a personal confirmation that this story is true. There’re also documents and witnesses that testify to the veracity of this vision.

W: All lies and forgeries perpetrated by the United States government. When did Cooley’s allege vision take place?

P: January 28, 2009

W: That is the same day the stimulus package was passed.

P: Pure coincidence

W: The stimulus package provides $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. However, the furniture at the new headquarters was only two years old. Why would they need new furniture if their furniture was two years old? The truth is that the 248 million was used to establish your church.

P: You’re delusional. Why are you the only one that knows about this? If this were true it would be big news--the government directly violating the establishment clause. . . . Like you said, it is getting late and I still need to finish my speech on the second coming. So if you don’t mind, I must bid you farewell.

W: Thanks for engaging me in conversation. I hope that everyone will dig deeper into the founding of the Church of the Second Coming, and you will find that it is a government conspiracy. Good evening to all.

P: Thanks for your patience, please let’s continue where I left off. . . .

Note September 25, 2009:
After my conversation with Warner Jacobs, I thought he was crazy. But I kept thinking about his government conspiracy theory, so I decided to do some research. I read the transcript that Noah Cooley wrote after his vision. I read the testimonies of the witnesses, who said they say the angel as well. And I found inconsistencies. I also researched the 248 million for new furniture—and no new furniture was bought with the money. Warner Jacobs was right. The government established the Church of the Second Coming to increase consumer spending. I’ve since resigned as head prophet of the West Los Angeles Chapter and became a philosopher for hire

About Me

2009-09-18T10:43:00.000-07:00

My name is Prior Adams, and I’m a philosopher. I graduated from U.C.L.A. in 2004 with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy. After graduation I worked as a paralegal for a prominent law firm in Century City. I was laid off in 2008. After an unsuccessful job search, I decided that I would become a philosopher for hire by starting this webpage and providing philosophical services.

I started this website to teach and discuss philosophy, generate a meager living through advertisements, and entice readers to hire me for their philosophical needs. My services include: (1) giving speeches; (2) debating; (3) writing essays, short stories, and books; (4) providing ethical advice; (5) entertaining at parties; (6) teaching; (7) drafting philosophical impact reports for your business; (8) drafting logically sound arguments; and (8) standing still and thinking.

I’m well read in most philosophical topics, and have in-depth knowledge concerning ethics and theology. I’m especially knowledgeable about the works of Plato, Aristotle’s ethics, Kant’s ethics, and existentialism. However, I’m willing to discuss any philosophical topic as applied to any subject matter. If you’re in need of any of the services mentioned above, please don’t hesitate to email me at: kingadams@gmail.com (prices are negotiable).

Thanks for visiting my webpage. Like Socrates, I don’t profess to have wisdom, and I’m constantly searching for truth. Therefore, if you have any suggestions or insight on any of my articles, please comment and show me my error.

Please visit my sponsors so that I may pursue my career as a full-time philosopher.

Major Cause of the Economic Crisis: Commemorative Coins

2009-09-06T10:59:00.000-07:00

Leading economists say that several events led to the current economic crisis—the bursting of the housing bubble, the high default rate on subprime and adjustable rate mortgages, over-leveraging, mortgage backed securities, and predatory lending. However, no economist has mentioned the major cause of the crisis: commemorative coins. People have been saving commemorative coins as collectibles instead of spending them. This money could be used to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Therefore, to get out of this economic crisis the U.S. Mint needs to stop making commemorative coins.

The most popular commemorative coin is the state quarters. The 50 state quarter program began in 1999 and finished in 2008. Every ten weeks the Mint would issue a new state quarter in the order the states entered the union. During these ten years, the Mint did not produce any of the regular eagle quarters[1]. The program has been highly successful. Allen Rosenberg, the president of coinland.com said, “[t]he sheer number of people collecting (these coins) is phenomenal. There certainly is no lack of participants -- there is an enormous amount of interest.” [2]. Furthermore, the Mint only produced 800 million of each of the first three quarters, but in 2001, the Mint produced 1.1 to 1.6 billion of each quarter. The increase in production was due to the rising popularity of the quarters.

There are no statistics available on the number of people collecting these quarters, but from the above facts it is obvious that there are thousands if not millions of people collecting state quarters. I’m one of those people. I have two complete sets of state quarters. These two sets are worth twenty-five dollars. Even though I’m unemployed and don’t have a lot of money, I will not part with my collection, because I worked hard to find each of the quarters and I’m hoping it will be worth more money in the future as a collectible. Now, let’s assume that one out of every ten people is like me and has collected two sets of the quarters (a fair assumption considering the popularity of the quarters). There are approximately 305,529,237 people in the United States. If one out every ten people is hoarding twenty-five dollars in state quarters then there are $763,823,092 not in circulation. 763 million might not seem like a lot, but when consumer spending is low—like it is now—the state quarters program certainly exacerbates the problem.

So far this essay has only dealt with the state quarters program’s effect on the economic crisis. However, the state quarters program is only one of many commemorative coins. The U.S. Mint is or plans on issuing the following commemorative coins: 2010 Quarters Program, D.C. and U.S. Territories Quarters Program, First Spouse Gold coins, Native American Gold coins, Lincoln one cent coins, Presidential Gold coins, and more[3]. All of these programs cause thousands of people to keep their money instead of spending it. Every time someone receives a James K. Polk gold coin, he will not spend it, because the U.S. Mint has tricked him into thinking it’s a collectible that is part of a set.

When will it stop? The Mint needs to stop issuing commemorative coins, especially coins that require someone to get a complete set. The Mint should only issue plain, ugly coins and bills. That way no one will be tempted to collect the coins, and instead will spend the money and jumpstart this economy.

[1]
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/50sq_program/index.cfm?action=factsheet
[2] http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.actionsiteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14392
[3]
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/

True Fan Series: Introduction

2009-08-23T23:19:00.000-07:00

In order for a person to consider himself or herself a true fan of a particular team the following requirements must be met:

   (1) the person must not leave a game of the particular team early - exception

   (2) the person must wear at least one article of clothing that shows support for the particular team while attending a game - exceptions

   (3) the person must own at least one object in his or her home that is affiliated with the particular team, and that object must be clearly visible to guests.

   (4) the person must attend at least one game of the particular team during the regular season (subject to exceptions)

   (5) the particular team must be the geographically closest team to the person (subject to exceptions)

   (6) the person must satisfy all of these requirements for the minimum of five seasons, and one of those seasons must have been a losing season for the particular team.

   (7) the person may not be a true fan of two teams that compete in the same sport

The drafter of this article reserves the right to amend, add, or revoke any of the above requirements. A person who satisfies all of the above requirements obtains the title of “TRUE FAN OF [insert team name here].” However, if a revocation, addition, or amendment of the requirements causes a person to cease to satisfy the requirements then that person will be stripped of his or her true fan title—these requirements apply retroactively.

Drafter’s Comments:

A common debate amongst sports fan involves the issue of whether someone is a true fan. This article hopes to guide the debate to consider the above requirements when assessing someone’s true fan status. Please click on the links to view the requirements in more detail (details in progress). Also, this is a work in progress so please offer suggestions in the comment section on how I can make the article more accurately reflect the true fan (i.e., tell me what requirements need to be added, revoked, or amended).

Significance of Kierkegaard’s Pseudonym Johannes de Silentio

2009-08-21T11:27:00.000-07:00

Soren Kierkegaard first published Fear and Trembling with the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio. It is fair to assume that Kierkegaard had an unstated reason for choosing this name. This essay will explore three possible reasons why Kierkegaard used the name Johannes de Silentio—the name literally means John of Silence. The reasons are: (1) faith can’t be understood verbally, (2) the person with faith exiles himself from society and must remain silent, and (3) it is an allusion to a Grimm’s fairytale titled The Faithful Servant. The third reason is most likely why Kierkegaard used the name Johannes de Silentio.

The first reason is that faith is the central topic of Fear and Trembling, and faith is subjective and unexplainable. Thus, a person with faith must remain silent on with regard to his or her faith. Using the example of Abraham and Isaac, Johannes explains that there is nothing that Abraham can say to him that would convince him that sacrificing Isaac is was the correct thing to do. The reason that Abraham can’t tell Sarah and Isaac that God commanded him to sacrifice his son is because Abraham is a knight of faith opposed to a knight of infinite resignation.

The knight of infinite resignation concentrates on one thing and then resigns that he or she will never have it. In the case of Abraham and Isaac, if Abraham was a knight of infinite resignation he would understand that it is impossible for him to have his son after he sacrifices him. Infinite resignation is prior to faith and is essential to faith; the difference is that a knight of faith goes one step further. Johannes explains this step, “he admits the impossibility and at the same time believes the absurd” (i). Abraham admits that it is impossible to live with his son again, but he still believes that it will happen. This move of faith can’t be rationally explained, because Abraham has no reason to believe that Isaac will live again with him, but yet he hopes that it will happen. The absurdity of the apparent paradox of Abraham (he believes that he will have a great lineage through his son, and at the same time believes his son will be killed) is what can’t be explained. Because the move of faith can’t be explained Abraham must remain silent, because how can you express something that is absurd and not understandable? Johannes writes this about the step of faith: “the next step dumbfounds me, my brain reels,” “all I can learn from him is to be amazed,” and “faith begins precisely where thinking leaves off” (i). The faith of Abraham isn’t understandable to anyone else except Abraham, and can’t be shared through any form of communication.

Because Abraham can’t explain his faith to anyone, this alienates him from society, and this alienation from society is another reason why Kierkegaard might have used the name Johannes de Silentio. If my best friend came up to me and told me that God told him to sacrifice his son, I would think that he was crazy. And if I thought he was serious about it, I would feel morally obligated to stop him from performing this atrocity. By sacrificing his son he is going against the laws of the land, and by being willing to do this he alienates himself from society.

