On the first date of Christmas, my true love saw with me …

I like going to the movies.
My wife doesn’t like going to the movies.

So we have always compromised: we don’t go to the movies.

But she gave me an amazing Christmas gift –

Movie Certificate

This certifies that Steve Hayman is entitled to one movie date per month with his wife (movie subject to review) with no whining from his wife.

I am a lucky man indeed!

We decided to attend Mary Poppins Returns on December 30, 2018. Does this count as the first date, or is it more like an exhibition date, in the same way that Canada plays Finland before the World Junior Hockey Championship actually starts?

I sought advice from counsel; I happen to be related to a brilliant lawyer, who commented

Very liberal interpretation of contract, construed in favour of the beneficiary. If only she’d consulted a lawyer, she could have inserted “commencing January 1st 2019.” Looks like you are getting a bakers’ dozen.

Followup, if it please the court. The clause that says “movie subject to review” can be reasonably interpreted to mean “reviewed AFTER we see any arbitrary movie of my choice”, can it not?

The clause is ambiguous. In my view, the drafter (your wife) clearly intended to have some say in the movie choice. I would therefore read that word into the contract, as in “movie choice subject to review by wife”. This is a contextual, feminist analysis and should be preferred to the standard approach of “contra proferentem”.

I accept this contextual, feminist analysis, and I’m sure know you know what *contra proferentem” means, but just in case you don’t –

Contra proferentem (Latin: “against [the] offeror”), also known as “interpretation against the draftsman”, is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

So anyway.
We both deeply enjoyed Mary Poppins Returned. Date Night #0! I cheered when Dick Van Dyke appeared. Of course I saw the original when I was a kid, and the fact that Dick Van Dyke is still in it must surely mean that I am not actually getting older myself.

Even though they didn’t use any of the original music in the film, there were plenty of musical quotes of the original themes. Fun to listen to that too. And if you go – not only is Dick Van Dyke back from the original, but watch for the scene where a woman asks Jack and Jane for directions to #19 Cherry Tree Lane. That actress is Karen Dotrice (age 63), who played Jane Banks (age 9) in the original movie.

Many thanks to Cathy for this awesome, selfless present, and I will do my best to suggest movies that we might both enjoy equally. (I’m guessing that any upcoming Transformers or Fast and Furious sequel won’t be on the list.) (although really, we probably WOULD enjoy those ones equally.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *