Tea & Boilerplate

On this episode of Unwonk, we learn what intergalactic conflict has to to do with terminating a lease. And we talk to Felix Salmon, Senior Editor at Fusion, about the connection between a lemon ginger teabag and Alec Baldwin’s prized - and now un-prized - favorite painting. We also spend some time exploring the dark underbelly of the art world. 

Listen with the player below, subscribe in iTunes or Stitcher (links above), or with your favorite podcast app.





Please enjoy the links to additional information relating to the questions on this episode - for people new to our show, these quotes and links may not make much sense until you actually listen to the episode:

"Yeah, yeah, it's the standard resignation boilerplate. Go down to the second paragraph." - The Ghost of Waring Hudsucker, on his suicide note, in The Hudsucker Proxy

So began Mr. Baldwin’s love affair with the painting — an infatuation that has ended with Mr. Baldwin, who occupies a central role in New York’s cultural life, now pitted in a bitter dispute with two formidable players in the city’s rarefied world of art and money — Ms. Boone, a prominent art dealer, and Mr. Bleckner, one of her notable talents.

Episode Transcript

UNWONK PODCAST - EPISODE 22: Tea & Boilerplate


As with everything on Unwonk, the transcript below is for general informational purposes only - this is not legal advice - if you need to have a legal question answered, please seek legit legal representation. 

On this episode of Unwonk, we learn what intergalactic conflict has to to do with terminating a lease. And we talk to Felix Salmon, Senior Editor at Fusion, about the connection between a lemon ginger teabag and Alec Baldwin’s prized - and now un-prized - favorite painting. We spend some time exploring the dark underbelly of the art world. 
This is Unwonk. We respond to your legal questions with relevant and useful information. If you would like to submit a question, please visit our site at Unwonk.com.
When you’re there, you can also find where to follow us on twitter, Facebook, and all the social. And make sure to tell your friends about us. But, just good things. To make this even easier, click on one of the social share buttons under the episode player at unwonk.com/tea.
You can also check out our ask a lawyer column in deadspin by clicking on the banner at our site or going to Unwonk.com/deadspin.
Even though the  general information on this podcast is provided by actual attorneys, you’d be an idiot to think it is actual legal advice, and you’d also be the type of person who doesn’t realize that baby carrots are not actually immature carrots - just older, bigger carrots that have been cut down.
And now, our first question.

I want to terminate my lease. The contract says that I have to send either a notice by registered mail to a certain address, or send a fax to a certain phone number. I know that the street address is no longer good. I don’t have a fax machine, so went to the local kinko’sFedEx whatever and tried it there - the number was disconnected. What should I do? Seems like this was just boilerplate.

Janelle, Madison, Wisconsin

This isn’t really a question about terminating a lease. Let’s deal with that really quick. What do you do when the means for notice under a contract are invalid. Do what’s reasonable. Where do you send your rent check? Have you sent notice there by registered mail? Have you delivered notice in person to the landlord? Either of these should do it. A judge faced with this situation isn’t going to throw up her hands and say, “Well, the address and fax number aren’t working. I guess this tenant can never terminate the lease!” 

Let’s talk about boilerplate. Yeah, boilerplate. Trust me. This will be more interesting than you think.

What is boilerplate? You hear it a lot. Someone says, the agreement’s just boilerplate - no harm in signing. Or - if you’re an attorney - someone will ask you for a boilerplate agreement for something or other. Boilerplate is supposed to be shorthand for stock text in an agreement - or an entire agreement - that’s pretty much the same from agreement to agreement or agreements of that type. This isn’t just some casual thing among inexperienced people. I’ve worked on transactions worth hundreds of millions of dollars where the parties agree to key points and then just kind of handwave the rest of the contract as “boilerplate.” 

Boilerplate came around as a term in the late 1800’s. It’s a reference to the curved sheet steel that was used to make water boilers, which resembled the curved sheet steel that printers used to run syndicated columns, advertisements, and other things that were reproduced en masse. The idea is that boilerplate is readymade content that can be used in numerous situations. The term boilerplate has been used in its colorful life in different contexts: describing low-quality writing, boilerplate computer code, and, of course, legal boilerplate.

But I’m going to tell you something: In the world of law, boilerplate doesn’t exist. It’s not real. It’s something that someone trying to pull something on you is trying to sell. You know why? Because you can stick anything you want in boilerplate, and nobody’s going to read it, but whoever signs that contract is stuck with it.

