Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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.

Messages - Louder Than Bombs

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
41
General Board / Re: TORTS EXAM = RIDICULOUS
« on: December 16, 2004, 08:47:25 AM »
2nd essay (you all will love this)... trying to re-create the question:

"Discuss critically on the following comment made regarding recent trends in tort liability:  As tort law develops, our system gradually moves away from the 20th century trend towards strict liability and returns to a more 19th century negligence view.  Discuss this critically in view of 1) res ipsa 2) abnormally dangerous activity 3) products liability"

Needless to say, I had to vomit on the computer screen practically anything I could pull out of nowhere.  I was able to incorporate Calabresi and Fletcher and a law review article discussing Posner's view in the Cynamid case, but most of it was just personal analysis.  Needless to say I think I am F-CKED in torts!

Actually, this is an interesting question, IMHO...

But I must say that on exams, policy Q's are bull...

42
General Board / Re: Black Letter Series: Criminal Law by Peter Low
« on: December 08, 2004, 09:32:32 AM »
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Good luck w/finals everyone...

43
General Board / Re: Black Letter Series: Criminal Law by Peter Low
« on: December 07, 2004, 08:26:41 PM »
Link?

44
General Board / Black Letter Series: Criminal Law by Peter Low
« on: December 06, 2004, 10:31:17 PM »
The West Black Letter series commercial outlines come with a CD/floppy of a capsule summary/outline...I am looking for the crim law outline...anybody have this and can shoot me an email? I'd be much obliged...

45
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Someone please explain "intent"
« on: November 27, 2004, 11:51:00 AM »
...

46
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 11, 2004, 11:36:38 PM »
see my reply under "K's"...

47
General Board / K's
« on: November 11, 2004, 11:35:59 PM »
...

48
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 11, 2004, 11:27:58 PM »

To stray slightly from the issue, the simple fact that something identifies itself as an "offer" is not dispositive that it is, in fact, an offer.  The offer is that which creates a power of acceptance in the offeree.  Ads generally fail as offers because they usually do not specify who has the power to accept, they often do not specify a value of the offered goods, and they almost always fail to manifest an intention to be legally bound.  A famous example of an ad that IS an offer is Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1 Q.B. 256 (1893).


I just quickly want to point out that an there is actually no need for an intention to be 'legally bound'. When we speak of intent we are speaking of an intent to ENTER A BARGAIN. The classic example is that two ignorant persons may enter a contract to exchange a cow for a horse, even if they have don't know there is such a thing as a law of contracts that enforces promises to exchange.

Secondly, that the use of the word 'offer' doesn't necessarily make something an offer is true, BUT...this is mainly relevent in the context of price quotations. In the context it was used, the word offer meant 'manifestation to enter a bargain, as viewed by a reasonable person in the situation of the other party'.

Finally, the Murray take on Bi vs. Uni K's...well, if that helps you, that's great. But really, saying that there is a 'duty' is just another way of saying there is a promise outstanding.

49
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 11, 2004, 11:10:19 PM »
The fact that people are still arguing with Louder is very reassuring to me that there are people who do not get K at all. :P

I say this, I just finished Contracts I; and took the final. I'm on the quarter system.

(A) What do you mean?
(B) What is K's I? Mutual Assent (Offer and Acceptance?)

50
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 11, 2004, 09:34:14 PM »

"From a reasonable offeree (Mary is now the offeree) position, the offer is ambiguous, thus indifferent, meaning *Mary* can accept either by promise or performance.  Common Law would presume Bilateral, Modern Law would presume either.  With that, Mary could bring a defense that she was accepting the ambiguous offer through performance, and Jane did not perform and thus, she rejected the offer when she sold the car to someone else."

The only problem is SHE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE OFFER BY PROMISE WHEN SHE AGREED OVER THE TELEPHONE.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6