Statue of Freud

 I recently instituted collection proceedings on behalf of a contractor that installed a swimming pool.

 In came a statement of defence that my client was not owed any money as its principal verbally guaranteed that he would take care not to cause damage to the adjacent patio and that he was in violation of this guarantee.

 I of course delivered a Reply pleading that there was no guarantee whatsoever in view of a clause specifically exonerating my client from such potential damage and I added that in any event, there could be no verbal guarantee.  I pleaded that the plaintiff "...relies on the provisions of the Statute of Frauds".

 At least that's what I dictated.

 The draft Reply which came out of my secretary's printer read, "The plaintiff pleads and relies on the provisions of the Statue of Freud".

 After the chuckles around the office subsided, it occurred to me that it could have been interesting had I not proof read the Reply and had it been delivered the way it was.  What would have happened had this action wandered into the twilight zone with its Freudian pleading and reached the trial stage?
 
 Following is an excerpt of the transcript of the great swimming pool trial:

 DEFENSE COUNSEL

And so Your Honour, I would ask that you find that indeed there was a guarantee not to cause the damage as proven and that the action be dismissed.

 PLAINTIFF COUNSEL

Your Honour, the statue.....

 COURT

Yes of course.  Mr. Wilson, how do you expect to get around the statue of Freud?

 WILSON

Well, you Honour, there was no warning.

 COURT

Of course there was.  The defendants testified that they saw the plaintiff take this large statue out of his truck and plant it smack next to the swimming pool.

 WILSON

But they didn't know who the statue represented.

 COURT

Come counsel.  It was a large bronze statue bearing the likeness of an elderly bearded gentleman wearing glasses.  Just take a look at it.  Mr. Registrar, please bring exhibit 4 a bit closer.  And watch your back this time.

 WILSON

Well it does look a bit like Sigmund Freud.

 COURT

A bit?  It sure doesn't look like Mother Teresa.

 WILSON

The beard is a bit short however.

 PLAINTIFF COUNSEL

My friend is conveniently forgetting about the pedestal Your Honour.  Sorry for interrupting.

 COURT

It's OK counsel.  What about the pedestal Mr. Wilson?  Mr. Registrar, bring exhibit 6 a bit closer too.  Please us the trolley sir...Your back again?

 WILSON

Alright Your Honour it does say "Sigmund Freud, 1856 -1939 on it.

 COURT

Is there any doubt then that this is a Statue of Freud, as pleaded?

 WILSON

There is no evidence that this writing was brought to the attention of the defendants.

 COURT

You're saying they didn't read the pedestal?

 WILSON

Uhm hmm. They totally ignored this monstrosity next to the pool, focusing instead on the broken patio.

 PLAINTIFF COUNSEL

Sorry for the interrupting again Your Honour but my learned friend is conveniently overlooking clause 12 on the back of the contract.

 COURT

Oh yes certainly.  Let's have a look at it.  Mr. Registrar, please bring the document... Oops, he's just thrown his back our again.  Do have a seat sir.  Thank you... Yes I see...It reads, "The purchaser acknowledges that the vendor may at his option install a Statue of Freud."

 PLAINTIFF COUNSEL

And as Your Honour will notice on the line next to clause 13....

 COURT

There appear the purchasers' initials.

 WILSON

Your Honour my learned fraud is interrupting my argument.

 COURT

Learned fraud?

 WILSON

I'm sorry, it was a Freudian slip.

 COURT

You're certain about that Mr. Wilson are you?

 WILSON

Definitely Freudian sir.

 COURT

The mother of all slips Mr. Wilson.

 I find on the evidence that the contract between the parties permitted the vendor to install a statue of Freud.  The plaintiff indeed in accordance with its right to do so delivered and installed a statue of that Viennese psychiatrist not clandestinely but in full view of the defendants.  I find that they knew quite well that it was a statue of Freud.  Amongst other things, the defendant Mrs. Marbles admitted to frequently saying to her husband, "Look out for Ziggy".

 Under the circumstances the defence of there being a verbal guarantee must fail and there shall be judgment accordingly for the plaintiff.  The defendants may have the statue back...Mr. Registrar?