Confused? Here’s a couple examples:

You’re signing a lease for a desirable apartment in a very competitive city. You show up with your application, cashier’s check, and references. The landlord offers the apartment to you if you sign the lease right away. Don’t worry - they say - it’s just a boilerplate lease. What the hell does that mean? Are pets allowed? Does it have weird house rules? Does it refer to a separate tenant rulebook that the landlord can update at anytime? No matter how boring and form-like a lease looks, there’s nothing boilerplate about it.

Another context is the last section of a contract that has all those boring little sections. If you’ve ever read a proper contract, you know what these sections cover: what state law governs, where you can sue, whether you can assign the agreement to someone else. You know, boring stuff. People call it boilerplate because it appears in almost every single agreement and is just kind of there. BUT some of this is important. Do you waive your right to a jury trial? That’s important. Are you subject to mandatory arbitration? That’s really important - we should have an episode on that. 

Does notice require you to send by registered mail, or is something like FedEx OK? Is a fax notice required? It’s not 1982 - you should think about that. 

One of the most boring so-called boilerplate provisions is called - and this is one of my favorite legal phrases  - force majeure. It basically says that if anything beyond the control of the parties prevents either party from living up to its side of the agreement, then that party is excused. And the definition of force majeure usually comes in a mind-blurring rush of words that includes acts of god, terrorism, rebellion, war. It’s like a little bite of apocolypse tucked away into a contract. 

You can see why someone would want to drop that in the boilerplate bucket and move on. BUT, stuff like that can matter. The force majeure provision isn’t just about riots, swarms of locusts, and wild Unicorn stampedes. The different acts listed should relate to the thing you have an agreement about. Providing a website? You’re going to want to make sure an internet outage outside of your control is put in there. Just because something is a bland looking list that includes all acts of nature, it doesn’t mean it applies to you. 

To illustrate how few people actually read these so-called boilerplate provisions, here’s a story. About 10 years ago, I was reading a contract sent over by an attorney at a very large public company.  This was clearly a form the company sends out to a lot of other companies. As a corporate lawyer, you know that more often than not, so-called standard forms from companies are more like dusty old collages tweaked over time, leaving orphan provisions and non-sensical  language stranded throughout. So, I sat down and read the entire form. Here’s what the force majeure provisions says. Oh, that’s French. Force Majeure. Sexy. OK. Let’s check out what I found:

Force majeure events include acts of God, civil or military authority, any acts of war or civil unrest including, but not limited to, terrorist attacks, intergalactic confrontations, accidents, natural disasters or catastrophes, strikes, communications or power failure that are not caused by either Party, equipment or software malfunction not caused by either Party and which are of general nature within commerce (i.e. general failure of the Windows Operating System or similar type of failure), labor disputes or other work stoppages or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of the party affected thereby. 

Did you get that? Someone, at some point, slipped “intergalactic conflicts” in there. I have no idea how long that thing had been floating around out there, but I removed it, to the amused embarrassment of the attorney I was negotiating with. Thanks to some wily attorney, this major corporation had been prepping the global commerce community for intergalactic war. I recently googled that provision and have seen only one reference to it in 2014 by an attorney in Texas, so, for all we know, intergalactic conflicts may, in fact, be the contractual out for countless legal relationships around the world. The lizard people are not going to like that. 

Anyway, the whole point of me talking about this is this: If you’re facing the overwhelmingly dull black and white face of a legal agreement, there’s no such thing as boilerplate. Are there provisions that are pretty much the same from document to document? Of course. This is like life: a series of dull, repetitive events punctuated by occasional moments of novelty and happiness. Or maybe that’s just my life. 

So, yeah, there’s boilerplate in the sense that attorneys aren’t reinventing the wheel all the time - there’s safety in repetition when it comes to this kind of thing. BUT, the moment someone dismisses something as boilerplate, there’s a good chance they’re trying to rush you or hide something. Even if you don’t want to get an attorney to review it, read the whole thing. The more “uniform” and “boilerplate” it’s supposed to be, the higher the odds you’re going to find something you don’t like. And if you point out this thing you don’t like, and the other party says something like “Oh, that? We’ve never enforced that.” Walk away. 

We're going to do something new for the second question. We're going to have the person on who asked the question. Before we do that, though, I need to give you two stories that are part of the question.

