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 - natalieag
« on: October 14, 2008, 08:03:41 PM »
ABSOLUTELY agree that there is a bias, particularly against "older" women. I'm 34, (whic isn't that old right?
) but I was a stay at home mom for 12 yrs. I applied to 6 firms, got 6 interviews, no callbacks. (I have law review, top grades, externed at state COA as a 1L etc) I would think it was just me (and it still might be, who knows) but I had one guy just be rude about me staying at home with my kids. This seems illogical to me, since I don't think I'm behind the 24 yr olds, who were 12 at the time and not getting any work experience either! I have 5 other female friends in a similar situation. Those that received callbacks (not sure on offers) were the young and single and also the ones who come to me for help and advice on a daily basis.
I wasn't even sure I wanted that life, so I'm fine with the way it's worked out. Some of the people that were "chosen" were the LAST people I would want to work with, so that says something about the firm for me. Good luck in finding the right place, it will all work out!
« on: August 07, 2008, 01:51:03 PM »
I'm confused. Isn't there a rule that they can't accept any contact from a 1L until Dec. 1st? (and usually aren't interested in you a bit until you get those first semester grades anyway?) Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here...
« on: August 07, 2008, 01:45:15 PM »
There's a High Court Summaries for Farnsworth. High Court is better anyway IMO. Not absolutely necessary to have either though, especially for Torts where the cases are entertaining and easy to read. As my prof said, (old joke I think) "Everyone understands a punch to the nose."
« on: December 04, 2007, 09:30:39 PM »
DISCLAIMER: I'm a 1L who hasn't taken her Torts exam yet. As a reader out there, don't have to agree with anything I say, but you also aren't required to be a complete jerk about it if that's the case, alright? There's some grouchy people on this board lately.
That being said,
Negligence per se (or negligence has a matter or law) requires
1)a defendant who violates a statute (Martin v Herzog)
2) when the statute is designed to protect the class and type of harm that occurs (Tedla v Ellman)
Since you weren't more specific about the claim you are trying to analyze, I'm a little confused. Right off the bat though, the statute being violated might be admissable, but not enough to establish negligence by itself and take it out of the hands of the jury the way Martin did. You would need to analyze whether a statute against speeding was meant to protect the person, the vehicle, the pigs (or property). You would also need to analyze whether, as in Tedla, there was some good reason that the statute being violated wasn't a better choice than it being followed in the circumstance.
To be honest, I feel like some of the question is missing?
I have no idea whether any of this helps you, but I thought at least having the two part test might be helpful. Sorry if it's not.
« on: November 30, 2007, 10:16:04 AM »
The case that uses UCC persuasively on a services contract (though quoting a Restatement explanation citing the UCC) is Oglebay Norton Co v Armco Inc, 52 Ohio St. 232, 556 N.E.2d 515.
Also, look for example at the illustrations of Restatement Section 261. It begins, "On June 1, A agrees to sell and B to buy goods..." I believe if you check the comments and illustrations you will find that many pertain to goods specifically. My point is that the Restatements were designed to be exactly that, a restatement of all contract law, therefore applying to all contracts. I'm not trying to be ornery here I promise. Obviously, as you said, do what you want and go with what you think your prof has said. . .
« on: November 30, 2007, 09:48:25 AM »
Thought I would chime in.
I don't think the above statement is correct that claims that Restatements refers to services and UCC to goods. It is true that Article 2 refers only to transfers of goods, but the Restatement is a strongly persuasive authority that can refer to any contract transaction if the court wishes to adopt it. I think if you check your case book you will find that there are cases that refer to both. Also, my prof, who specializes in UCC, refers to it even under contracts that are not for the sale of goods, and points out how they would be resolved if it fell under UCC authority. There is a case that uses UCC as persuasive authority in the opinion for a contract for services as well, so there is more crossover than has been suggested in this thread. If someone really needs this reference, I will try and dig it out for you. I'm pretty sure about this, but if someone can point me to an authority that says otherwise, I am prepared to eat humble pie. Good luck!
« on: August 30, 2007, 06:09:46 PM »
Thanks for the responses guys! As it's ungraded, I'll probably just go with my instincts on this one since you tend to agree (although I think most of my classmates are going the other way) The hypo specifically says, "developer enters into a contract with an architect to design an office building, developer agrees to pay architect $25000 on delivery of final blueprints."
Seems to me that blueprints are "goods," that consulting during the construction would obviously be services. I dunno...gonna go with that unless someone stops me quick...Thanks again!
Hmm....as I was typing this, the last reply was posted. Now I'm unsure again. *brain hurts*
« on: August 30, 2007, 05:36:04 PM »
Hey, would an architect's contract to sell blueprints to a real estate developer be termed "goods" and have UCC apply?
This is a non-graded assignment cuz a prof is out of town, so we are allowed to ask for help. Thanks in advance!
PS, I think it does qualify under 2-105 because the blueprints themselves are "movable," not a security or service etc. but as an overwhelmed 1L I'm completely prepared to admit I'm unbelievably wrong. Thanks!
PS More points given for quicker responses...
« on: July 17, 2006, 03:15:23 PM »
I am a mom to 3 kids who will be 12, 9 and 6 when(if) I start law school next fall. I would be attending Arizona State (just in case there is someone here from there). I have an undergrad in English, lots of experience in reading boatloads of material etc, but I have been out of school for 10 years, staying home and taking care of my kids. DH is a civil engineer, works 7 to 6. Kids are very active and involved, soccer, ballet etc. My question is, is it feasible at all for me to go to law school with a busy family like this, or am I just nuts to think that I might be able to do it? I've looked at ASU's schedule for 1L's and it looks like I could be home from class by 3 which is important to me, I want to be here when they get home from school, help them with schoolwork etc. How much time would I need to put in either later at night or EARLY in the morning to be successful? I understand that I might have to let go of some of my type A personality traits about being the best; I just won't be in the position to put in that kind of time. I have two brothers that are attorneys, one finished #2 and was Law Review editor, one finished top third at a higher ranked law school, and they tell me I will be fine, but they are a little biased. Blah, blah, blah...sorry I'm rambling. basically, what's your honest opinion? (And thanks in advance for taking the time to reply.)
« on: November 15, 2006, 06:23:51 PM »
Okay, I am a mom to 3 and IF I truly decide we can handle this law school thing, it will really only happen at the school close to me so that the whole family doesn't have to be uprooted etc. (I think. Gosh, I don't know). Anyway, (don't you hate it when you interrupt yourself) I have high numbers for this school and have a good chance at a scholarship. Should I just apply there and call it good, or should I do something sort of dumb, but slightly tempting, and send in an app to just one top school, just to see. The thing is, even if I got in, I don't think it would be feasible to move the whole family to go, so the only advantage would be to just KNOW that I got in, and that if circumstances were different, maybe I would go, or perhaps to help me out in bargaining for financial aid at my school here. Any thoughts and/or suggestions? Weird question I know...