MISS UNDERSTANDING

Enrique R. Carrasco

CHARACTERS

MISS UNDERSTANDING:  An attorney arguing a case on appeal that was decided against her in the court below.

JUDGES 1, 2, and 3:  Judges on an appeals court.

MISS UNDERSTANDING is engaging in oral argument before three appeals court JUDGES 1, 2, and 3.  She uses her impressive advocacy skills to try to persuade the appellate court judges that the trial court mistakenly allowed “extrinsic evidence” (testimonial or documentary evidence other than the contract itself) to interpret the contract.

Lighting should highlight the actors only; the JUDGES should be elevated, looking down on MISS UNDERSTANDING.

Lights up.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

May it please the court, I represent–

JUDGE 1

What is your name, Miss?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Understanding.

JUDGE 2

Is that what you want?  Understanding?

JUDGE 3

You’ll have to earn it.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Your honor, my name—

JUDGE 1

Is your name yours and no one else’s?

JUDGE 2

But how can that be?

JUDGE 3

Can, say, John Smith, claim ownership of his name?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

That’s not the issue in this case.

JUDGE 1

But what is your name, Miss?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Understanding.

JUDGE 2

It will do you no good to beg here.

JUDGE 3

I should think not.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Respectfully, I’m not begging.

JUDGE 1

But isn’t that why you’re here?

JUDGE 2

You’re begging for our vote.

JUDGE 3

A majority opinion, at least.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

I’m an advocate, not a beggar.

JUDGE 2

A tramp with a briefcase.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

That is offensive.

JUDGE 1

I think it is endearing, actually–a lawyer tramp with a gleaming briefcase.

JUDGE 2

So why are you here?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

I have an argument.

JUDGE 3

You wish to bedazzle us with rhetoric.

JUDGE 1

Enchant us with gems of wisdom.

JUDGE 2

Speak from the mountaintop of truth.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Yes.

JUDGE 1

Proceed.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Thank you.  The question is whether the lower court properly admitted extrinsic evidence—

JUDGE 2

The extrinsic posits the existence of the intrinsic, yes?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

It would seem so.  However, that is not the question here.

JUDGE 3

The question is whether the dichotomy is real.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

The contract is real.

JUDGE 1

Is it?

JUDGE 2

Perhaps it is merely conceptual, an ephemeral idea beyond capture.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

The language in the contract is real.  It is plain.

JUDGE 3

You mean the piece of paper in the record called “contract?”

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE 1

But what is that paper beyond mere fibers of wood?

JUDGE 2

If I take that piece of paper and fold it correctly, does it not become a paper plane?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

It would if children were at play.  But the transaction at issue here is between adults with a serious purpose.

JUDGE 3

What are you saying?  Adults cannot make paper planes?  That is preposterous!

JUDGE 1

Outrageous!

JUDGE 2

An unconscionable proposition!  Do you not agree, counsel?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

I would if we were prohibiting adults from making paper planes. Respectfully, however,

paper planes are irrelevant to this appeal.  

JUDGE 3

How do we determine what is relevant or irrelevant?

JUDGE 1

If a contract relates to the sale of gelatin, is pudding irrelevant?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Pudding would be irrelevant if the plain language of the contract referred to gelatin.

JUDGE 2

But don’t most puddings contain gelatin?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Honestly, your Honor, I don’t know.

JUDGE 3

You’ve come to this court unprepared?

JUDGE 1

She has no clue!

JUDGE 2

Shockingly ignorant!

MISS UNDERSTANDING

I am not ignorant. I did come prepared to discuss the issue in this case but not to discuss the idiosyncrasies of paper planes, gelatin or pudding.

JUDGE 1

What do you mean by “idiosyncrasies?”

JUDGE 2

Are you suggesting we are idiosyncratic?

JUDGE 3

Abnormal in some way?

JUDGE 1

Aberrations?

JUDGE 2

Anomalies?

JUDGE 3

Are you saying we are peculiar?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

No, your Honor, I am not saying you are peculiar. What is peculiar is the extrinsic evidence in this case. It cannot be admitted.

JUDGE 1

Is that the test you are asking us to apply, whether the extrinsic evidence is peculiar?

JUDGE 2

Peculiar can mean odd.

JUDGE 3

Freakish.

JUDGE 1

Or strange. Is that what you mean, the extrinsic evidence is strange?

(long pause)

                              MISS UNDERSTANDING (becomes increasingly desperate)

Yes, your Honor, it is strange. So strange that you must not allow it to be admitted. It has no basis in reality.  It is devoid of meaning.  It makes a mockery of what is true, right and good.  It leads to desperation, plunges us into darkness so deep that our lives lose meaning.  We lose the ability to think, to feel, to love.  We are reduced to flesh without souls, flesh that decays and reeks of rot.  There is nothing but rot.  Putrid rot infested with maggots…..

              (very long pause)

JUDGE 1

What is your name, Miss?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Understanding.

JUDGE 2

Is that what you want? Understanding?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Desperately, your Honor.

JUDGE 3

Your time is up, counsel.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

I know.

THE END