The first one is called the "Birdie Num Nums" situation: Late summer, 2016, a man and his girlfriend walks into Birdie Num Nums, a cafe in London. He orders Lemongrass and Ginger tea but he's given another tea, lemon & ginger, not lemongrass and ginger. The man is incensed and demands to see the box the tea came in. The box says lemongrass, but it has lemon in it - clearly a mistake. The restaurant apologizes and offers a refund. Still angry, the man starts writing a bad TripAdvisor review on his computer on the cafe's wifi, they ask him to leave. He calls the police - says he wasn’t given a proper reason to leave.

The second story we need to know is called the "Alec Baldwin" situation: Ten years ago, Alec Baldwin falls in love with a painting by artist Ross Bleckner called “Sea and Mirror.” The problem is that the painting is owned by someone else. In 2010, he asked Mary Boone, a prominent art dealer who represents Bleckner, to find "Sea and Mirror." She reports back that the owner would sell it for $190,000. Deal done, Baldwin hangs “Sea and Mirror” in his office.
But something always seemed off about it. The colors were off. The strokes were off. And it smelled too...new. And a few months ago, in 2016, Baldwin found out that the Sea and Mirror he bought is not the Sea and Mirror that he first set eyes on and not the one on the postcard he carried around in his bag for years. Baldwin thinks Boone couldn’t get the owner of the original Sea and Mirror to sell, and then asked Bleckner to complete another version. A copy. Boone says it’s not a copy - it’s an original work by Bleckner, just not the same exact physical one that the private collector owned. Baldwin claims balderdash - and even has emails backing up his claim, including that the number stamped on the painting he received is the same number the gallery said it was getting from the private owner. He also claims that Boone admitted she switched the paintings, but Boone’s lawyer says that Baldwin was told what was going on. There was even talk of claiming the painting had been cleaned, which is why the brush strokes looked different.  Boone offers a refund. Baldwin says he wants what he bargained for. All this is according to an article in the New York Times you can find linked at our website at unwonk.com/tea.

Daniel: And now the person who asked the questions these stories relate to and to whom I will read his question back to is Felix Salmon, Senior Editor at Fusion. Hello Felix.

Felix: Hello!

Daniel: So, you sent me a question which basically said, “So, I saw this article which was an article about the Birdie Num Nums incident which reminded me of this article which is the Alec Baldwin painting incident. And I thought I’d ask. If I order and pay for X but received Y which is not X. I complain and the vendor says, “Oops, my bad. I will totally give you your money back.” Do I really have a case to sue the vendor saying, “No. That’s not good enough. The only way you can remedy is by giving me X even though I know you don’t have X.” And by the way that’s a very good use of variables in a prose. 

Felix: I feel like if you can’t use X and Y ever so often in an email, you’re not doing it right. 

Daniel: Right. So, before we jump into these two specific cases, I thought we’d set up what this issues is from a legal perspective and maybe I can regale you a very famous story about this specific issue  

Felix: Please, do.

Daniel: And it’s the tale of a wealthy man from New York who happens to like huge buildings, fine features and luxury.

Felix: I don’t know any such man. I can’t imagine. As any such man ever existed let alone run for president?

Daniel: Alright. Well, it’s not J Gatsby or Donald Trump even though one of those is fictional and one acts fictional.

Felix: Tell me. I’m on the edge of my seat. Who is it?

Daniel: It’s the guy who set out to build one of the biggest homes on the New York area in the boom times of the North Fork of Long Island in 1910-1913. Huge amounts of New Yorkers are moving out there and building these giants estates. It was Attorney, George Edward Kent who commissioned a very famous Architect, William Ire, to build a house. And his landscape architect, you might have heard of Frederick Olmsted, to build the grounds.

Felix: I believe he did the Central Park

Daniel: Yes. And Golden Gate park and a lot of parks. Obviously this guy didn’t pick a landscaper off craigslist. He kind of knew what he wanted. So, no expenses buried including  the pipe.

Felix: The pipe?

Daniel: The pipe inside the walls. Several thousand feet of pipe. Plumbing was a huge, exciting thing back then. So, when it came time to pay the contractor… And I sent you a photo of this house. That’s the photo I sent you which is also on our website. It’s a pretty big estate.

Felix: It looks grand.

