Law School 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 - dkast

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
Current Law Students / Re: President of my Law School student senate?
« on: August 09, 2005, 06:06:54 PM »
I start law school in the fall.  I already know that I am interested in this position.  Do any 1L, 2L's or 3L's know anything about running for this?

I wasn't part of student government in hs or college so does that hurt my chances of being 'experienced' so to speak?

Also, is the President of the senate the class speaker at graduation?

You probably have to finish your first year before you are eligible for that sort of thing.

Current Law Students / Anyone here NOT buying Case Books
« on: August 09, 2005, 06:05:01 PM »
I'm conteplating not buying the casesbooks for my class and either purchasing
the cd with some fellow students or just photocopying the cases we will be
assigned from the library.

Has anyone gone this route if so can you offer an opinion if this worked for you?
Being that these books will only be used for our classes
and will not do us much or any good when we become
attorneys i think its wise to just buy the cd and print
out the edited cases that we are assigned.  Plus it will
be so much easier to reference in class.

Current Law Students / Re: Albinger v Harris
« on: August 09, 2005, 05:58:56 PM »
The "conditional gift theory" is currently the majority viewpoint, because that is the theory expounded in the Restatement of Restitutions.

An interesting relatively recent ruling on the "conditional gift" theory is Marshall v. Cassano; 2001 NY Slip Op. 40320U.  This is what I would call a "conditional gift given in pari delicto," i.e. the plaintiff gave the gift in contemplation of marriage while he was still married; and the defendant knew he was married.

(Under a Contracts theory, it would have been an "illegal contract," to wit, "Contracts" illegal; which of course means "contrary to public policy," not necessarily "you are going to jail.")

Under the above case of what I would call, "conditional gift/in pari delicto," the fiancee' keeps the ring.  In Contracts (in pari delicto), the judge would probably return the parties to where they were before the contract was formed, which I would assume means the groom gets the ring back, and the fiancee' can accept new proposals.

Many jurisdictions use the objective contract theory--but some courts are reluctant, because what constitutes a "breach of the terms" of the engagement?  E.g., is a rowdy bachelor party a "breach"?

One last theory that would be the clear minority opinion but I believe is still in use would be the seisin/"transfer of title" theory.

In this theory, which was developed in ancient Anglo-Saxon law, the bride is sort of "one step above chattel."  The groom is asking for "transfer of title," from I guess her father.

In a similar way that one would offer, say, a lump of dirt and a twig for land, the groom is offering the ring as a symbol.

Ironically, this system would favor the bride, because she keeps the ring if the "title doesn't transfer" for whatever reason (transfer of title meaning "marriage")--similar to a land transfer not closing, and you don't have to give the lump and the twig back.

Yes this case involves quite a number of legal nuances that complicate the decision for the court and appellant’s council.

I belive that your analysis does in fact deal more with the issue at hand and what this case should turn on then what was represented by the majority decision of the court.  The case should turn on whether an engagement ring falls under contract or property law.  I believe that appelate's council was aware of this but his only recourse, under Montana law, was to attempt to argue under unjust enrichment under MCA 27-1-602 which a was futile effort at best. This is what the court based its decision on along with the gender bias argument which seems to come out of left field.

Your point:

Many jurisdictions use the objective contract theory--but some courts are reluctant, because what constitutes a "breach of the terms" of the engagement?  E.g., is a rowdy bachelor party a "breach"?

I would find it applicable, to contract law if at the end of the rowdy bachelor party the recipient of the engagement ring, receiver of the transfer, believes that the ring is given on said condition then a breach is evident again going back to the issue, is the giving of an engagement ring a gift or does it fall under the conditional gift theory.  The court never addresses this in their opinion and seems apprehensive to do so.   Very interesting case.

This is what i wrote on another board.

"if we look at the argument present by appellant’s counsel,
he should have attempted to prove that the
engagement ring was never a gift and hence can not be
construed as such and is not applicable to any gift law.

Now by firmly establishing that the engagement ring was
never intended as a gift the appellate counsel can refute
any type of gift legal analysis. So he would have to
argue in terms of property law or more specifically a
contract law case.

He has 2 major problems with this

1. MCA 27-1-602 which states: all causes of action for
breach of contract to marry are herby abolished...with
the exception of unjust enrichment which is his

2. By stating take the car, horse, dog ring Albinger
fails to put a contractual symbolism on the ring and
hence he fails to negate any elements of what is
considered a gift in black letter law. (a) competency
of the donor to understand the nature of his act; (b)
voluntary intent on the part of the donor to make a
gift. (c) delivery, either actual or symbolic, acceptance actual
or imputed, complete divestment of all control by the donor."

