Law School Discussion

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.


Topics - dft

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Current Law Students / Real Estate Transactions Hypo/Question
« on: May 02, 2006, 12:51:16 AM »
Go easy on me. We covered real estate in a week:

Seller sells the property to Buyer 2 illegimately after he has signed the OTP and the PSA with Buyer 1. Buyer 1 will sue Seller for breach of the PSA, but since the OTP is now considered a binding contract in most states, can Buyer 1 theoretically sue for breach of both the PSA AND the OTP (not that the result matters anyway because he can sue for breach of the PSA anyway)?

2
Current Law Students / Critique My List of Courses for 2L and 3L
« on: January 16, 2006, 03:51:01 PM »
I had a little bit if time on my hands and decided to put together a tentative list of courses for 2L and 3L. It's going to change depending on how well I do, how I like certain classes, and whether I like practicing in the areas I try out during the summer.

A lot of these courses are good for the bar, but they're also really practical, from what I've heard. It was tough narrowing down my list because there were a lot that I was interested in, but also a lot that I know I should take because they're practical and will be helpful in the future.

2L

Fall Semester
Accounting for Lawyers – 2 credits
Corporations – 4 credits
Secured Transactions (commercial lending transactions) – 3 credits
Fiduciary Relations (Trust Law) – 2 credits
Intellectual Property– 2 credits

Total Credits – 13

Spring Semester
Jurisprudence – 2 credits
Evidence – 4 credits
Basic Federal Income Tax – 4 credits
Advanced Legal Research – 2 credits
Advanced Writing: Directed Study – 2 credits

Total Credits – 14

3L

Fall Semester
Trial Advocacy – 3 credits
Family Law – 3 credits
Agency and Partnership – 4 credits
Conveyancing and Mortgage Law (Real Estate Transactions) – 2 credits
Corporate Taxation– 3 credits

Total Credits – 15 credits

Spring Semester
Contract Drafting: Principles and Techniques – 3 credits
Commercial Paper and Payment Systems (credit cards, electronic funds transfers, etc.) – 3 credits
Law Practice Management – 3 credits
Consumer Law – 2 credits
Professional Responsibility – 2 credits

Total Credits – 13 credits

Total Required Credit Hours to Graduate – 84

3
Current Law Students / Crim Law Questions
« on: December 19, 2005, 03:42:56 PM »
If someone is charged with attempted murder, can the defense try to mitigate the charge to attempted manslaughter?


When someone has a duty to act, for example, based on the creation of danger to another, what are they charged with? Failure to act?

4
Current Law Students / Crim Law Mini-Hypo
« on: December 18, 2005, 08:46:12 PM »
A and B are at a party together.  B is very drunk and A is aware of this.  B asks for A's keys and A decides to lend B his car.

A hopes that B will get into a car accident that will result in death or serious bodily injury to others so that B will get into trouble with the law, but he does not want B to die.

B gets into a car accident and 3 people die.  B lives.

Analyze all issues.

(I'm particularly interested in seeing whether there is a complicity issue, and maybe even a some kind of murder issue.)

Change the facts:   B dies.  What result?

5
Current Law Students / Girlfriend Problems
« on: December 14, 2005, 10:52:38 PM »
My girlfriend's annoying me. What should I do?

6
Current Law Students / My Barber Died!
« on: December 13, 2005, 05:46:10 PM »
I'm seriously sad. The guy was only 42 years old. He was so nice -- he didn't even care whether I paid him or not, even though he was in the middle of downtown Boston where the rent prices are through the roof!

7
Current Law Students / Civ Pro Question
« on: December 11, 2005, 05:12:46 PM »
I realize that a court can exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant if he is domiciled in that state. However, is there any other way to exercise general jurisdiction over an individual defendant (not a corporation)? What if that person has a summer home there -- can someone serve process at the person's doorstep and get general jurisdiction over him that way?

Or -- (I'm guessing this would work too) can they exercise general jurisdiction over the defendant by serving him personally in that state? Am I just confusing service of process with general jurisdiction now? (We barely covered service of process so that could be whats hurting me here.)

8
Current Law Students / Contracts Hypos
« on: December 06, 2005, 02:55:55 PM »
Who wants some practice with a Contracts hypo?

I don’t feel like waiting until January to find out how I did on my exam. Could someone post a response to this – or at least spot the issues so I can see if I spotted all the issues?

Some of the facts are wrong here but it is close enough. (It’s also a much more brief fact pattern that is less confusing. Some of the wording he used was confusing.)  I’ll post any other facts I remember if I realize that I messed up the fact pattern.

Also, we only had an hour for each of these questions. So it would be nice if someone could respond with which issues seem to be the most important and seem to have required more in depth analysis than other minor issues that we should have knocked out of the way more quickly.

