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]
51
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 11, 2004, 09:06:00 PM »
Come on bombs, now your in the conjecture club.  Of course a promise can be supported by consideration.  Most contracts are promises supported by consideration!  But as the great lawyer that you are, you should also see the Defense argument, and not the obvious Bi lateral K argument, right?  I hope you do or else you will be surprised many times in your career. 

Your assertion that 'coming over' was part of the bargain is completely ludicrous. Coming over is merely a suggested time and manner of performance. What if Jane had said she would 'bring over a check'...is there no K if she pays in cash?

That's all I have to say about this. You have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. I suggest you pick up Calamari and Perillo on Contracts, and read the chapter on mutal assent very carefully.

52
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 11, 2004, 07:20:15 PM »
All I can say is that swifty and prosser are going to fail contracts. If you think that a promise cannot be consideration, well...you have some serious studying to do. Just look at the contracts you form in your own life! When you contract with the cell phone company, what do you think they are bargaining for? Your PROMISE to pay. The K is formed when you sign on the dotted line (that is, make a promise) - not when you first 'tender' any payment.

53
General Board / Re: Adams v. Lindsell , 106 Eng.Rep. 250
« on: November 02, 2004, 10:16:39 AM »
PLEASE tell me you got that from casenotes or legalines or any other canned brief. God, briefing cases is wthout doubt the biggest waste of time.

Here's all you have to know about the mailbox rule. If the acceptance is made via an acceptable medium, and it is postmarked correctly/not sent out imporoperly, then it is effective upon dispatch (but only when the offer is revocable). Rejections are effective upon receipt.

Even if it is addressed improperly, it is still effective upon dispatch if it arrives within the usual time.

54
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 01, 2004, 08:21:22 PM »
...

55
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 01, 2004, 05:56:46 PM »
Why?  What if Jane never shows up with the money, would the courts force this sale? 

They may not even force the sale, anyway. Specific performance is a relatively infrequent remedy.

56
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 01, 2004, 05:53:54 PM »
...

57
Fordham U / Re: Introductions
« on: May 23, 2004, 09:27:59 PM »
...

58
Fordham U / Introductions
« on: May 21, 2004, 05:00:22 PM »
...

59
Fordham U / Welcome - Fordham Law Class of 2007!
« on: May 21, 2004, 02:18:03 PM »
Hi

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]