Mangling the Lingo

Most readers are aware that UCC Article 9 permits a lender to perfects its security interest in almost all types of collateral by filing a "financing statement" (also known as a UCC-1). 

A few times during every semester in which I'm teaching Sadistic Transactions a student will throw out the phrase "financial statement" (as in, "the creditor is perfected because it filed a financial statement").  I cringe, inwardly and outwardly, and the students soon learn the error of their ways.

My students aren't the only ones who, on occasion, commit this error.  Judges, too, have been known to make the same mistake.  See, e.g., Agriliance, L.L.C. v. Farmpro Serv., Inc., 328 F. Supp. 2d 958, 966 (S.D. Iowa 2003) (“filed the appropriate financial statement”); EH Yacht, LLC v. Egg Harbor, LLC, 84 F. Supp. 2d 556, 560 n.2 (D.N.J. 2000) (“the UCC financial statement”); 21 West Lancaster Corp. v. Main Line Restaurant, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 202, 203 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (“financial statements were timely filed”); U.S. v. Trans-World Bank, 382 F. Supp. 1100, 1103 (C.D. Cal. 1974) (“a financial statement filed with the California Secretary of State”); In re Tamis, 398 B.R. 124, 126 (Bankr. D.N.J. Dec. 2008) (“The Chase security interest was perfected by the recordation of a UCC-1 financial statement”); 1st Bank v. Winderl, 60 P.3d 998, 999 (Mont. 2002) (“two financial statements filed in 1990 and 1994”); LBM, Inc. v. Rushmore State Bank, 543 N.W.2d 780, 785 (S.D. 1996) (“a valid and filed financial statement”); Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 883 S.W.2d 415, 425 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994) (“filed financial statements”); Simmons Oil Corp. v. Holly Corp., 796 P.2d 189, 197 (Mont. 1990) (“Holly filed UCC financial statements in Montana.”).  And I recently discovered the same linguistic faux pas in a "problem" that appears in a leading commercial law casebook ("... quickly files an initial financial statement ...").

My point in writing this post isn't to hold myself out as one who never makes a mistake (I may not make this mistake, but I make plenty of others; e.g., approximate cause v. proximate cause, payroll evidence v. parole evidence, administratrix v. dominatrix, etc.).

My point is this:  to solicit other suggestions where a word or phrase, of significance to a particular body of law, is often mangled by its users.  What might those words or phrases be?

Comments

[Eric Fink]

In the spirit of Tim's examples, I'll offer the confusion of "fraud in the factum" v. "fraud in the rectum".

[Tim Zinnecker]

But you've put that mistake behind you (so to speak), yes?

[Bingo]

Writing "parole" when "parol" is meant.
"
BTW, "Approximate cause is more descriptive than "proximate" cause