The third reason is that the name Johannes de Silentio is an allusion to the Grimm’s fairytale The Faithful Servant. E. Hirsch first considered this allusion in “Teologik Tidsskrift for den danske Folkekirke” and it makes sense when we consider the events of the story. The faithful servant—Johannes--was turned to stone because he warned the king of three dangers. The king then felt terrible about what happened to Johannes and vowed he would do anything to return him back to normal. Afterwards the king had two sons, and Johannes—as a stone figure--told the king that if he would cut off the heads of his sons, and sprinkle their blood on the stone, then Johannes would return back to normal. The king does this. After Johannes becomes normal, he then brings the king’s sons back to life. The story ends with the queen exclaiming, “God be praised, he is delivered, and we have our little sons again also.” (ii)

Both Abraham and the king face a similar dilemma. They both give up what they value most in their lives--their children--and do so, hoping that they will have their sons again. Again, this is the theme of absurdity. Although they know that it is impossible for them to have their sons after their deaths, they still hope that they will spend the rest of their lives with them. The tale speaks about how the king was terrified about having to kill his sons. This is also a notion that is discussed in Fear and Trembling. The reason the king is terrified is that he is going to do something that appears to be unethical, and he is tempted to do what he considers unethical. The ethical or universal thing to do in the context of the king and Abraham is to not kill their sons. The religious thing to do is to obey God’s command and kill their sons hoping that they will be brought back to life.

Kierkegaard most likely used the name Johannes de Silentio as an allusion to the fairytale. Kierkegaard might have had all three reasons in mind when he used the pseudonym. However, the similarities between the two stories are so great that other two reasons should only be considered as secondary. Kierkegaard most likely was aware of the Brothers Grimm’s story. The story was first published in German in 1812 as a collection of fairytales and was extremely popular. Kierkegaard was born in Denmark in 1813, and knew German. Furthermore, the parallels between Abraham and the story The Faithful Servant are too close for it just to be a coincidence that Kierkegaard just happened to use the name Johannes de Silentio—the main character of the story.
_______________________________________________________
(i) Kierkegaard, Soren. Fear and Trembling. London: Penguin Books, 2003
(ii) Grimm, Jacob Ludwig Karl and Wilhelm Karl. “Faithful John”
< http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/grimm/g86h/chapter6.html>

A Brief Discussion of the Second Noble Truth of Buddhism

2009-08-20T13:05:00.000-07:00

In Guatama Buddha’s first discourse after obtaining enlightenment, he revealed the Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble Truths remain one of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths are: (1) life is suffering; (2) suffering arises from cravings or desires; (3) enlightenment comes from abandoning these cravings; and (4) the way to alleviate suffering is through the Noble Eightfold Path (i). This essay only focuses on the second truth. Buddha said this about the second noble truth: “This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.”(ii) There are two possible reasons why cravings are the origin of suffering.

Reason 1: Our fundamental desires are never satisfied

The first reason why desires cause suffering is that we all have fundamental desires which we can never satisfy. We value certain objects, and desire to obtain these objects. Not only do we desire to obtain these objects, but we desire to keep these objects once we obtain them. For example, I value my health. When I’m in good health I have a desire to remain in good health. Although not all of us desire good health, it is hard for someone to escape these fundamental desires, because we all desire something—like wealth, pleasure, continued existence, family, etc. . . . But why can we never satisfy our fundamental desires? The reason is because we live in a world of impermanence, and because of this it becomes impossible to maintain the object of our desire. The world around us is always in flux. Things are always changing. Heraclitus talks about the constant flux of the world when he said, “you cannot step twice in the same river” (iii) As mentioned above, we must constantly keep the objects of our desires--our fundamental desires need permanence in order to be satisfied. We desire permanence in a world which is impermanent. Our desires for permanence can’t be satisfied, and therefore we suffer. I desire to be healthy but I don’t want to be healthy for a day or a week, I want to always be healthy. The problem is that this desire can never be satisfied because my health will inevitably change. The health that I obtain will only be short lived. I will get older, my body will deteriorate, and I will lose the good health that I desire. With my desire for health unsatisfied I will begin to suffer.

The problem with this first reason—our fundamental desires are never satisfied—is that it is possible to satisfy all of your desires at a given point in time. It is not hard to imagine that for one mille-second all of my desires can be satisfied. This is true regardless of the fact that the world is impermanent. For example, right now as I’m typing this article I’m in good health. I have a desire, but it doesn’t lead to suffering, because it is satisfied. Therefore, the proposition that desires lead to suffering must not be true if the reason is because of the existence of unsatisfied desires, because it is possible to satisfy all of your desires.

One critical response to this argument is to point out the fact that was mentioned above—the world is impermanent, and the satisfaction of desires is fleeting. It is true that I’m in good health now, but I could get a cold next month. But this has no bearing on the present. Furthermore, it is not obvious that the satisfaction of my desires will be fleeting. I could curb my desires, such that I only have few fundamental desires. At this point it would not be hard to keep satisfying these few desires for an extended period of time. Even if the satisfaction of all my desires is only temporary, the proposition that desires necessarily leads to suffering cannot be true, because when all your desires are satisfied—even for a second—desires do not necessarily lead to suffering. The proposition must be changed to: “desires may lead to suffering”, which is a rather weak proposition and is not saying much.

A second critical response is that knowing that your health is impermanent is what causes you to suffer. Because you know that you are going to get old and sick in the future your desire for health always remains unsatisfied. However, do I really know that I’m going to get sick when I get older? In the future maybe medicine will reach the point that I can maintain my health for as long as I desire. I don’t know whether I will lose the object of my desire, because the future isn’t clear to me. Furthermore, this response does not capture human nature. Most people aren’t preoccupied with the future and are more concerned with the present satisfaction of desires.

A third critical response is that maybe one fundamental desire could be satisfied for a moment, but there is always an endless cycle of desires, thus making it impossible to satisfy all your desires. This rises from the Buddhist idea of Samsara--the endless cycle of desires. We constantly desire hundreds of different objects at any given time. Right now I desire to finish this article, I desire the Dodgers to beat the Cardinals tonight, I desire my family to be safe, etc. . . . Samsara is not only the notion that we have hundreds of desires. It is the idea that whenever you satisfy a desire, a new desire is created. For example, even if I satisfy my desire of finishing this article, a new desire will spring up—that people read the article and click on the advertisements. It seems that no matter how many desires we satisfy there will always be desires left unsatisfied. We don’t have x amount of desires that we can get rid of methodically. It is more like the Hydra that as soon as you chop off one of its heads a new one replaces it.

The problem with the third critical response is that it does not necessarily follow that satisfaction of desire x will lead to desiring y. The causal connection between one desire being fulfilled and another one springing up isn’t clear. I don’t see how buying a new car leads to the new desire for a house, sunglasses, or anything else. The endless cycle of desires isn’t as apparent as it seems. If satisfaction of desires doesn’t lead to new desires then all your desires can be satisfied at some moment in time. This might not be very probable, but the possibility weakens the claim that there are always unsatisfied desires.

Another point is that maybe we have all these unsatisfied desires but there is a sense of fulfillment when we accomplish one of them. If I desire to win a Nobel Prize isn’t there some sense of satisfaction--non-suffering--when I obtain my goal? Even if it is just for a fleeting moment, there is still a sense in which I’m not suffering at that exact moment. If I still have other desires which aren’t being satisfied at the time of receiving my prize, I probably wouldn’t be conscious of them. If I’m not conscious of them how could they cause me suffering? The brain can only actively think about a limited amount of things. Upon receiving the prize, I’m sure I wouldn’t be thinking about what I’m going to do next, but rather my thoughts would be joyful from satisfying my desire of receiving the Nobel Prize.

Because of the reasons discussed above, the second noble truth doesn’t seem to be saying that desires lead to suffering because there are always unsatisfied desires. There has to be more than this, because it isn’t necessary that unsatisfied desires lead to suffering.

Reason 2: The desire of objects manifests an incomplete life of suffering

The second reason why desires are the origin of suffering is because if we desire an object then we’re incomplete, and an incomplete life is one of suffering. When we desire an object we draw a distinction between ourselves and the object of desire. We cannot desire to obtain something we already have. If I desire a new laptop then I draw a distinction between myself without the laptop and myself with the laptop. And I desire it because I believe that my life would be better with the laptop. If my life would be better with the laptop then I acknowledge that my life right now without the laptop is lacking, mainly a new laptop. By desiring something, I acknowledge there is something wrong with me, I’m incomplete, and this is what causes me suffering. It is the desires themselves which cause the suffering because if we have desires then we are incomplete and an incomplete life is one of suffering (iv).

The premise that we only desire things that will make our life better isn’t self evident, and must be explained. If this premise were to be false the argument would fail because if some desires aren’t for our betterment then maybe we don’t desires things because we’re incomplete. At first glance, some of my desires seem not to be for my betterment. I knowingly desire things which are actually injurious. I desire to stay up late and play my Xbox 360 when I know it will hurt my chances of waking up on time for work the next morning. I also drink too much Diet Coke which I know will hurt my body. Aren’t these desires ones which aren’t for my betterment and therefore they cause no sense of incompleteness?

Plato writes in Protagoras “No intelligent man believes that anybody ever willingly errs or willingly does base and evil deeds.” (v) The idea is that no one can knowingly do something which isn’t for his or her betterment. The reason I drink Diet Coke is because I don’t think it is that detrimental to my health. Every time I drink one I think to myself, “one more won’t hurt me” or “the pleasure that I get from the Coke is worth the pain that it may cause me.” If I really believed that drinking Diet Coke was truly injurious to my self-betterment then I wouldn’t drink it. For example, if I knew for a fact that drinking Diet Coke was going to cause my teeth to fall out then I wouldn’t drink it. I would not desire to drink it because I would see that for my betterment I shouldn’t do so. Every desire which I act on is for my best interest, therefore I must realize that I’m incomplete or else I wouldn’t desire the object in the first place.
A counter argument is that there could be a perfect being that still had desires—in other words, desires aren’t a sign of imperfection. There could be a being that had desires, was totally perfect, and therefore doesn’t suffer. It seems that Zeus could still be a perfect being and desire for Hercules to defeat the Hydra. Zeus doesn’t desire this because his life is lacking without the defeat of the Hydra, but because as a perfect being he has compassion for Hercules.
However, it is impossible for Zeus to desire anything if he is perfect and totally complete. If a being has reached a state of completeness what more could be desired? If Zeus desires a world without the Hydra then he is suffering. He acknowledges that he is incomplete with the Hydra in the world. If he is complete then he would be indifferent to whether Hercules defeats the Hydra or not. There is also the sense that if the Hydra were to defeat Hercules then the Hydra would continue to exist in the world, and Zeus would suffer from having the unfulfilled desire of the Hydra’s death.