One more thing -- we haven't covered much in this class. We've only covered: Remedies (brief overview, we're coming back to it later), Consideration, Promissory Estoppel, Restitution/Quasi Contract, Offer, and Acceptance (including Battle of the Forms).
_____________________________ _____________________________ ____________________________

QUESTION 1 (1 hour)

Ben Braverman worked for an armored truck and security company called C. One day back in the 1951 the armored truck that Braverman was driving along with two other security guards was robbed. The robbers somehow took the handcuffs from the three of them and handcuffed them. The robbers took $3.5 million in cash. The robbery occurred on a bridge and the robbers pushed Braverman and the other two guards off the bridge while they were in cuffs. Somehow, Braverman was miraculously able to wiggle out of the cuffs, get out of the water, and catch the license plate of the robbers. As a result, the robbers were caught and the money was returned to C.

Braverman became somewhat of a hero. A movie called Handcuffs was released and it became a box office hit. C owned all the rights to the movie and made millions. He kept the handcuffs as a souvenir. Presently, they are worth $50,000.

In 2001, as part of the 50 year anniversary of the release of Handcuffs, C decided that they wanted more publicity. So they put an advertisement in the papers and ran it for two months, from August to September. The ad stated [something along the lines of]: “$100,000 reward to anyone who returns the handcuffs from the incident in 1951…”

In 2003, Clammy was fishing in the river and the handcuffs turned up. He had not heard of the reward for the handcuffs. In fact, he had not even heard of the movie Handcuffs or the incident in 1951. Several days later, one of Clammy’s friends told him about the reward, and Clammy tried to claim it. C told him they had to think it over.

The reward claim by Clammy resulted in a lot of publicity for C. Soon after, Braverman (now retired and about 80 years old) claimed the $100,000 reward.

C comes to your office asking if they have to pay both the rewards. C wants to know if they should issue a press release informing the public that the reward is no longer being offered, especially considering that there is one other pair of handcuffs that still have not been located.

Advice C as the rights and liabilities of all parties.


QUESTION 2 (1 hour)

This question is based on the facts of the previous question.

Braverman now has a lawyer named Rob. Rob writes a letter to C stating [something along the lines of] “I would like to propose a deal. If you pay Braverman $50,000 for the handcuffs, the handcuffs are yours, and Braverman will promise not to bring any future lawsuits regarding the handcuffs or the reward.”

Going back to the 50’s… C had sent a letter to Braverman following his heroic feat in 1951 saying: [something along the lines of] “All property that is owned by C must be returned to C. You may keep the handcuffs until we decide that we want them back.” This clause was part of the contract that all employees signed that worked for C. Braverman signed the contract with that clause on it six months after he began working at C. He continued working there for 40 years.

The employees union is currently in the process of bringing a lawsuit against C. They are trying to get the clause excluded from the contract.

The senior partner for your firm (again, your firm is advising C) poses a hypothetical to you: Suppose that C decides to settle with Braverman. Will C then be able to void the contract and get the $50,000 back from Braverman?

Advise C as to the rights and liabilities of all parties, taking into consideration the potential lawsuit with the employees union.

9
Current Law Students / Consideration Question
« on: December 04, 2005, 06:51:39 PM »
A offers to loan B $10,000 for his law school tuition if B will pay $2000 a year plus 6% interest upon his graduation. B accepts.

Is there consideration? Consideration requires (1) a legal detriment to the promisee and (2) a bargained for exchange. There is legal detriment because B is limiting his options by promising to pay A back. There is a bargained for exchange because each party is asking for each other's promise and in exchange for the other party's promise.

I think that is correct...

But what if there was no interest rate that B had to pay to A?

10
I've looked in like five different sources (CO's, etc.) and I can't really get a solid answer here. My question is: Is an offer with a promise, but which gives the offeree a right to terminate their obligation at will an illusory promise?

Gilberts and some other sources (e.g. E&E's) say it is if it does not require notice of the termination. But then they refer to UCC 2-309, which says "termination of a contract by one party except on the happening of an agreed event requires that reasonable notification be received by the other party, and an agreement dispensing with notification is invalid if its operation would be unconscionable."

But for me, the clause that is confusing the hell out of me is IF ITS OPERATION WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE. Gilberts and the E&E don't seem to focus on this at all. They give the impression that an offer with a power to terminate at will and without notice is illusory, regardless of whether it's unconscionable. But unconscionability is a big deal. From what we learned, unconscionability requires a gross discrepancy in bargaining power. That might not be the case in the termination at will, without notice situation.

Gilberts etc. also cite Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Orange Crush Co., 296 F. 693. Gilberts says: "Another type of illusory promise is a real promise that is coupled with a power to terminate the obligation under the promise at will and without notice. Such a power gives a free way out and therefore renders the promise illusory."

I can't decide which rule to go with in my outline. Either it's illusory period, or it's illusory ONLY if it's unconscionable. Any help here?

Pages: [1] 2 3