Jet Ski is a registered trademark of Kawasaki, but the lower case term ‘jet ski’ is a popular term synonymous with ‘personal watercraft’ Apparently the judges didn’t see this part that says it’s popular term synonymous with personal watercraft – seems like clear enough language to me unless we want to worry whether the work was capitalized or not.
This is why our rule of law is rapidly disintegrating as judges refuse to enforce the law as they look for increasingly tenuous “reasons” not to enforce contracts that are as plain as the nose on their face. There is a price to pay for this reckless behaviour and it is the ultimate collapse of insurance as it just becomes too expensive and unpredictable.
Even the judge admits that Wikipedia is unreliable, but they didn’t let that stop them. Maybe we should hold judgeship elections & appointments by Wikipedia also.
The party that drafts any Contracts of adhesion will never get the benefit from courts in decisions about ambiguity in wording. Bottom line – insurers should always define terms that are included in exclusions. And yes, the judge read the meaning appropriately – if they meant personal watercraft – they had the ability to say that and they didn’t.
Jet Ski is a registered trademark of Kawasaki, but the lower case term ‘jet ski’ is a popular term synonymous with ‘personal watercraft’ Apparently the judges didn’t see this part that says it’s popular term synonymous with personal watercraft – seems like clear enough language to me unless we want to worry whether the work was capitalized or not.
How much are the courts getting for product placement these days?
Judges must not have understood the Wikipedia article:
“The term is sometimes used to refer to any type of personal watercraft.”
This is why our rule of law is rapidly disintegrating as judges refuse to enforce the law as they look for increasingly tenuous “reasons” not to enforce contracts that are as plain as the nose on their face. There is a price to pay for this reckless behaviour and it is the ultimate collapse of insurance as it just becomes too expensive and unpredictable.
Even the judge admits that Wikipedia is unreliable, but they didn’t let that stop them. Maybe we should hold judgeship elections & appointments by Wikipedia also.
The party that drafts any Contracts of adhesion will never get the benefit from courts in decisions about ambiguity in wording. Bottom line – insurers should always define terms that are included in exclusions. And yes, the judge read the meaning appropriately – if they meant personal watercraft – they had the ability to say that and they didn’t.
It’s apparent that the idiot judge doesn’t understand what Wikipedia is all about!!!!