Desires are the origin of suffering, not because it is impossible to satisfy all of our desires. But rather because if you desire something, then you acknowledge that you’re incomplete. This realization of incompleteness, coupled with your desire to
be perfect, is what leads to suffering.

i) De Bary. William Theodore. The Buddhist Tradition in India, China, and Japan. New York: Vintage Books, 1972.
ii) Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (SN 56.11), trans. Bodhi (2000), pp. 1843-47.
iii) Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. Socrates to Sartre a History of Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982.
iv)Richardson, Ira. “Oriental Philosophy: Buddhism.” UCLA, Los Angeles. 12 July, 2005.
v) Plato. The Republic and Other Works. Garden City: International Collectors Library, 1978.

Philosophy & Religion

2009-08-20T13:03:00.000-07:00

Church of the Second Coming
Significance of Kierkegaard’s Pseudonym Johannes de Silentio
A Brief Discussion of the Second Noble Truth of Buddhism

A True Fan Does Not Leave a Game Early

2009-08-05T12:13:00.000-07:00

I. Introduction

I was at the first game of the 1988 World Series. I was only 8 years-old, and it is one of the few events I can remember from my childhood with any clarity. With two outs in the bottom of the ninth, Kirk Gibson hit a two-run homerun to win the game. I have since watched the miraculous homerun on television. As the ball is flying into the right field bleachers, you can see cars exiting the parking lot. Why would anyone leave this game early? If those people knew what they would be missing by leaving early, do you think they would have left? Because of moments like this, a true fan will never leave the game early.

II. Temptation

I acknowledge that it is tempting to leave a game early to beat traffic. When I was a child, I really didn’t mind that it took two hours to get out of the parking lot—I was asleep. But for anyone awake it is a horrible experience. There are thousands of cars in one parking lot. Some cars form a line, waiting their turn to exit. While others bypass the line and try to squeeze out the exit. This creates a bottleneck, where only one car can exit the parking lot every minute or so. The experience is painful.

Another temptation facing a sports fan is humiliation. During the second inning it is normal to tell a fan wearing the opposing team’s jersey that his team is going to get destroyed. It is also normal for that fan to tell you during the fifth inning when his team is up by six runs that you were horribly wrong. It is hard to listen to this fan’s gloating for the rest of the game.

Other things that tempt a fan to leave early include: 1) boredom, it is not entertaining watching a lopsided game; 2) weather, it is not very comfortable sitting outside in inclement weather; 3) outside activities, maybe something more exciting than a one-sided game is happening; 4) anguish, it is hard to watch the team you adore get slaughtered; and 5) outside responsibilities, you might have a ton of work or chores to do.

III. A True Fan Never Leaves Early

Although it is tempting to leave a game early, a true fan will stay until the game is over, because the mere possibility that his team could win makes all the reasons for leaving early irrelevant. A reasonable person would leave the game early, but a true sports fan isn’t reasonable. An example will help illustrate this point.

Mark claims to be a true fan of the San Diego Padres and regularly attends their home games. During one of these games, the Padres are losing 7 to 1. By the time the bottom of the ninth rolls around the chances that the Padres will win the game are very slim. In the month of May for the 2008 season, there were 7,728 half-innings. Out of those 7,728 half-innings, a team scored six or more runs only 40 times. The Padres only have a 0.517% chance of tying the game. And they only have a 0.194% (15/7,728) chance of scoring 7 or more runs and winning the game[1]. Considering the low probability of a Padres’ comeback and all the temptations listed above, if Mark is a reasonable person he will leave the game early. But a true fan isn’t a reasonable person.

A true fan does not think that his team only has a 0.5% chance of tying the game, a true sports fan believes that his team will win the game. And once you believe your team is going to win, there are few things which will seem more enticing than witnessing a great comeback. If those Dodgers’ fans that left early back in 1988 believed the Dodgers were going to come back in the ninth inning then they would never have left early; the reason they left early was because they doubted—a true fan does not doubt. I will gladly wait in the parking lot for two hours after witnessing a great win. I will gladly take the verbal abuse of a fan from the opposing team knowing full well that I will get the last laugh. And I will gladly brave inclement weather, sit through a boring game, and push off my chores knowing how the game will end. The reason why anyone would leave a game early is because they don’t believe his team is going to win.

IV. Other Sports

My conclusion that a true fan doesn’t leave a game early because he thinks that his team is always going to win is strongest in the context of baseball. There are no time constraints, so as long as your team has one remaining out, there is still a chance they can comeback. In other sports like football, basketball, and hockey there might not be enough time to mount a comeback. For example, Doug is a huge fan of the Seattle Seahawks, and is watching them play the Arizona Cardinals. The Seahawks are losing 32 to 10 and there is only forty-five seconds left. The Cardinals have the ball and are taking a knee, and the Seahawks have no time-outs. Would it be alright for Doug to leave the game at this moment and still be a true Seahawks’ fan?

First, I would argue that there still is a chance the Seahawks could win, so Doug should think that his team is going to comeback. There could be a fumbled snap, followed by a touchdown, onside kick, touchdown, onside kick, touchdown, onside kick, and game-winning field goal. However, this is ever unlikely especially because there is only forty-five seconds left. So even if you know your team is going to lose are there other reasons to not leave a game early? Yes.

One reason is that you might be able to witness a milestone. One of the players might break a record. Another reason is that there might be a phenomenal play. A third reason is you should support your players by staying until the end. Although, it may seem like professional athletes play only for the money and don’t care either way if the fans stay or leave, it makes a difference. Don’t you work harder if you receive the praise of your boss? The players will try harder for the remainder of the game, and will also remember your support for the remainder of the season. The final reason is that when you buy a ticket you commit to be at the stadium for the duration of the game, and if you say you are going to do something you should do it.

VI. Exceptions

Like every rule there are always exceptions. But there is only one exception to the rule that a true fan doesn’t leave a game early: medical emergency. You can only leave a game early if you, a family member, or friend have a medical emergency.

I believe it is self-evident why it is warranted for a true fan to leave a game early if there is a medical emergency, but there might be some hard-core fans who think a true fan should be watching the game as he takes his last breath. There are some things that are more important than sports and life and death is one of them. It would be absurd for someone to lose his true fan status if he left a game early because he had a stroke. Furthermore, what good is a dead fan? This is a true exception because it defeats the rationale behind the rule. If your team is down by three in the ninth and you believe that they are going to come back, but all of a sudden you have a heart attack, you’re still going to leave the game.

Medical emergency is the only exception. I feel I must address possible exceptions and elaborate on why they don’t justify leaving a game early.

Natural Disaster: The occurrence of a natural disaster is not sufficient to justify leaving a game early, because in the event of a natural disaster the game will not be played. If the natural disaster isn’t severe enough to suspend play, then a true fan isn’t justified in leaving early. If the players are playing in inclement weather then you can watch them from the stands.

Funeral, weddings, business meetings, etc. . .: Having to attend a funeral, wedding, or any other event isn’t sufficient justification to leave a game early, because you shouldn’t go to a game knowing you cannot commit yourself for the duration. If you have other commitments then give your tickets to someone who will stay the whole time. A true fan doesn’t have to go to every game, but for the games that he does go to, he must stay the whole time.

Significant Others: You cannot leave a game early just because your girlfriend/spouse or friends want to. I acknowledge that you need to spend time with your significant other; you need to let them know that he or she is special. But you also need let to them know that you don’t leave a game early. If he or she cannot respect your deeply held belief, then he or she is not worthy of your love. True, if you’re going to every game and spending no time with them then I can see why he or she might be upset. However, if you spend adequate time with your significant other, then a reasonable person will not be upset if you want to stay for the entire game.

Kids: Just because you have a child that cannot stay for the whole game, that doesn’t mean you can leave early. I’m guilty of this, but I have repented. As a true fan, it is your duty to teach your children what it means to be a true fan. What type of lesson are you teaching your kids if you leave early? I understand that children cry, moan, complain, and have early bed times, but kids can handle more than you think. If they can watch television for 2 and ½ hours, they can watch a baseball game.

VI. Watching the Game

What about when a fan watches a game on the television? Can a true fan turn the television off if their team is losing? It depends. You may turn off the game if you have something important to do, but you may not turn off the game only because your team is losing. I’m not going to tell you what an important activity is; I will leave that up to you to define. However, I will give you some examples of what isn’t an important activity: watching another sports game, watching a movie or television show, reading a book for pleasure, or writing an essay no one will read. This rule is self-policing. When you turn off the game, you know why you’re doing so. And if you’re doing it only because you think your team is going to lose, then you’re not a true fan.

VII. Rain Delay

A lot of readers have asked me what should a true fan do in the event of a rain delay? I want to say that as a bright-line rule that a true fan doesn’t leave because of a rain delay, but it is not that simple. You figure the average length of a baseball game is two hours and forty-five minutes, and you have to add another hour for parking and leaving the stadium. Therefore, when you go to a baseball game you’re committing yourself for about 3 hours and forty-five minutes. Therefore, in the event of a rain delay, you cannot leave before three hours and forty-five minutes have elapsed. If the game has started after you waited that long, you may leave the stadium. However, if the game has started and then goes over the 3 hour 45 minute mark, then you may leave the game only if you have something important to do—see discussion of watching a game for definition of important activity.

VIII. Team is Winning

Most of my discussion has dealt with a person leaving a game early because his team is losing, but I must make it perfectly clear that the maxim “a true fan doesn’t leave a game early” equally applies when your team is winning. I don’t want to spend too much time on this, because most of the reasons for not leaving a game early when your team is losing apply here as well—like witnessing a milestone, seeing a phenomenal play, supporting your team, and commitment to stay to the end. However, there is one little nuance that needs to be addressed.

Above I argued that you don’t leave a game early because you should always think your team is going to come back, but that doesn’t apply here. A fan leaves a game early when his team is winning, because he knows his team is going to win. Not only does he think his team is going to win, but he thinks they’re going to win by a huge margin, because if the game was going to be close the fan would stay to watch the theatrics. The problem here is one of overconfidence, whereas when a team is losing the problem is one of lack faith in the team. Although a true fan needs to be confident that his team will win, he should also be a realist. He should be aware that there is a small chance that the other team might be able to comeback. I’m not advocating that a true fan should ever think there is a possibility that his team could lose, rather a fan should acknowledge that there is a possibility that the opposing team might be able to make it a close game or that the opposing team might retake the lead, but your team will comeback in grand fashion and win.