Current Law Students / Re: Law Schools named after scumbags!
« on: August 08, 2005, 11:01:44 PM »
Let's here it girls!
Which law school is named after the biggest SCUMBAG?

Miriam you rule, one of the funniest subjects i've seen on here.  Really out of left field.  WHere you intoxicated writing this?

Current Law Students / Re: question for the female law students
« on: August 08, 2005, 10:58:55 PM »
Hi there,

This is a question for the female law students. I'm wondering if any of you has thought of whether or not you plan to have a family (i.e., kids) at some point early on in your law career and if so, do you plan to continue working full-time once you've had a baby, or do you intend to quit, or work part-time, or what?

I want to attend law school and become a lawyer, but I also want to have children sometime in my late 20s and I want to be there for them (i.e., not hand them off to a nanny to raise), so I'm not sure how to reconcile this...

Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!

How old are you now.

Its going to be really difficult, having a kid is more work then law school and medical school combined especially for the women.

Current Law Students / Re: WTF? Credit score of 550
« on: August 08, 2005, 10:57:32 PM »
Do whatever you can do to fix it.

Its going to be hard with the money you are making though. 

Why is the pay so low your an attorney?

Consolidate the loans and get a credit card and pay the whole amount on time. 

Try and get another job also or goto court and try and solicate clients.

Current Law Students / Re: Sample Outline
« on: August 08, 2005, 10:55:13 PM »
Wow this outline is horrible.  Theres no reference to any black letter law.  Doesnt get into any type of legal analysis or hypos.

Current Law Students / Re: What would you do?
« on: August 08, 2005, 10:42:13 PM »
Because of my class rank, I was invited to write on to law review.  I attended the candidate class, but ultimately decided not to submit a case comment.  Imagine my surprise when I received a letter from the editor of law review stating that I had been accepted on to law review.  I called the editor and informed her that I had not written a case comment.  She checked with another board member and discovered that he had mixed up my name with someone else's.  She thanked me for being honest and correcting the mistake, and I assumed that was the end of the matter.  Today I recieved a letter from the dean's office congratulating me on making law review. I'm concerned that when school starts back, my name will be posted on the list of people who made law review and I'll have to explain to my friends/professors/anyone who tries to congratulate me that it was just a mistake.  I made a decision not to write on to law review, I caught the LR board member's mistake, and yet I'm still stuck in a situation that I find uncomfortable.  What should I do?

Sorry about your situation but come on. 

How do you expect to become an attorney if you can't resolve this little mix up. 

Just go to the office and explain the situation and they will fix it.  This is a typical beuracratic mistake that you will encounter a million times in business and when you become an attorney :)

Current Law Students / Albinger v Harris
« on: August 08, 2005, 10:38:12 PM »
Has anyone read this case?

I've been looking at it, though I find the Majory opinion to be correct, their reasoning is completely irrelevant.

The Issue should be whether the giving of an engagement ring can be considered a contractual obiligation and if so whether that existed in this case. 

The "conditional gift theory" cant be valid in that the Black Letter Law cleary states that a gift is "a transfer of personal property made voluntarily and without consideration"  This is an oxymoron if i ever saw one i'm sure the court realizes that but i cant understand why they give credence to it.

Albinger cleary did not place a contractual meaning with the transfer of the property because he told her "to take the car, horse dog and ring and get out" during their last break up.  If he had transfered some sort of contractual meaning to the ring why did he not ask for it back.  Was he still under the impression that they would get married.  I think not.

This is a simple case that could have been decided on the fact that he did not consider the ring to involve some sort of contractual obligation because he never considered it as such.

There was no reason for the court to attempt to discern a conditional gift theory.  I havent even gotten to the gender bias part of the majority decision yet but that doesnt seem relevant whats so ever.

Current Law Students / New York Law School
« on: July 23, 2005, 06:36:16 PM »

Any on this board going to NYLS?

If so have you started studying, I've already read the Aspen Primer on Tort law and it has enabled me to make a pretty in depth outline for the course including most of the Black Letter Law on the subject.

Just recieved my advanced week reading assignment seems pretty straight forward.

Please respond if you are starting NYLS in august.

Thank you.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]