Daniel: Yeah. It’s not a one off. You didn’t just go and buy some pipe. It’s a very large contract, lot of moving pieces. Working with contractors can be difficult. When it came time to pay the contractor… And this was $80,000 contract and there was $4000 left, he had already moved into the house. He lived there for a couple years. He found out that the pipe in the house which the contract specified be made in Redding, most of it had not been made in Redding so he refused to pay and insisted that the contractor rip the walls out and replace all the pipes with this high quality Redding pipe that he had demanded. 
And that was the basis for this lawsuit. They went to court. The contractor sued him and he said, “No. You need to rip out the walls, put in new pipe at your own expense.” So, the whole thing came down to whether the court could force the contractor to replace the pipe. And what this is, there is two pieces. One is when you ask a court to force someone to perform under a contract, that’s the remedy called specific performance and that’s actually what you’re asking about. But the first step is whether a breach in a contract is material. And here the court and the judge who wrote the majority was Benjamin Cardozo. This is actually one of his most famous cases. It’s called Jacob and Youngs. That’s the contractor versus Kent. 
And Cardozo said, “Well, looking at the totality of the contract, you can’t just make someone do something if it’s going to be completely unjust. It really wouldn’t be fair for the contractor to have to rip all this stuff out. Well, it’s essentially the same stuff. It’s inside the walls. You’re never going to see it.” And this was kind of a landmark case in American jurisprudence because, believe it or not, Cardozo barely won in terms of majority. This was four to three. The minority basically said, “No. That contractor needs to rip all that pipe out even though it’s the same exact stuff and put all new pipe it. That just complies with the contract in literal reading of it.

Felix: So, this case could have gone on the one hand the way it did where Kent had to pay the contractor the rest of the thousand dollars or it could have gone the other way where the contractor had to spend God knows how much money ripping out all of the walls and replacing all of the pipes. 

Daniel: Right.

Felix: It’s like there was nothing in the middle.

Daniel: No.

Felix: Either one person loses massively or the other person loses. 

Daniel: Well, what Cardozo said, and it was a little bit… I like his writing here because it’s a slight passive aggressive slap, against our magnate friend. He said, “Well, look, the damage is here are going to be… What’s the value difference of the house with the pipe that you have versus the pipe that you wanted?” And, Cardozo basically says, “Oh there is probably no difference. So, we’ll send this back to the trial court.” Because the trial court had actually excluded evidence on valuation and stuff like that. So, a next thing too on these cases is you never really know what happen after the appeal when it gets sent back to trial. But, the decision was this is how this stuff kind of works. Now looking at the two cases you sent obviously very different cases. These aren’t contracts for a bunch of moving parts. This is in the case of Birdie Num Nums. And you are from the area around London. Is this how people take mistakes in tea service, generally? Because I know the UK is very tea focused. 

Felix: I would say that the impetus behind this case is exactly the same as the impetus which caused Britain to vote to leave the European Union.

Daniel: Well, based on my reading of the article, it’s probably the second most traumatic thing that happened in the UK this year. 

Felix: Both of them are further reason, if reason be needed, to just avoid that miserable island of the coast of Europe for the rest of our natural lives. 

Daniel: Well actually I did look up this guy on Trip Advisor, the guy who called the police when he was trying to get the evicted from a restaurant. He’s only left two bad reviews. So, something clearly is in the air in London right now making people a little edgy.

Felix: Well maybe it’s something like eating too much lemon grass can like do something funny if you are praying. 

Daniel: Let’s jump ahead and apply New York law because it’s kind of basic contract law.  But New York would say on this and we’re jumping into the Baldwin situation is there is four pieces to make someone do something in New York. One is that you’ve a made a contract. And in a restaurant it’s not really a contract but it’s kind of a social contract that you go in and order something and they provide you food or brink. But, the plaintiff, the person trying to enforce it is willing to pour in their piece of the contract. Clearly the guy was willing to pay for; I think this was a nine pence tea bag. There is no other adequate remedy at law. So that was an issue here where there was a mistake and they offered to reimburse him. 
And then there is like the final piece that I think is really important is that it’s within the defendant’s power to perform. And here they didn’t have tea bags. And this wasn’t a case of fraud where they were actively hiding lemon and ginger tea bags in the restaurant from this dude she was demanding lemon grass and ginger tea bags. 