IX. Repentance

If you have left a game early you can regain your status as a true fan. It is important to note that just because you don’t leave games early it doesn’t necessarily make you a true fan. There are other requirements that have to be met to become a true fan, and not leaving early is only one of them. If you cease to satisfy one of these requirements then you cease to be a true fan. Therefore, if you have left a game early then you cease to be a fan, but like I mentioned, you can repent.

The steps to repentance are: 1) attend four games that your team is playing; 2) don’t leave any of the games early; and 3) your team must be losing by a certain margin in at least one of the games. The losing margins are: a) baseball: 3 runs, b) football: 13 points, c) basketball: 11 points, d) hockey: 2 goals, and e) soccer: 1 goal. For all other sports I will let you decide what an adequate losing margin is. If you are fortunate to be a fan of a team that doesn’t seem to ever lose, you will probably have to go to more than four games to satisfy the third requirement. Also, if you live more than one-hundred miles from your team’s home stadium, you only have to go to two games instead of four, but requirement three still applies.

X. Conclusion

A true fan will never leave a game early except in the case of a medical emergency, because no matter how unlikely it is that his team will comeback, a true fan always believes they will.

Prior Adams' Note (August 23, 2009): Just because you do not leave a game early does not necessarily mean that you're a true fan. Not leaving a game early is one of many requirements that a person must satisfy to obtain the title of "true fan." Please see my post True Fan Series: Introduction for a list of all the requirements.

[1] I’m assuming the month of May for the 2008 season is indicative of the season average. For your interest: the chances of scoring 4 or more runs is 2.251% (174/7728), 5 or more is 0.9446% (73/7728), six or more is 0.517% (40/7728), 7 or more is 0.194% (15/7728), 8 or more is 0.0388% (3/7728), and no team scored nine or more runs.

The Admissibility of Parol Evidence to Satisfy the Statute of Frauds in California after Sterling v. Taylor

2009-08-05T11:53:00.000-07:00

April 10, 2008

I. INTRODUCTION

The statute of frauds requires contracts for the sale of real property to be in writing.[i] In California, the courts will consider extrinsic evidence to clarify the terms of a contract.[ii] Before 2007, the California Supreme Court had never made clear whether extrinsic evidence could ever be admissible to satisfy the statute of frauds.[iii] In some cases the California Supreme Court held that allowing oral extrinsic evidence would frustrate the purpose of the statue of frauds requiring the whole agreement to be in writing.[iv] In other cases the court held that excluding extrinsic evidence would make it too easy for parties to get out of deals, which later turn out to be bad, by using the statute of frauds as a defense.[v] The California Supreme Court remained unclear until 2007, when the court held in Sterling v. Taylor, that extrinsic evidence can be used to satisfy the statute of frauds, but the extrinsic evidence “must be sufficient to demonstrate with reasonable certainty the terms to which the parties agreed to be bound.”[vi]

This article will first briefly summarize the statute of frauds and parol evidence rule in California. Then it will explore some of the conflicting case law in California. Next, the article will give an account of the facts of Sterling and briefly describe the reasoning of the trial court and court of appeal. The article will then explain the reasons the majority in Sterling allowed parol evidence, and held the evidence in Sterling did not satisfy the reasonable certainty standard of the statute of frauds.[vii] It will then discuss the reasoning of the dissent, which held that the California Supreme Court should have permitted the trier of fact to decide whose interpretation of the memorandum was correct.

The article will then continue with a detailed analysis of the two conflicting policy considerations which might have contributed to the court’s holding. On one hand, the court must consider a sharp dealing party who wishes to introduce oral evidence fraudulently. On the other hand, the court must be leery of parties using the statute of frauds to void a contract due to a clerical error. The article will conclude, considering these two views, that the court reached a good compromise, and the dissent’s view would have liberalized the parol evidence rule to the point of making the statute of frauds almost obsolete. The article will end with possible questions the courts will have to grapple with after its decision in Sterling.

II. THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS AND PAROL EVIDENCE RULE IN CALIFORNIA

A. Statute of Frauds

California Civil Code § 1624 provides that certain “contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party’s agent:. . .”[viii] The sale of real property is a contract subject to the statute of frauds.[ix] In order to satisfy the statute of frauds a writing must state “with reasonable certainty the essential terms of the unperformed promises in the contract.”[x] The essential terms of a memorandum for the sale of real property are: “the seller, the buyer, the price to be paid, the time and manner of payment, and the property to be transferred.”[xi]

The primary purpose of the statute of frauds is evidentiary; “to prevent enforcement through fraud or perjury of contracts never in fact made.” [xii] The memorandum is not the contract, but is only evidence of its terms; the oral agreement is the contract.[xiii] Hence, two parties’ prior oral agreement may have been invalid under the statute of frauds, but a subsequent memorandum affirming the agreement can satisfy the statute of frauds.[xiv] Also, the memorandum may consist of one or more writings.[xv]

B. The Parol Evidence Rule

The traditional parol evidence rule in California provided that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to interpret the terms of a written, fully integrated contract.[xvi] California Civil Code § 1625 embodies this idea, “The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.”[xvii]

In 1968, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Traynor, the California Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the parol evidence rule when it held extrinsic evidence is admissible “to prove a meaning in which the language of the instrument is reasonably susceptible.”[xviii] This narrowing of the parol evidence rule has been codified at California Civil Code § 1856.[xix] As a result, in most cases today, parol evidence is admissible, not merely to show that a contract is ambiguous, but also to clarify an ambiguity.[xx]

C. Conflict in California Case Law Interpreting the Effect of the Parol Evidence Rule on the Statute of Frauds.

Since the statute of frauds requires the essential terms of certain contracts to be in writing, and the parol evidence rules allows extrinsic evidence to clarify ambiguous terms, the question arises; may essential terms required by the statute of frauds ever be established by parol evidence? [xxi] Or in other words, does the statute of frauds forbid the use of oral evidence to satisfy its writing requirement? In answering this question the California courts have been divided. The court acknowledges this in Sterling when it states, “both sides of this debate find support in California case law, sometimes in the same opinion.”[xxii] Outlined below are some of the conflicting cases.

In Preble v. Abrahams, decided in 1891, the California Supreme Court held, “the description of the property in the written agreement is so entirely uncertain as to render the instrument inoperative and void, unless we can go beyond the face of it to ascertain its meaning.”[xxiii] The court considered extrinsic evidence that another buyer had purchased a 40-acre tract from the plaintiff.[xxiv] The court concluded the defendant must have agreed to purchase the remainder of plaintiff’s property, and therefore the memorandum was certain enough to satisfy the statute of frauds.[xxv] “The true rule is, that the situation of the parties and the surrounding circumstances, when the contract was made, can be shown by parol evidence . . . and if then the subject-matter is identified, and terms appear reasonably certain, it is enough.”[xxvi]

Another case allowing parol evidence to satisfy the statute of frauds was Brewer v. Horst Lachmund Co..[xxvii] In 1900, the California Supreme Court had to decide whether two telegrams written in arcane short hand satisfied the statute of frauds.[xxviii] The defendant argued the memorandum was insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.[xxix] The court disagreed and held, “the court is permitted to interpret the memorandum by the light all of the circumstances under which it was made . . .”[xxx] Considering the circumstances surrounding the telegrams, the court concluded that it was “plainly seen” who the parties of the contract were, the subject of the contract, and the terms of the contract; the telegrams were therefore sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.[xxxi]

Despite the decisions of cases like Preble and Brewer, conflicting cases appear in California case law. In 1920, the California Supreme Court held in Zellner v. Wassman, “The preeminent qualification of a memorandum under the statute of frauds is ‘that it must contain the essential terms of the contract, expressed with such a degree of certainty that it may be understood without recourse to parol evidence to show the intention of the parties.’”[xxxii]

In 1963, the California Supreme Court was again faced with the question of whether parol evidence can be used to satisfy the statute of frauds.[xxxiii] In Franklin v. Hansen, the plaintiff contended a telegram and subsequent writings were sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds for the conveyance of real property, but the court disagreed, because the letter failed to mention the price of commission.[xxxiv] The plaintiff was not allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence to satisfy the statute of frauds because the court held, “The sufficiency of a writing to satisfy the statute of frauds cannot be established by evidence which is extrinsic to the writing itself.[xxxv]
It is obvious from just this handful of cases that the California case law was unsettled as to whether parol evidence is admissible to satisfy the statute of frauds. The issue remained unsettled until 2007, when the Supreme Court of California in Sterling v. Taylor admitted parol evidence in order to satisfy the statute of frauds and disapproved all prior case law holding otherwise.[xxxvi]

III. STERLING v. TAYLOR

A. Facts

In January 2000, defendant Lawrence Taylor contacted plaintiff Donald T. Sterling and proposed that Sterling purchase various real estate properties.[xxxvii] Taylor is a general partner at Santa Monica Collection Partnership (SMC).[xxxviii] SMC owns numerous real estate properties including the three apartment buildings which were the subject of the lawsuit.[xxxix] Sterling is an attorney, real estate mogul, and owner of the Los Angeles Clippers.[xl] Both Sterling and Taylor are experienced real estate investors.[xli]

On March 13, 2000, Sterling and Taylor met at Sterling’s house in Malibu to discuss the sale of real estate properties including the SMC properties.[xlii] At this meeting Sterling handwrote a one page document entitled “Contract for Sale of Real Property.”[xliii] The document involved the sale of five properties; the case only concerned three of those properties (SMC properties).[xliv] The SMC properties were identified in the document as “808 4th St.”, “843 4th St.”, and “1251 4th St.”[xlv] The price of the three properties was “approx. 10.468 X gross income estimated income 1,600,000 Price $16,750.00[xlvi].”[xlvii] Sterling dated and initialed the document but the line for the seller’s signature was left blank.[xlviii] Sterling asserts that the absence of Taylor’s signature was inadvertent,[xlix] while Taylor asserts that he did not sign because he needed the approval of the general partners of SMC.[l] On March 14, 2000, at a Clippers’ game,[li] Sterling’s accountant gave Taylor five checks, three of which were in the amount of $500,000 as a deposit for the SMC properties.[lii]

