did you have any of these professors
also what did you think of your first year?
also what did you think of your first year?
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 - dkast
Hi again chaser.
It has been a very interesting discussion. I believe that the unconditional gift theory is analogous to the "contract" theory which you mentioned would apply in the courts of England.
Its great you mentioned:
This would constitute a breach and be applicable to contract law. Here's my brief of the case:
The court finds that an engagement ring is a gift because it can not be anything else under Montana Law.
Appelle and Cross-Appellant
1. Albinger presented Harris with an engagement ring and diamond earrings on Dec. 15th 1995.
2. The relationship was troubled and volatile, on each separation the ring was returned to or reclaimed by Albinger and was represent to Harris after each reconciliation.
3. Albinger and Harris lived together form August 1995 until April 1998 during which time Albinger conferred upon Harris a new Ford Mustang, a horse and a dog in addition to the earrings and ring.
4. The parties separated again in late April 1998 at which point Albinger told Harris to “take the car, the horse, the dog, and the ring and get the hell out.”
Does the transfer of an engagement ring fall under a “conditional gift theory” with an implied condition of marriage under Montana Law?
No, an engagement ring is an unconditional gift upon delivery and is subject to Montana Gift Law as such.
It is the courts findings that an engagement ring is a gift given without implied or express condition and, as such, must be applicable to the existing gift law and common-law principles in the state of Montana.
Appellee’s counsel argues that the court should adopt a “conditional gift theory”. Albinger maintains he held a reversionary interest in the gift of the engagement ring grounded in an implied condition subsequent, in which said condition is the marriage. Montana law recognizes the transfer of personal property subject to an express or implied condition which must be satisfied before title vests, as either a contract or as a gift.
Due to “anti-heart balm” statues, specifically § 27-1-602 MCA, which bars all causes of action in breach of contract to marry , the court applies Montana gift law to the case which maintains that the only revocable gift recognized by Montana law is a gift in view of death § 70-3-201, MCA.. Based on these findings, the court declines to create a new category of gifting under a “conditional gift theory”.
The court also finds that if a “conditional gift theory” were to be applied exclusively to engagement ring cases, it would carve an exception to the aforementioned Montana gift law which would be biased to the predominately male plaintiffs, and as such, the court declines to apply the rule to this case.
Rules of Law: Montana Gift Law; “Anti-heart balm” statute § 27-1-602 MCA; Gender Bias; Conditional Gift Theory.
Application of Rules of Law: (see Reasoning)
The court reverses the 8th District Court’s ruling in regards to an engagement ring being a conditional gift in the state of Montana.
« on: August 11, 2005, 02:07:58 AM »
So if giving up Yale (that I did not apply to) for CUNY is what would make that true I disagree. I hope you are more open when you become a lawyer or maybe you just enjoy reading over contracts and making extra money for someone who doesnt even morally deserve it while they screw over those who cant even afford to be screwed. BYE BYE
VW515, you have totally misconstrued my statement. I think its quite clear from my quote that I was telling the individual to substitute Yale for CUNY in the sentence "they do not take disadvantage students at CUNY I go there and a few of my friends are also well to do." Not to substitute attending Yale or attending CUNY.
My point was that Yale does not take disadvantage students, it was a joke based on getting into Yale requires being in the elite and born with a silver spoon in your mouth (not true btw but it helps . )
In my opinion it really doesn’t matter what school you graduate from, yes I may be going to a "prestigious" institution but that is irrelevant to becoming a good attorney.
What's important is your knowledge and analysis of the law.
When you submit a brief you do not sign it with Yale Class of 2008 or CUNY 2008.
The judge will not ask you what law school you graduated from prior to presenting your oral arguments.
He will only look at your knowledge and analysis of the law and how it applies to your case.
I am impressed with the voracity in your reply though you totally misconstrued the meaning of my post.
I hope this clears up the issue, if it does not send me an e-mail and we can discuss further.
« on: August 11, 2005, 01:43:50 AM »
I dont think your personal statement matters much unless you are applying to Yale or Harvard where everyone has a 180 LSAT score and a 4.0 GPA.
There are books available but I recommend just writing one yourself.
Get the books recommended by Planet Law School.
I cant say enough on how this book helps you focus on what is essential to legal reasoning and analysis.
I do believe however that you must first have an inate ability to reason the law in a certain way but Planet Law School will help you to focus that ability and apply it to what is necessary in order to do well in law school.
they do not take disadvantage students at CUNY I go there and a few of my friends are also well to do.
You may have to substitute Yale for CUNY if you want the above statement to make any sense