Felix: So in other words it was within the contractor’s power to tear down the walls in the place without a pipe. But it’s just simply not within the café’s power to magic the lemon grass tea bag while there was no lemon grass tea bag. 

Daniel: Right. And it’s also when you look at how they have performed. In the case of that house the contractor didn’t actively go out and try to defraud the owner of the house. They just say, “Oh, this pipe is of similar quality to the contract’s.” They looked at the contract’s and like, “Yeah, this is close enough.” So if they had actively tried to defraud the owner of the house it might be a different case. Here, I doubt very much that there is an email going around to the wait staff in the morning declaring which teas have been swapped out for other teas because the busser accidently shoved the wrong tea in the wrong box.

Felix: It’s a major problem in South London.

Daniel: So, Alec Baldwin is a very different case. I don’t know if you picked up on this detail in the story but it said, “For years Mr. Baldwin said he carried the image of sea and mirror in his shoulder bag alongside a picture of one of his daughters and his father. 

Felix: You got to play favorites man. Never stop playing favorites.

Daniel: Ever since my second son was born I remove the picture of him being born. I now have a post card of Patrick Nagle’s Duran Duran’s Rio that I carry in his place. 

Felix: And that is a very bad print. That’s a very bad print.

Daniel: Yeah, that stuff did not age will pass the day it was released. So this was a very different case. This is a case where you would look at a contract and say, “I noticed an error. There is no description of exactly what they bargain for.  He’s probably a good business guy. Can’t imagine him dropping a couple hundred thousand dollars on something without having an appropriate contract or seeing what’s going on. And it’s also interesting too because usually when you see this stuff it’s a case of forgery of another person passing off work of another artiste. Here it’s actually the same, exact artiste. 

Felix: It’s like self-plagiarism.

Daniel: Right. I kind of believe Alec Baldwin’s version here just because it doesn’t make sense otherwise. Why would you pay $200,000 to say, “I want something similar to that when that’s the case? But, look here. It looks like it could also be if the assuming Baldwin’s version of the story is even close to being correct, here you could have a case of what we call constructive fraud where they’re actually trying to pass something off.  And he can’t really enforce specific performance here because there is that one piece saying, “Well, it’s in the defendant’s power to fix it. Here we have a third party, private party owner who they probably thought would be in for selling it. And then after they promised it they just said, “No, I don’t want to sell.”

Felix: But let me ask you a question. Let’s assume that in the out world that everything is available for a price and if the original could be pried out of the hands of the current owner for ten million dollars then is it not then within the ability of the gallery to write a ten million dollar check and provide painting?

Daniel: If they had agreed to get it for two hundred thousand and then all of a sudden they can only get for ten million, I doubt very much a court would say, “Well you have to pay the delta on that because that would have effectively put them out of business for not having any fraudulent behavior on their part. There’s actually more of incompetence than trying to hide something bad. I don’t think they’d make this dealer go do that because it’s a very similar case to the pipe thing. In that case the court points out like this would just be an unjust result. This isn’t what contracts are for. It’s not to have a sudden windfall to say Alec Baldwin to get this ten million dollar payment for two hundred thousand dollars. 

Felix: It wouldn’t really be a windfall to Alec Baldwin since he couldn’t turn around and sell it for ten million dollars. It would be a windfall to the third party collector who got the original in the first place. 

Daniel: Right. He’d now have a painting valued, at least on the market, at ten million dollars. 

Felix: But what she could never sell because no one else would have any interest in buying for that way.

Daniel: Well no I have seen the painting. So, yeah. And by the way it would be an interesting thing if Alec Baldwin brings the case for fraud because in New York the statute of limitations on fraud in a civil case is six years or two years from the day you discovered or should have discovered the fraud. So clearly six years have already passed. He’s had this ting hanging in his apartment and in his office. It looks like it was demoted to his office after he found out it was wasn’t the real sea and mirror standing looking at it every night. 
But, he brings up that the painting looked off and it smelled weird. A court would actually look at when he started suspecting something was up and when he started really looking into it because that would indicate when the statute of limitation…That’s called discovery. It’s either six years or the date you discover something. So, his statute of limitations might even be up and perhaps that’s why hasn’t filed suit.

Felix: So, do you think he should just accept his money back or do you think he reckons even the sort of fake later copy is probably worth what he paid for it? 

Daniel: I would be kind of pissed, obviously, but I would…If I were him, if it’s not the real thing, I would take the money back or pursue maybe some kind of fraud case against this person.

