Law School Discussion
  1. Law School Discussion
  2. Profile of Adqueen
  3. Show Posts
  4. Messages

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 - Adqueen

Pages: [1] 2
1
Current Law Students / Re: Delaware v. MBCA
« on: November 28, 2006, 10:11:25 AM »
Thanks guys.

yes I guess it is a little diffcult to find the differences because there are subtle to say the least....but good point about the exculpatory provision.

There are so many rules to learn for this class, I'm really overwhelmed to the point inaction.  There's no way to learn them all!  yikes.

2
Current Law Students / Delaware v. MBCA
« on: November 26, 2006, 01:48:43 PM »
Does anyone have a good straightforward chart (or something) that highlights the main differences between Delaware corp law and the MBCA?

My Business Entitites professor has all but promised we will be tested on both, and I'm having a hard time sussing out/keeping clear what the differences are.

Any help would be much appreciated -

3
Current Law Students / Re: So after future interests, how to apply the Rule Against Perpetuities?
« on: November 23, 2005, 12:53:35 PM »
Wow.  That is certainly comprehensive!  Maybe there is no straightforward way of applying the RAP - especially with the 'afterborn' people thrown in.

I'm afraid if I get a RAP issue on the exam, I'll end up spending 45 minutes on an hour question!

Thank you for spelling it out, maybe I can outline it more easily now.

4
Current Law Students / So after future interests, how to apply the Rule Against Perpetuities?
« on: November 23, 2005, 11:47:42 AM »

Does anyone have a straightforward method of applying the RAP?  A roadmap, a system, something? It's about as intuitive as calculus as far as I can tell.

5
Current Law Students / Re: Tactics for understanding future interests in Property?
« on: November 23, 2005, 11:33:37 AM »
How cool to have him for a professor.  Talk about getting it from the horse's mouth!

This checklist is helpful.

Now for the next question:  Rule Against Perpetuities!  Is there a straightforward way of applying that?  It is about as intuitive as calculus from what I can tell.

6
Current Law Students / Re: Tater Torts
« on: October 31, 2005, 06:09:40 PM »
I'm not taking Torts this semester, so I have nothing to add, but I did find your subject line amusing.

7
Current Law Students / Re: Tactics for understanding future interests in Property?
« on: October 29, 2005, 06:50:01 PM »
Yeah, a TA of mine mentioned, "you'll learn about X on the last day of class in the spring."  I got weak at the thought - an end to this first year, be still my heart.

And yes I think it is just practice pratice practice until it sinks in.  Practice makes...competent?

I'll check out that book, thanks!

8
Current Law Students / Re: Tactics for understanding future interests in Property?
« on: October 29, 2005, 12:43:10 PM »
This is all very helpful, thank you.  I think I just need to take it a little at a time; no matter how often I study it, the first time I go back to it, it looks like greek and I get overwhelmed.

9
Current Law Students / Re: How long should you study for the LSAT??
« on: October 28, 2005, 06:12:13 PM »
Study until you feel confident in your strategies. I highly recommend you take as many practice tests as you can.  The logic games ate my lunch, so I tried do as many of them as I could stand.  So in a sense I did not 'study' for the LSAT, I practiced. I hope you are taking a prep course like Kaplan; I would not have been able to make the grade I did without guidance from Kaplan.

good luck!

10
Current Law Students / Tactics for understanding future interests in Property?
« on: October 28, 2005, 05:03:42 PM »
Has anyone out there figured out a way to parse future interests? I'm struggling specifically with the difference between the condition subsequent that marks a vested remainder subject to divestment, and condition precedent that defines a contingent remainder subject to condition precedent. What makes a condition precedent and not subsequent?  It's inexplicable, I tell you.  Any help would be appreciated.

Pages: [1] 2