Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;
Discussion Discussion
Resources Resources

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - rezipsa

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16
1
Bar Exam / Re: CA Bar Prep Recommendations?
« on: May 22, 2007, 01:11:01 PM »
Hey aero2law...

It's been a long time since I've been on this site.  I believe we emailed before.
Anyway, I am leaning towards BarPassers too.  They have an iPod option that allows you to view the lectures anytime and anywhere.  I don't know about you but I am tired of going to classes.  BarPassers' flow charts are great.

Anyway, just my $0.02.

2
General Board / Re: can i kick someone out until they pay their half of the rent?
« on: May 16, 2006, 03:05:08 PM »
I agree with JD.  A co-tenant relationship does not arise to the level of a fiduciary.  Co-tenants have certain restrictions on what they can and cannot do. But these restrictions do not rise to the level of a fiduciary.

3
General Board / Re: can i kick someone out until they pay their half of the rent?
« on: May 08, 2006, 05:35:39 PM »
I would just move out...less headaches.

4
General Board / Re: can i kick someone out until they pay their half of the rent?
« on: May 08, 2006, 11:32:50 AM »
I agree with most of the post - taking your roommate to court would be a waste of time.  However, if you went to court, I would recommend suing restitution (along with contract and tort claims).  In the court of equity, the rules of contracts and tort are out the window.  The court is only looking to see what is fair and to prevent unjust enrichment.  Your lovely roommates have greatly benefited from not paying their share of the rent.

My advice, move out and get ready for 1L.  You don't need the additional headache of a law suit while you are going through torture of 1L.

5
General Board / Re: HAHAHAHAH DONE WITH 1L!!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHA
« on: May 08, 2006, 11:18:12 AM »
Quote from: T. Durden on May 04, 2006, 05:37:09 PM
yes that is right mr. durden has successfully completed his first year of law school

let me say that i'm just a wee bit excited about it

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH A BRING ON THE VODKA!!!!!!!!
Let me get the first round.  Barkeep, two Kettle One Citron on the rocks.

6
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: ConLaw is KILLING ME
« on: May 05, 2006, 11:57:06 AM »
Hopefully your prof will use the rational basis test to grade your exam... ;D

7
General Board / Re: 0L- help with choosing supplements!!
« on: May 03, 2006, 12:23:49 PM »
Tonic...it goes well with gin. ;D

8
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Finals
« on: May 01, 2006, 02:31:50 PM »
Quote from: Leaf2001br on May 01, 2006, 02:00:11 PM
I would like to contribute to this topic of discussion if I may:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

I stand behind this assertion 100% and yes, I can back it up.
Thank you.

Classic!
I feel your pain!

9
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Finals
« on: May 01, 2006, 01:31:55 PM »
Quote from: Jacy85 on May 01, 2006, 07:15:12 AM
I WISH Conlaw was an elective at my school.  I have that exam on Wednesday, and I don't even want to think about it.

Ah...I am done!!!  I had my last ConLaw exam on Friday.  My advice, state that the statute is unconstitutional because it doesn't meet strict scutiny.  There is no compelling state intersest - bla bla bla...

Oh yeah, write down something about standing.

You'll do fine.

10
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: puzzled
« on: April 26, 2006, 12:48:20 PM »
Quote from: J D on April 25, 2006, 07:19:02 PM
Quote from: rezipsa on April 25, 2006, 06:52:29 PM
I would think that the specifications are included to make the contract definite and certain.

Without the specifications, completion of the house would be speculative.  Also with the specifications, T can show what his damages are.

If I was T, I would claim that the contract was invalid or that the contract was recinded and sue on a restitution theory.

Even with restitution, though, I think T will be entitled to set off his liability by the amount of damages he suffered as a result of the breach under Britton v. Turner.

True...true.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16