On March 15, 2000, Sterling delivered a type written letter to Taylor, which stated, “This letter will confirm our contract of sale of the above properties.”[liii] The letter mentioned the SMC properties by street address only and discussed the deposits of the prior day.[liv] The price term was not mentioned.[lv] Both Sterling and Taylor signed the letter; Taylor beneath the handwritten words, “Agreed, Accepted, & Approved.”[lvi] Taylor contends he signed the letter only as an acknowledgment of receiving the deposits. [lvii] The parties disagree about whether the March 13 handwritten document was attached to the March 15 typed letter when signed. Sterling contends the March 13 document was attached;[lviii] Taylor insists the March 13 document was not attached and Sterling is trying to attach two unrelated documents to make a contract.[lix]

On April 4, 2000, Taylor sent Sterling formal escrow instructions, which identified the properties by their full legal descriptions and the price term totaling $16,750,000 for the SMC properties.[lx] Sterling refused to sign and on April 28, 2000, told Taylor the purchase price was unacceptable.[lxi] Sterling had examined the rent rolls[lxii] of the SMC properties and determined the actual annual rental income was $1,375,404, not $1,600,000 as written on the March 13 document.[lxiii] Sterling interpreted the language of the March 13 letter to set out a formula to determine the price of the SMC properties based on gross rental income;[lxiv] therefore, Sterling wanted the lower price of $14,404,841[lxv], based on the formula of 10.468 x 1,375,404.[lxvi]

On May 23, 2000, Taylor returned the uncashed deposits checks to Sterling,[lxvii] because Taylor contended the agreed upon price was $16,750,000, and not $14,404,841 based on a formula.[lxviii] The parties conducted further negotiations in 2000 and 2001, but no agreement could be reached.[lxix] Around March 22, 2001, Sterling sued Taylor and SMC for breach of contract to sell the SMC properties for $14,404,841 and sought specific performance.[lxx] Defendants worked for summary judgment, claiming the alleged contract violated the statute of frauds.[lxxi]

B. Superior Court, Los Angeles Count

The motion for summary judgment was heard by Judge Cole in Beverly Hills Superior Court on July 26, 2002.[lxxiii] The trial court granted summary judgment, because the price term was too uncertain to satisfy the statute of fraud,[lxxiv] concluding, “It just stretches the concept of the word ‘contract’ in the context of a purchase of a multi-million dollar piece of property to consider the documents before the court as a contract.”[lxxv] It is important to note that, this was a motion for summary judgment, since all facts were viewed in a light most favorable to Sterling; therefore the court assumed the March 13 writing was attached to the March 15 letter making one memorandum signed by defendant Taylor.[lxxvi]

C. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5

On October 29, 2002 Sterling appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Second Appellate District.[lxxvii] On November 26, 2003, in an opinion delivered by Justice Mosk, the court unanimously reversed the lower court’s decision.[lxxviii] First, the court held, “there is no logical reason why parol evidence should not be admissible here to satisfy the statute of frauds.”[lxxix] The court then considered Sterling’s testimony in support of a price term based on a formula taking into consideration the actual annual gross rental income, rather than the estimated annual income in the memorandum.[lxxx] Based on this evidence, the court concluded, “even though an essential term in a memorandum is ambiguous and requires evidence to clarify any ambiguities, the writings are not insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.”[lxxxi]
D. Supreme Court of California, Majority

On March 1, 2007, in an opinion delivered by Justice Corrigan, a majority of five justices reversed the judgment of the court of appeal, and reinstated the trial court judgment.[lxxxii] The court first considered the issue of the use of extrinsic evidence to satisfy the statute of frauds, and held that the “statute of frauds does not preclude the admission of evidence in any form.”[lxxxiii] Nevertheless, after considering extrinsic evidence, the court held there is not enough evidence to satisfy the statute of frauds pertaining to the price term sought by Sterling.[lxxxiv]

In ruling that extrinsic evidence is admissible to satisfy the statute of frauds the court relied on the fact that the statute of frauds serves only an evidentiary purpose and does not establish the terms of an agreement.[lxxxv] The primary purpose of the statute of frauds is to prevent the enforcement of a contract never in fact made.[lxxxvi] The court then quotes extensively both Corbin on Contracts and Williston on Contracts[lxxxvii]in support of their holding that, “ if a memorandum includes the essential terms of the parties’ agreement, but the meaning of those terms is unclear, the memorandum is sufficient under the statute of frauds if extrinsic evidence clarifies the terms with reasonable certainty and the evidence as a whole demonstrates that the parties intended to be bound.”[lxxxviii]

In its opinion, the court acknowledged other cases have conflicted with their holding,[lxxxix] but stated the law of California unequivocally: “We disapprove the statements of California cases barring consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine the sufficiency of a memorandum under the statute of frauds.”[xc]

Applying the rule of law to the present facts the court concluded, first, that considering the surrounding circumstances, the seller and buyer and the properties were “sufficiently identified.”[xci] Sterling and Taylor displayed no uncertainty to those terms before the dispute over price arose.[xcii] Although the properties were only mentioned by street address, the court may consider extrinsic evidence to locate a property described in imprecise terms.[xciii]
Second, the extrinsic evidence and the documents considered together are insufficient to establish Sterling’s price term with reasonable certainty.[xciv] The price term in the memorandum was ambiguous because of the use of the word “approx.” before the multiplier.[xcv] The court then considered Sterling’s testimony that the word “approx.” was meant to modify the total price, thus the writing was merely to serve as a formula for calculating the sale price.[xcvi] Because Sterling’s interpretation is disputed by Taylor, is based solely on his own testimony, and the price he seeks is not reflected in the memorandum, there was insufficient evidence to establish price with the reasonable certainty required by the statute of frauds.[xcvii]
E. Supreme Court of California, Dissent

Justice Kennard authored the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Werdegar.[xcviii] The dissent agreed with the majority’s opinion that extrinsic evidence should be admissible to satisfy the statute of frauds.[xcix] However, they disagreed with the majority’s view that the court should resolve the conflict in evidence; this should be done by the trier of fact.[c]

The language in the memorandum is ambiguous, because it is reasonably susceptible to one or more meanings.[ci] Sterling’s view is that “10.468 X gross income estimated 1,600,000” was a formula to determine the price of the SMC properties depending on the actual gross annual rental income.[cii] Taylor’s view is that “Price $16,750,000” is the actual purchase price agreed upon by the parties.[ciii] Which view should be accepted “is a determination to be made by the trier of fact” after considering extrinsic evidence.[civ] The dissent claims the majority’s opinion adopts Taylor’s point of view instead of letting the trier of fact resolve the conflict.[cv] The court weighed the evidence and concluded the agreed upon price was $16,750,00 and Sterling is trying to alter the writing.[cvi] But Sterling’s interpretation is just as likely as Taylor’s, and the trier of fact should resolve this ambiguity, not the court.[cvii]

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Two Public Policy Considerations

There seem to be two public policy considerations at work in the court’s opinion. On one hand, it is good public policy that sellers or buyers cannot use the statute of frauds as a technicality to get out of a deal, which in hindsight was poor. On the other hand, it is also good public policy not to allow a buyer or seller to use extrinsic to fraudulently alter the agreement into something other than what the parties intended at the time of contract. Two amicus briefs were filed in Sterling, one in favor of respondent, and the other in favor of petitioner.[cviii] Both of these briefs concluded, although differently, that one of the two public policy issues should have more weight and govern the rule of law in California.

1. Public policy consideration of avoiding contractual obligations

The California Association of Realtors (CAR) filed an amicus brief arguing parol evidence should be permitted to satisfy the statute of frauds, because ruling otherwise would allow either the buyer or seller to avoid a contractual obligation.[cix] If a buyer or seller finds a better deal, due to changing property prices, they can use the statute of frauds as a defense so they can void their prior obligation and pursue the new deal. CAR is comprised of over 150,000 real estate brokers, and one of its purposes is “promoting and establishing reasonable legal standards to govern the transfer of real estate.”[cx]

CAR’s brief goes on to argue that the buying and selling of real estate is a very complicated procedure involving a lot of paperwork.[cxi] Many real estate transactions involve standard forms, some of which can be eight pages long.[cxii] Due to the complex nature of real estate transactions there may be ambiguities in material terms.[cxiii] This is not only the case where buyers and sellers enter into an agreement without the aid of standard forms, but also where standard forms are used.[cxiv] If parol evidence is not considered, a simple clerical error or uncertainty may be enough to void a million dollar contract.[cxv] In most cases however, a clerical error or uncertainty can be made clear by looking at extrinsic evidence, like the “parties actions in pursuing an agreement” and the “pages upon pages of written material” outside of the memorandum.”[cxvi]

There are many situations CAR argues, where simply looking at extrinsic evidence can clear up any disputes over terms on the face of the memorandum.[cxvii] One such example may involve the price term in a standard offer of sale form.[cxviii] In a standard form used by CAR, the price term appears in two different places.[cxix] Sometimes a party may not transcribe all the numbers correctly from one spot to another.[cxx] Afterwards, an escrow holder will send out a confirming letter, which does not need to be signed, stating the agreed upon price.[cxxi] The buyer will then seek a loan for the amount outlined in the letter.[cxxii] If one of the parties is dissatisfied with the deal he or she could claim the standard form does not satisfy the statute of frauds because of the discrepancy in the two price terms.[cxxiii] However, if extrinsic evidence is admissible like the confirming letter, loan sought, and subsequent conduct, it will be easy to tell which one of the price terms the parties agreed upon, or whether they did not agree on a price term.[cxxiv]

2. Public policy consideration of avoiding fraud

The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) filed a short amicus brief that argued allowing parol evidence to satisfy the statute of frauds “opens the way for dishonest dealing and sharp real estate practice.”[cxxv] AAGLA is the oldest and largest association of apartment owners in California, and is comprised of some 25,000 members.[cxxvi] The amicus brief is only four pages long and states in conclusory fashion that the court of appeal’s decision will lead to “dishonest dealing.”[cxxvii] However, this conclusion is not apparent, so we must analyze it a little more.

