Maximum Fun Forum

On this week's episode...

Matt brings the case against his good friend Jeremy. Matt borrowed a shop vac from Jeremy to do some grease trap cleaning at work, but he accidentally ruined it in the process. The friends finally settled on a replacement appliance, but Matt thinks he got a raw deal, since it was more expensive than the original. How should he have reimbursed his friend? Are they even now? Only one man can decide: JUDGE JOHN HODGMAN.

Special thanks to listener Thom Winters for suggesting this week's title!

Listen to Judge John Hodgman Episode 102: Justice Abhors a Vacuum

_________________
– thomas matysik
Maximum Fun Intern

While I probably should have seen it coming, man I got really excited at the pop culture reference in this episode.

_________________
Ladysplaining - A podcast where Sara Chicazul explains everything
Girlfriend Mode - Lindsay and I talk about video games!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute! Matt acted in good faith the WHOLE time - he wasn't trying to put anything over his friend. Just because he was a little hazy about when all this went down doesn't throw his whole case out with the bathwater... so to speak. Jeremy KNEW there may have been consequences of lending his shopvac out therefore HE should bear some of the responsibility for it getting... nastified. He saw an opportunity to upgrade and TOOK ADVANTAGE of Matt's guilt over having destroyed it in the first place. Matt didn't know his replacement vac would be a dud - he was just trying to do the right thing and Jeremy, instead of recognizing his friend's sincerity, decided to swoop in and get himself a RICK ROSS. I'm not fooled by Jeremy's Eeyore-like portrayal of the poor down-trodden soul who just wants his friend back. You wanted an UPGRADE SIR. And you got it, I guess, so what do I know. Enjoy your ill-gotten shopvac and know that when you use it you are sucking up rat droppings of SHAME.

Holy smokes. Not to be super negative, but this Matt guy seems like kind of a jerk. Not only is his reluctance to apologize for ruining Jeremy's vacuum and causing him undue inconvenience by purchasing a different, inferior model kind of obnoxious, but he seems to want a cookie for doing what was expected of him in the first place--returning unto Jeremy that which was Jeremy's to begin with. As if it was a big favor from him to replace the shopvac HE ruined in the first place.

Man, that dude is probably my least favorite JJH guest to date. Which actually made this episode and the judge's ruling one of my favorites.

Maybe when there are issues of fact as well as issues of JJHo law there should be an independent trier of fact to ensure a fair trial. I like a lot of the program, but the misstatements of fact for dramatic effect (or yelling at people when they try to explain something that has been misunderstood) just tends to frustrate me a bit.

_________________
https://twitter.com/SamPhifer

Before the law stands a doorkeeper