•  
  •  
 

Tennessee Law Review

Document Type

Article

Abstract

We love the funny, and that's no exaggeration. In a joke, a duck is the funniest animal, you'll get more laughs in a red room than a blue room, 103 characters is the optimal length for a joke, and we know all this statistically because scholarly researchers often study humor. Litigators, courts, and commentators also focus on the funny when deciding whether promissory language created a binding contract. They frequently debate and decide enforceability based on whether a party was joking.

This Article asserts, for the first time, that in many of these cases the focus should be on whether the language is figurative exaggeration. This Article considers the work of philosophers, psychologists, and linguists on humor and exaggeration and concludes that a better understanding of exaggeration, both inside and outside of humor, would lead to better decision making. It also proposes a new multifactor test to help distinguish figurative exaggeration from bona fide contractual promises and offers a reasonable remedy for aggrieved parties when there is a genuine misunderstanding.

Exaggeration attracts less attention than humor and sometimes sparks hostility. Some may say, "I hate hyperbole, and that's no exaggeration." Although exaggeration is factually incorrect, linguistic researchers have found that it is pervasive in everyday speech and is a legitimate form of communication that can powerfully, accurately, and economically expresses a speaker's attitudes and emotions. Courts should seriously consider exaggeration, and that's no joke.

Publication Date

2021

Download

Share

COinS