The purpose of the statute of frauds is to avoid fraud, and it does this by requiring certain aspects of the contract to be in writing.[cxxviii] For example, a seller of property could own two houses, one which is worth more than the other, and both are located on Lincoln Street. In a memorandum for the sale of one of the houses, the seller writes, “I sell the property located on Lincoln Street, Santa Monica for $755,000.” Then both parties sign the memorandum. At the time it was understood by both parties that the house for sale was the lesser valued one of the two on Lincoln Street. After carefully reading the memorandum, the buyer realizes he or she might be able to purchase the higher valued price home on Lincoln Street at steal of $750,000. If extrinsic evidence is admissible, the buyer could fraudulently testify that the parties agreed upon the higher valued property on Lincoln Street when they signed the memorandum. Furthermore, if the buyer is of even more dubious character, they might even write the higher priced property in a forged letter confirming the deal. If the court does not consider extrinsic evidence then this forged letter will not be admissible, and therefore will have to chance of tricky a judge or jury.

B. Good Compromise Between the two Competing Public Policy Issues

The California Supreme Court’s holding in Sterling is a good compromise between the two conflicting public policy considerations outlined above. If the court accepted Taylor’s view that parol evidence should not be admissible at all to satisfy the statue of frauds, then the statute of frauds would too easily allow parties to avoid contractual obligations based on clerical errors or inadvertent mistakes in formalizing the agreement in writing. On the other hand, if the court accepted Sterling’s and the dissent’s view of permitting parol evidence and then allowing the jury to decide whose interpretation the parties agreed upon, the purpose of the statute of frauds would then be frustrated.

The rest of this section will focus on how the court’s holding reaches a middle ground between the two competing public policies.

1. The written memorandum must include the essential terms

The court held parol evidence is admissible, but first the memorandum must include the essential terms, and the meaning of those terms must be unclear.[cxxix] The court did not spend much time questioning whether the memorandum agreement between Sterling and Taylor included the essential terms. This was probably because the standard the court had in mind in analyzing this question was a very low one. Basically, did the memorandum have any term written for the seller, buyer, price, time and manner of payment, and property? If so, then it satisfies the first part of the court’s holding.

The ease of satisfying the court’s requirement of having the essential terms in writing before they will consider parol evidence is apparent in the facts of Sterling. The property location in the memorandum was devoid of any city or state; “843 4th St.” for example. However, the court still held the memorandum included the essential term of property to be acquired.[cxxx]

The next step in the analysis is to decide whether any term is unclear. In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., the California Supreme Court said a term is unclear when it is, “fairly susceptible” to two interpretations.[cxxxi] Since a judge interprets a contract with their “own linguistic education and experience,” the court will consider extrinsic evidence so it can be in the same “situation which the parties found themselves at the time of contracting.”[cxxxii] After considering the extrinsic evidence the judge will decide if the contract is “fairly susceptible of either one of the two interpretations contended for.”[cxxxiii]

In Sterling, the court considered extrinsic evidence after determining the price term was ambiguous.[cxxxiv] The term was ambiguous because of the word “approx” before the multiplier, the total price left off a zero, and the uncertainty about what “gross income” means.[cxxxv] The court’s opinion did not spend much time in determining that the price term was ambiguous before looking at extrinsic evidence. This was probably because the memorandum itself contained an ambiguity on its face. In Sterling, the court never dealt with the question of whether extrinsic evidence is admissible when on the face of memorandum the term is not ambiguous.

Proponents of the idea that parol evidence should never be admissible to satisfy the statute of frauds, even if the writing includes all the essential terms but is unclear, would disagree with the court’s holding.[cxxxvi] They contend the two requirements are too easily satisfied and increase the chance of fraud by allowing extrinsic evidence. It is true that the court did weaken the strength of the statute of frauds, especially when it effectively overruled prior cases, which did not allow parol evidence to clarify essential terms.[cxxxvii] However, Sterling’s and CAR’s arguments are persuasive that such a strict rule of no admissibility would facilitate buyers and sellers escaping their contractual obligations.

However, Taylor’s and the AAGLA’s arguments are also persuasive. So how is the court going to protect buyers and sellers from fraudulent dealing? The second part of the court’s holding is what provides adequate protection.

2. Statute of frauds requires reasonable certainty that the parties agreed on the term

After finding that the memorandum includes all the essential terms, but at least one of those terms is unclear, the court will then consider parol evidence, and ask whether the extrinsic evidence “clarifies the terms with reasonable certainty and the evidence as a whole demonstrates that the parties intended to be bound.” This is where the statute of frauds still has some teeth.

In considering all the extrinsic evidence in Sterling, the court held, “the price term in the memorandum, considered together with the extrinsic evidence of the contemplated price, leave a degree of doubt that the statute of frauds does not tolerate.”[cxxxviii] The court focused on the fact that the only extrinsic evidence in support of Sterling’s interpretation of a formula based price term, was his own testimony.[cxxxix] This requirement of “reasonable certainty” is enough to preserve the purpose of the statute of frauds to “prevent enforcement through fraud or perjury of contracts never in fact made.”[cxl]

For the sake of argument, assume Taylor and Sterling never in fact agreed on a formula based price term, and Sterling through fraud is trying to enforce his interpretation of the memorandum. This may or may have not been the case. Sterling did have a huge incentive to try to buy the SMC properties at $14,404,841 instead of $16,750,000, this being a difference of $2,345,159. Furthermore, between the signing of the memorandum in March, 2000, and the filing of the complaint in March, 2001, real estate prices had increased, and at that point it would have been considered a steal if Sterling could acquire the property at $14,404,841.[cxli]
In this scenario Taylor would be prevented from fraud because in order for the memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds, the court needed at least more extrinsic evidence than Sterling’s own testimony to collaborate his interpretation. Taylor thus avoided a long trial trying to show his interpretation of the memorandum was correct, because of one fraudulent claim.
Also, this requirement of “reasonable certainty” will not allow people to avoid their contractual obligations through a mere clerical error in drafting agreement. For example, the memorandum in Sterling only referred to the properties by street, and omitting the city and state. This error would be considered a mere inadvertent clerical error, and is most likely the result of the informal drafting process the parties used. The court considered extrinsic evidence, and was able to easily conclude the properties were located in Santa Monica, because SMC only owns properties in Santa Monica, and the purchase agreement contained the full legal descriptions, which were not disputed.[cxlii] Here, Taylor was not able to use the statute of frauds to avoid a contractual obligation due to an inadvertent clerical error.

The majority’s view seems to find a good middle ground, while the dissent’s view would liberalize the parol evidence rule to the point where the statute of frauds is almost non-existent. The dissent would rather have the rule of law be: once there is an ambiguity in the memorandum, the trier of fact should resolve the conflict in the evidence.[cxliii] In the dissent, it is hard to see where the statute of frauds has any relevance, since Judge Kennard does not even mention that the essential terms must be included in a written memorandum, but rather starts her analysis from the point of ambiguous terms.[cxliv] The dissent accuses the majority of weighing the evidence and deciding that Taylor’s interpretation of the memorandum is the correct one.[cxlv]

The dissent is correct when it states there is conflicting extrinsic evidence, but it does not accurately capture what the majority was doing its opinion. The court’s holding is not that Taylor’s interpretation of the memorandum is in the fact the correct one, but rather that the evidence in support of Sterling’s interpretation is insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds with reasonable certainty.[cxlvi] It would be a totally different story if the court was being asked to decide which price term the parties agreed upon. Taylor is not seeking to force Sterling to buy the SMC properties at the higher price; he merely wants to be avoid being forced to sell at the lower one. Taylor is not asking the court to find that his price term is the correct one, merely to hold that statement there of the price term to satisfy the statute of frauds.

The dissent also fails to consider, “it is a question of law whether a memorandum, considered in light of the circumstances surrounding its making, complies with the statute of frauds.”[cxlvii] The question of whether the memorandum was reasonably certain to satisfy the statute of frauds is a question of law to be decided by the judge, not the trier of fact. Since this case was a hearing on summary judgment, if the majority had upheld the court of appeal, the case would have had to go to trial, where a trier of fact would decide whose interpretation the parties agreed upon. The dissent would rather skip the intermediate step of deciding whether the statute of frauds has been satisfied, and go straight to a trier of fact to decide between the conflicting interpretations. Besides wasting valuable judicial resources by having a trial to determine every ambiguous term, the dissent’s approach gets rid of the only requirement (reasonable certainty) the statute of frauds imposes on parties. Once it goes to trial, the trier of fact will only be deciding whose interpretation is more likely than not. Parties would be able to side step the statute of frauds, by merely claiming the memorandum contains ambiguous terms. Although reasonable people disagree as to whether the statute of frauds is still needed[cxlviii], as long as it is on the books, parties should not be able to avoid it so easily.

C. The Effect of the Court’s Holding on Future Cases

Although the court’s holding did strike a good compromise between the two conflicting public policies, it is not perfect. The court will still have to resolve specific questions concerning its holding.

1. What memorandum would fail to satisfy the requirement of essential terms?

As previously mentioned, the memorandum in Sterling clearly contains the essential terms; the concern was whether it was reasonably certain the parties agreed upon those essential terms. In its holding, the majority did not articulate what facts would fail to meet this requirement. It would seem fairly obvious that if a memorandum did not mention price or property location at all, it would fail this requirement. However, how far will the court go in determining whether the memorandum includes essential terms?

What if the memorandum did not say, “843 4th street,” as in Sterling, but rather, “4th street,” or “843”? What it only had the number “8,” or just said “United States”? Would the court conclude the memorandum included the essential term of property location and then consider parol evidence to clarify the term? In regards to price terms, what if the memorandum stated, “price: C”, or “price: $”? The memorandum does include something for price although not numbers. What if the parties wrote, “price term: TBD”. Most people would construe this as not satisfying the essential terms requirement for price, because the parties were going to determine the price later and therefore was not included in the memorandum at the time. Would it make a difference if one of the parties could bring in extrinsic evidence that they orally agreed upon a price later or that they buyer and seller had a code way of communicating where each letter equals its corresponding number in the alphabet?[cxlix]

2. How much evidence is needed to demonstrate with reasonable certainty the parties agreed to be bound under the statute of frauds?