Felix: So this is what you should do right. You should take the money back, send a few subjects of nasty grams threatening court case and make sure there are big articles in the New York Times telling everyone how much of a fraud the Mary Boone is.

Daniel: Totally, because the poor guy carried around a post card for ten years in his bag supplanting one of his children and then it’s like the worst long con Tindr profile picture swap out ever.

Felix: I have to say really it’s not the painting even the original.

Daniel: I think we can all agree on that except maybe for Alec Baldwin and the mystery owner who perhaps covets it more. 

Felix: The contemporary art world is so weird. It’s also like fraud and dirty dealings and underhanded scheming and the fact we now have newspapers who love to report on these things just makes me so happy. 

Daniel: By the way all that scheming, that’s just the reputable dealers.

Felix: Yeah.

Daniel: Well, I hope that this cleared up the questions you had and I hope that when you do get the wrong thing in a restaurant…

Felix: I have one more question for you, Mr. Ralls, which is what is the remedy for fraud? If Mary Boone were determined to have committed fraud then can a judge go up to her and say, “You Mary Boone, in order to make this right, you need to get that original and pay as much as you can up to a million dollars for and get it into the hands of Alec Baldwin because that’s the only he’s going to be able to get what he paid for?” 

Daniel: I don’t think so. I think it would be Alec Baldwin’s attorney would lay ground for punitive damages and things like that because unless a judge has a good indication that she does have the ability within reason, and I don’t in New York what inappropriate a word for punitive damages is and other damages related to fraud would be. If it doesn’t reach that level a judge still isn’t going to push someone beyond that because they do try to apply rules of reasonableness when it comes to that stuff. Unless they make her stand outside with a sandwich board saying, “Fraudulent art dealer” standing and mark her with the R backwards on Park Avenue South or soothing like that. 

Felix: Did you know that every art gallery in New York breaks the law every day?

Daniel: How?

Felix: This is one of my favorite factoids about New York galleries. There is a New York state law which says if you’re selling something in some kind of a retail store type place and art galleries absolutely count, then you need to have prominently and clearly displayed, the prices of everything that you are selling. And of course no New York art galleries do that.  

Daniel: Have you brought this up at any galleries live while you’re talking to them and loudly asked where all the price tags are?

Felix: Yeah. I’m hanging out at the gallery. Ever so often as you’re feeling bold you go up to the gallerina at the front desk and say, “How much are these paintings?” And then you get a withering stare. And if it’s a low end gallery they might be able to fish out for the pricelist for you, not that you would be allowed to buy the paintings even if you had that kind of money. But at least there is some kind of nominal price list. The high end gallery they won’t even give you that. They would just give you a withering stare and say, “I’m sorry. These paintings are not for sale.” Even though they usually are.

Daniel: I think I now have a mission when I’m in New York next time to not only do that but once I extract the price to ask them if they’ll match Amazon’s price for the same thing.

Felix: You should just take a photograph of the painting using your Amazon app and see what Amazon comes up with.

Daniel: “This is available at art.com for $29.99. I don’t know why it’s so expensive here. Ridiculous.”

Felix: Ridiculous. 

Daniel: Well, Felix, thank you very much for the question. I hope we help clear up the world of tea and art for you today.

Felix: You did and now I’m going to head out to the North Fork of Long Island and see if I can find the half demolished mansion with pipes in the walls.

Daniel: Godspeed, sir.

Felix: Thank you.

Thanks for listening to this episode of Unwonk.

And thank you again to our Felix Salmon, Senior Editor at Fusion, for enlightening my world with tea scandals and the fly by night New York art scene. You can follow felix on twitter at felixsalmon.

Speaking of which, please visit our site at Unwonk.com to ask your questions, and for lots of bonus material about the topics on today’s episode. You can also find us on twitter, and facebook, and you can also - well, this is mandatory - tell everyone you know to listen and subscribe.
And don’t forget check out our deadspin column.
On the next episode, we learn:

  • What it means in Chicago, Illinois when you have a poster of a bernese puppy in your window;
  • The new Florida state law that requires all orange juice to retain medium pulpiness; and
  • My plea for help for anyone to help figure out where that squeaky rattly noise in my car is coming from when I’m going about 60 miles per hour over certain bridges and through some tunnels. Because it’s killing me on the inside.