Judge John Hodgman Episode 190: Pizza Parley


Meredith brings the case against her husband Jason. Years ago, they settled a fantasy football dispute with a "pizza truce". Jason would be allowed to choose Meredith's pizza toppings for as long as they were together. Is their contract still valid?

Thanks to Amy Franco for this week's case name!

San Francisco Bay area! See Judge John Hodgman Live! Judge Hodgman will return to mete out justice as part of SF Sketchfest on Friday, February 6th at Marines Memorial Theater.

Tickets available here

More information about the show and Sketchfest available here.

We need YOU to submit cases to be heard that evening! If you and another party
- reside in the SF Bay area, or will be able to attend the show on February 6
- have a legitimate beef, large or small

... write us with the details! Send it directly to hodgman@maximumfun.org or submit via our webform here.



Submitted by Meredith

Exhibit A

"Screen shots from our favorite pizza place's menu (I edited out the restaurant name, to prevent buzz marketing)."

Exhibit B

Right click to download: PDF containing pertinent emails.


Pino's Pizza is in Cleveland Circle

shame on all of you

"Debate" video

If anyone else was curious to hear the "debate" stuff again, here's the link that was played on the podcast. http://youtu.be/TPC0JPeZjQU?t=25m43s

This is seriously one of most terrible things I've ever heard, and it really makes me sad that people would live their lives thinking that is a valid means of persuading others. :(

From what I understand, they

From what I understand, they aren't really trying to "persuade" anyone, at least not in the usual sense. Debate of this kind is a game. You're trying to score as many points with the judges in a given time space, and the way people have determined the best way to maximize the number of points they can make is to speak crazy fast. Quantity of info thrown out is what matters, and since everyone looks like a crazy person anyway it doesn't matter.

It's kind of like competitive speed walking. It looks crazy to the average person, but within the confines of the game all that matters is being the fastest.

Impact of Rule Change

I would have to disagree with the esteemed Bailiff Jesse Thorn on the impact of the rule change. I contend that the impact is the opposite of what he suggested.

The teams were drafted with no knowledge of the rule in question. Therefore, all teams were on equal footing. The rule impacted them all equally. No one gained an unfair advantage. No harm, no foul.

Had the brother been aware of the rule, not told anyone else, and drafted accordingly, he would have gained an advantage due to the negligence of the commissioner. In that case, the boyfriend/husband would have been unfairly impacted and should be due some form of compensation.

Just my (extremely correct) opinion.

I think the issue is not that

I think the issue is not that the rule was exploited in an unfair or inconsistent way, but that the change means that the results of the first week were inconsistent with the results of subsequent weeks - and in this case, it is material because the changed rule would have impacted the outcome of the game and possibly the season (he missed the playoffs as a result of one loss).

While I agree that there would be a problem if someone had, in fact, knowingly gained an advantage, I am also extremely correct that it also a problem that someone unknowingly gained an advantage that was not available subsequently.

Because it was decided that the rule should not be in effect and it was reversed, those who were negatively impacted by the unfair rule deserve restitution - either in the form of re-valuation of the results of activity during the unfair period, or via an agreed upon settlement.

Pizza parley

The respected judge failed to recognize the law of equity, which seeks remedy to agreements that strike any reasonable person as extremely unjust. the distinction is termed at law vs. at equity. It's modern manifestations include family and estate law.

The judge failed to Ask the defendant ...but do you think your agreement was fair. when conceded to be unfair, then slightly moderately or extremely unfair? In honesty he will admit to an extremely good bet, won by plaintiffs love of family and failure to anticipate falling in love with you, which may prove to be her most serious act of negligence. No I only say that to frighten you, but only because this is reported to be you only area of striking unfairness.

I am saving your marriage, by removing an extreme inequity, which if known and resented, is potentially cancerous .

In exchange plaintiff must agree to forgive the extreme inequity as an aberration

My respects to His Honor and his honorable Bailiff

David Rosenberg Dsresq@gmail.com


Pizzaghetti is a real thing you can order at restaurants in Montreal.