Unlike the requirement of the essential terms being in the memorandum, the court does give guidance for future cases to determine how much evidence is required to satisfy the statute of frauds with reasonable certainty.[cl] If the only evidence in support of a party’s interpretation is their own testimony, then this will be insufficient.[cli] In dicta, the court suggests what evidence would have been sufficient.[clii] “Had Taylor testified that the parties meant to leave the price open to determination based on a rental income figure that was yet to be determined, this would be a different case.”[cliii] The testimony of Taylor corroborating Sterling’s story would have provided enough evidence to be reasonably certain for the statute of frauds. But how often is a defendant, on a contested issue like this, going to testify in favor of the plaintiff? If they were going to do this then they would not be in court in the first place.
The court does not define what it means by “reasonable certainty,” and like other legal standards,[cliv] it will have to be fleshed out by subsequent cases. “Reasonable certainty” does seem like a heightened standard. Presumably it means something more than “more likely than not,” and less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Besides Taylor testifying in favor of Sterling, what other extrinsic evidence would have satisfied the statute of frauds? Consider the following pieces of evidence, and determine whether they would satisfy the “reasonable certainty” requirement of the statute of frauds, (assume all pieces of evidence are admissible):
a) Sterling introduces testimony from his accountant, who testifies Sterling told him the price was based on a formula. b) Sterling introduces in evidence a letter written by Taylor, which was sent with the rent rolls, and states, “here are the rent rolls you requested. These will allow us to figure out the actual price of the SMC properties.” c) Sterling introduces the same evidence as above, but Taylor introduces evidence of letter written by Sterling which reads, “I’m writing to confirm the sale of the SMC properties for $16,750,000.”

V. CONCLUSION

One of the main purposes of contract law is help increase economic efficiency.[clv] If parties can easily avoid contractual obligations by resorting to a strict statute of frauds, parties will be hesitant to enter into contracts, because they know the other party will find a way to back out of the deal. On the other hand if parol evidence too easily satisfies the statute of frauds, then parties will be less inclined to enter into contracts because of fear of being subject to a fraudulent contractual duty never bargained for in the original contract, and also because fear of being hauled into court to dismiss a fraudulent claim. Either situation leads to a decrease in economic efficiency. However, the court’s holding in Sterling finds a middle ground and allows parties to enter into contracts knowing that the other side will not be able to avoid a contractual obligation due to an inadvertent error, and they will not be subject to a fraudulently claimed obligation.

___________________________________________________________________
[i] Cal. Civ. Code § 1624 (West 2008)
[ii] Cal. Civ. Code § 1625 (West 2008)
[iii] Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757, 765 (2007).
[iv] See Ellis v. Klaff, 96 Cal.App.2d 471 (1950); Franklin v. Hansen, 59 Cal.2d 570 (1963); Zellner v. Wassman, 184 Cal. 80.
[v] See Preble v. Abrahams, 88 Cal. 245, 249-50 (1891); Brewer v. Horst Lachmund Co., 127 Cal. 643 (1900).
[vi] Sterling, 40 Cal.4th at 761.
[vii] Id.
[viii] Cal. Civ. Code § 1624 (West 2008)
[ix] Cal. Civ. Code § 1624(a)(3) (West 2008)
[x] Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 131 (2007).
[xi] King v. Stanley, 32 Cal.2d. 584, 589 (1948).
[xii] Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 131 cmt. a (2007).
[xiii] B.E. Witkin, Summary of California Law, 1 Contracts § 350, 397 (10th ed. 2005).
[xiv] Id.
[xv] Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 132 (2007).
[xvi] Olivia Karlin & Louis Karlin, The California Parol Evidence Rule, 21 Sw.U.L.Rev. 1361, 1364-65 (1992).
[xvii] Cal. Civ. Code § 1625 (West 2008)
[xviii] Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., Inc., 69 Cal.2d 33, 37 (1968).
[xix] Cal. Civ. Code § 1856 (West 2008)
[xx] Olivia Karlin & Louis Karlin, The California Parol Evidence Rule, 21 Sw.U.L.Rev. 1361, 1366 (1992), See also B.E. Witkin, California Evidence, 2 Docu Evid § 76 (4th ed. 2000), Testator’s Declarations of intent excluded in resolving patent ambiguity, 14 STNLR 409 (1962).
[xxi] Brief for Petitioners at iv, Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757 (2007)(No. S121676)
[xxii] Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757, 765 (2007).
[xxiii] 88 Cal. 245, 249-50 (1891).
[xxiv] Id. at 250.
[xxv] Id.
[xxvi] Id. at 250-51.
[xxvii] 127 Cal. 643 (1900).
[xxviii] Id. at 646.
[xxix] Id.
[xxx] Id.
[xxxi] Id.
[xxxii] 184 Cal. 80, 85-86.
[xxxiii] Franklin v. Hansen, 59 Cal.2d 570 (1963).
[xxxiv] Id. at 572,577.
[xxxv] Id. at 573-74.
[xxxvi] Sterling, 40 Cal.4th at 770.
[xxxvii] Id. at 762.
[xxxviii] Id.
[xxxix] Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931, 840 (2003), overruled by Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757, 765 (2007).
[xl] Brief for Respondent at 3, Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931 (2003)(No. B162961); Donald Sterling (2008), available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling.
[xli] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 762.
[xlii] Brief for Respondent at 3, Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931 (2003)(No. B162961).
[xliii] Id., Sterling, 113 Cal.App.4th at 840 (the document may be rendered in typescript as follows:
“Seller Larry Taylor, & Christina Development, and Buyer Donald T. Sterling, Trustee of Sterling Family Trust, agree to the following terms and conditions:

D.P.

3,000,000

“1. Fox Plaza
3,000,000
(cash to loan)

Price
$31,000,000

“2. Barrington Bldg.
2,000,000 DP

Price
$12,700,000
6,000,000 DP

“3. 808 4th St.
)
approx. 10.468 x gross income

“4. 843 4th St.
}
estimated income 1,600,000
Price
$ 16,750.00

“5. 1251 14th St.
)
escrow 30 days. Brentwood scrow [sic]

“Cash to loan.
“Contract to be completed within 30 days.

“Date 3/13/2000
Seller

Buyer
DTS
”

[xliv] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 763.
[xlv] Id.
[xlvi] The price term on the March 13 document is only 16,750.00. Sterling admits “he accidently left off one zero” and the price was meant to be $16,750,000. Id. at 764.
[xlvii] Id. 10.468 x 1,600,000 equals 16,748,800 not 16,750,000. Sterling contends this is because they rounded.
[xlviii] Id.
[xlix] Appelants’ Opening Brief at 7, Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931(2003)(No. B162961).
[l] Brief for Respondent at 4 n.1, Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931 (2003)(No. B162961).
[li] Surprisingly the Clippers beat the Nuggets 110 to 106. CLIPPERS SCHEDULE 1999-01, available at http://www.nba.com/clippers/schedule/results_1999.html.
[lii] Brief for Respondent at 4 , Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931 (2003)(No. B162961).
[liii] Sterling, 113 Cal.App.4th at 841. The letter in its entirety read:
“This letter will confirm our contract of sale of the above buildings.
“As we discussed I am leaving for a week. In order to expedite our sale pursuant to our contract, I agreed to give you the following deposits:

“1. 3025 Barrington Ave.
$
2,000,000.00
“2. 808 4th Street
500,000.00
“3. 843 4th Street
500,000.00
“4. 1251 14th Street
500,000.00
“5. 10000 Santa Monica Blvd.
1,200,000.00
.

“These Deposits Were Given To You To Enable You To Have Three Million Dollars To Deposit 1/2 Of The Down Payment Of The Fox Property. I Agreed To Pay The Other 1/2 So We Would Have A Total Of 6 Million, The Difference Between The $25,000,000 Loan And The Price Of $31,000,000.
“I am also enclosing the 1.2 million deposit and down payment for the purchase of 10000 Santa Monica Boulevard which represents the same amount you invested in this property.
“This letter will also confirm our agreement that the depreciation allocation and tax benefits will be given to me no later than April 1, 2000, since I now have equitable tittle [sic]. Of course I will be fully responsible for all recapture liabilities.
“Darren is prepared to wire the balance of the funds needed if you will call my office. If you have any questions or your understanding is different from mine, please contact me immediately.
“Warm Personal Regards,
“Don” Id.

