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 - jgsmith
« on: December 04, 2008, 12:45:54 AM »
Maybe, but my state does not mind asserting authority or going against the fed' in my opinion, a State Court has every right to disregard the decision if the claim is based on State Const. rather than Federal. I am for weakening the Feds.
« on: December 04, 2008, 12:42:54 AM »
Thanks for pointing that case out. Know I know how to proceed if I am ever faced with this situation in my state.
« on: December 04, 2008, 12:37:11 AM »
maybe away around this is to base your claim on the State Constitution rather than federal; therefore precluding federal jurisdiction
« on: December 04, 2008, 12:10:48 AM »
again, not in my state. You cant arrest for not wearing a seatbelt. You cant even ask to search the car.
« on: December 03, 2008, 11:51:50 PM »
all of my first year classes were closed book.
« on: December 03, 2008, 11:48:39 PM »
not in my state, cops are trained to withstand verbal abuse, and they can only arrest for "fighting words"
« on: December 03, 2008, 11:38:13 PM »
How are you getting arrested if the cops smell marijuana, but fail to find any in the car?
« on: December 03, 2008, 11:07:26 PM »
I completely agree with everything in the above post except smelling marijuana. If the cop smells marijuana, he probably has probable cause to search the car. But if he does not find any drugs in the car, I'm not sure he can search the trunk, because the basis of his probable cause was smelling marijuana smoke. If he fails to find any in the car, arguable the search should end, unless theres a hippy in the trunk blazing up.
« on: December 03, 2008, 10:36:03 PM »
take professional responsibility, You need to know it anyway.
« on: December 03, 2008, 10:19:45 PM »
Essentially you can argue either side:
To argue that K exists and is enforceable: then look to Section 87 of the Restatement. There might be an option contract because of the written and signed letter. If it merely purports consideration in exchange for whatever, then the consideration does not even have to exist (although it is not helpful that this it states past consideration - but you could argue that this is also a "future action" has he is able to bring about publicity for L).
To argue against the existence of K, which is probably the stronger argument, there was no detrimental reliance whatsoever to the offer = therefore no bargain and no K. In other words, the guy did not rely on the pension as a means to retire since he would have had to retire due to his injuries anyway. He is giving up nothing! So, I would have to disagree with the above arguments because promissory estoppel (detrimental reliance) will be defeated.
I disagree on the detrimental reliance. There is a good argument that the guy did not seek employment over the next 10 years because of the Co.'s promise to send him checks. This is detremental reliance all day long! I am relying upon your promise to send me checks, so I am not going to seek another job or means of income.