[liv] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 763.
[lv] Id.
[lvi] Id.
[lvii] Brief for Respondent at 6 fn.2 , Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931 (2003)(No. B162961).
[lviii] Appelants’ Opening Brief at 8, Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931(2003)(No. B162961).
[lix] Brief for Respondent at 6 fn.2 , Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931 (2003)(No. B162961).
[lx] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 763.
[lxi] Id.
[lxii] The rent roll is, “A list of tenants, generally with the lease rent and expiration date for each.” Business Dictionary: Rent Roll, available at http://www.answers.com/topic/rent-roll-1?cat=biz-fin.
[lxiii] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 763.
[lxiv] Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th at 842.
[lxv] The product of 1,375,404 multiplied by 10.468 is 14,397,729, not 14,404,841. In a declaration filed by the trial court, Sterling explained that he made a mistake. Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 763 fn. 2.
[lxvi] Id.
[lxvii] Id. at 764.
[lxviii] Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931at 841 (2003
[lxix] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 764.
[lxx] Id.
[lxxi] Id.
[lxxii] Pictures taken by author, March 10, 2008.
[lxxiii] Brief for Respondent at 9, Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931 (2003)(No. B162961).
[lxxiv] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 764.
[lxxv] Brief for Respondent at 9, Sterling v. Taylor, 113 Cal.App.4th 931 (2003)(No. B162961).
[lxxvi] Sterling, 113 Cal.App.4th at 843.
[lxxvii] Brief for Petitioners at 5, Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757 (2007)(No. S121676)
[lxxviii] Sterling, 113 Cal.App.4th at 840, 853.
[lxxix] Id. at 846.
[lxxx] Id. at 851.
[lxxxi] Id.
[lxxxii] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 776.
[lxxxiii] Id. at 765.
[lxxxiv] Id.
[lxxxv] Id. at 766.
[lxxxvi] Id.
[lxxxvii] Id. at 770-71.
[lxxxviii] Id.
[lxxxix] Id. at 769.
[xc] Id. at 770. The Court thus overturned, at least in part; Franklin v. Hansen, 59 Cal.2d 570; Zellner v. Wassman, 184 Cal. 80; Seymour v. Oelrichs, 156 Cal. 782; Craig v. Zelia; 137 Cal. 105; Burge v. Krug, 160 Cal.App.2d 201; Ellis v. Klaff 96 Cal.App.2d 471.
[xci] Id. at 772, 773 n.16
[xcii] Id. at 772.
[xciii] Id. at 773, see Beverage v. Canton Mining Co., 43 Cal.2d 769, 774-75 (1955).
[xciv] Id. at 775.
[xcv] Id. at 774.
[xcvi] Id.
[xcvii] Id at 775.
[xcviii] Id. at 776 (Kennard, J. dissenting).
[xcix] Id.
[c] Id.
[ci] Id. at 777. See Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 384, 391 (2006).
[cii] Id. at 778.
[ciii] Id.
[civ] Id.
[cv] Id.
[cvi] Id.
[cvii] Id. at 778-79.
[cviii] Brief of Amici Curiae California Association of Realtors, Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757 (2007)(No. S121676); Brief of Amici Curiae Apartment Assoication of Greater Los Angeles, Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757 (2007)(No. S121676)
[cix] Brief of Amici Curiae California Association of Realtors at 6-7, Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757 (2007)(No. S121676);
[cx] Id. at 2. Although I don’t wish to imply motive, it might be important to remember that real estate agents make their money on a commission basis. If the deal is voided by the statute of frauds they will not receive their commission, so there might be an incentive on the part of CAR to argue for allowing parol evidence hoping more contracts will be deemed enforceable.
[cxi] Id. at 3.
[cxii] Id. at 5.
[cxiii] Id. at 7.
[cxiv] Id. at 6.
[cxv] Id.
[cxvi] Id.
[cxvii] See Id.
[cxviii] Id. at 8.
[cxix] Id.
[cxx] Id. at 9.
[cxxi] Id.
[cxxii] Id.
[cxxiii] Id.
[cxxiv] Id.
[cxxv] Brief of Amici Curiae Apartment Assoication of Greater Los Angeles at 3, Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757 (2007)(No. S121676)
[cxxvi] Id.
[cxxvii] Id.
[cxxviii] See Preble v. Abrahams, 88 Cal. 245, 249-50 (1891); Brewer v. Horst Lachmund Co., 127 Cal. 643 (1900).
[cxxix] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 771.
[cxxx] Id. at 773.
[cxxxi] 69 Cal.2d at 40.
[cxxxii] Id.
[cxxxiii] Id.
[cxxxiv] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 773-74.
[cxxxv] Id.
[cxxxvi] See Brief for Petitioners at 5, Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757 (2007)(No. S121676); Brief of Amici Curiae Apartment Assoication of Greater Los Angeles at 3, Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757 (2007)(No. S121676)
[cxxxvii] See Gordon v. Perkins, 108 Cal.App. 336 (1930). (“The writing must disclose a description which is itself definite and certain.”)
[cxxxviii] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 775-76.
[cxxxix] Id. at 775.
[cxl] Id.
[cxli] Ten Year Home Appreciation for MajorMetros, available at http://www.housingbubblebust.com/OFHEO/NYear/10Year.html#California
[cxlii] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 773.
[cxliii] Id. at 776 (Kennard, J. dissenting).
[cxliv] This might be because she assumes that the essential terms must be in the statute of frauds, and starts her discussion only from the point she disagrees with the majority.
[cxlv] Id. at 778.
[cxlvi] Id. at 775.
[cxlvii] Phillippe v. Shapell Industries, 43 Cal.3d 1247, 1258 (1987).
[cxlviii] See B.E. Witkin, Summary of California Law, 1 Contracts § 342 (10th ed. 2005), 68 Harv. L. Rev 383, Sunset-Sternau Food Co. v. Bonzi, 60 C.2d 834, 838 (1964).
[cxlix] Like, A=1, B=2, C=3, and so forth.
[cl] Sterling, 40 Cal. 4th at 772-76.
[cli] Id. at 775.
[clii] Id. at 774.
[cliii] Id.
[cliv] See criminal standard of guilt, reasonable person standard, civil standard or guilt, due process, etc..
[clv] E. Allan Farnsworth, William F. Young, Carol Singer, Contracts Cases and Materials, (University Case book 2001 6th edition).

Legal Writings

2009-08-05T11:48:00.000-07:00

The Admissibility of Parol Evidence to Satisfy the Statute of Frauds in California after Sterling v. Taylor

Nonfiction

2009-08-05T11:37:00.000-07:00

Major Cause of the Economic Crisis: Commemorative Coins

TRUE FAN SERIES
True Fan Series: Introduction
A True Fan Does Not Leave a Game Early
A True Fan Wears Something to Support his Team While at a Game

Supermarket Miracle

2009-08-05T10:24:00.000-07:00

    I turned down the frozen food aisle to get waffles and then I saw a miracle. There was a man opening a freezer door, and in his cart were the exact seven items that were in my cart—a gallon of nonfat milk, a twelve pack of Diet Coke, Nature’s Pride Wheat Bread, Honey Bunches of Oats cereal, Chips Ahoy cookies, Ken’s Chunky Blue Cheese salad dressing, and Crest Toothpaste.
   I approached the man and asked, “Are you going to buy Eggo Blueberry Waffles?”
   “Yes, I love blueberry waffles” he said. “How did you know?”
   “Well, we have the exact same seven items in our shopping cart. And I was going to buy blueberry waffles too, so that makes eight items.” I said.
   “Wow, that’s pretty crazy.”
   “Yeah, I mean what are the chances?” I asked.
   “Probably pretty low,” he said.
   “Pretty low? Pretty low? You got to figure there are over 50,000 different products here,” I said. “And we picked the exact same eight, at the exact same time, at the exact same place. That sir, is a miracle”
   “Yeah, but you need to consider that our items are pretty common. I mean Diet Coke and milk are pretty popular.”
   “That’s true, but Chunky Blue Cheese salad dressing?”
   “Ok, it’s pretty crazy. Well. . . . it was nice to meet you, take care,” he said. He then picked up some blueberry waffles, put them in his shopping cart, and proceeded down the aisle.
   As he was leaving, I still couldn’t get over the fact that we had the exact same items in our cart. “Wait,” I said as I ran after the man. I caught up to him.
   Before I could say something he said, “I know this is a crazy coincidence, but I’m kind of in a hurry.”
   “I’m sorry to take your time, but I really think there is something behind this. Like maybe, we’re twins that were separated at birth, or maybe you’re like my alter ego or something.”
   “But we don’t look anything alike.” He was right. I’m six feet tall, have pale white skin, and blonde hair. He was about five feet ten, had tan skin, and black hair. But still, we didn’t look that dissimilar that you couldn’t rule out the possibility that we were fraternal twins.
   “Hmmmm . . . . . what’s your name?” I asked.
   “My name is Weston Merrick,” he said, “and yours?”
“Prior Adams, ok so we don’t have the same last names. Are you an orphan, did you know your parents, do you look like your family?”
   Weston looked at me puzzled. “I don’t know you, and you’re asking me all these personal questions. I’m sorry, but I have to go. It was nice to meet you Prior.”
   “I’m sorry for taking your time. I swear I’m not crazy; I’m just a normal guy. I just think there has to be a reason why we had the same items. Like, why did you buy the Nature’s Pride bread? Maybe that’s a sign that we need to start a homeless shelter and give out food to the needy.” I could tell he wanted to leave, and normally I don’t like to keep people engaged in a conversation unwillingly, but I knew there was something behind this.
   “I bought it because it was on sale.”
   “Yeah me too,” I said. Nature’s Pride bread usually costs $3.99 a loaf, but that week they were on sale for $1.99. “Crap! What about the Diet Coke? Why do you like Diet Coke?”
   “Hmmmm . . . . I guess it started in college. My professor for Politics and Strategy always drank a Diet Coke during lectures, and I started drinking after that,” he said.
    “No way,” I said, “I started drinking Diet Coke after one of my professors always drank it during lectures. Where did you go to school?”
   “I went to U.C. Santa Barbara,” he said.
   “Ohhhh . . . . I went to Berkeley. I guess we didn’t have the same professor. What about the Honey bunches of Oats?”
   “Look, like I said I’m in a hurry. Maybe there’s a connection. How about I give you my email, and you can let me know if you find anything out. Do you have some a pen and paper?”
   “Yeah, I have a pen,” I said. I grabbed a pen that I always keep clipped to my jean pocket. “I don’t have any paper.”
   “Here, let me write on your Honey Bunches of Oats box,” he said. I handed him the pen and the cereal box. He then wrote his email and gave me back the pen. “Let me know if you come up with anything.” He then turned around and headed toward the check-out stand.
   As he was leaving, and had his back towards me, I shouted, “I really think there is something at work.” Without turning around he lifted his right arm to let me know he heard me. I didn’t understand why Weston didn’t share my enthusiasm. I figured he gave me a fake email, or at best, the email he gives when he wants to avoid advertisements. But I still wanted to understand the meaning of this encounter, so I sent him an email outlining the reasons why I bought each item that day. About three weeks later I got this reply:

Re: Supermarket Miracle
To: kingadams@gmail.com
CC:

Prior Adams,

Thank you for emailing me. Sorry for my delayed response—I’ve been very busy with work. I read your detailed email and I think I’ve figured out the underlying meaning of having the same grocery items. You mentioned how you bought the Crest toothpaste after your dentist recommended that you switch brands. After reading that, I realized that I had not been to the dentist in over two years. I then called my dentist and scheduled an appointment. The dentist found out that I needed a root canal, and that I was lucky that I scheduled the appointment when I did, because I might have lost my tooth if I came in any later. Isn’t that crazy? Anyways, it was nice to meet you. Take care.

Thanks,
Weston Merrick

   After reading this email, I was so glad that I was persistent. I knew there was a reason why Weston and I had the exact items in our shopping carts, and it felt good to be vindicated.

Short Stories

2009-08-03T23:12:00.001-07:00

Supermarket Miracle -- a story about two men that have the exact same eight items in their shopping carts