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 - mikey4400
« on: December 04, 2005, 04:23:54 AM »
Actually, it would be Rest 2nd 139, not 90. My only reason in bringing this UCC/Common law example up is that although it is apparent that we would look to the common law for remedies such as this, some jurisdictions have the point of view that the "specific governs the general". What this means is that under UCC 2-201 (3), there are 3 exceptions to the writing requirement and that some jurisdictions might interpret those 3 as exclusive; therefore, promissory estoppel claims wouldn't apply.
Let me know if I'm not getting this or if it's confusing, because I'm working through it for the first time since lecture.
I thought promissory estoppel applies as an exception under SOF. If you can't find a signed writing to the oral K, it is still enforceable if there was reliance under promissory estoppel theory. Please correct me if I am wrong.
« on: December 01, 2005, 10:55:20 PM »
Hm, since you said you nailed all the issues, you probably did well. BTW, what issues did the exam cover? Did you address the O + A + C like most of the posts on this board said to do?
« on: November 28, 2005, 09:01:12 PM »
does PE or restitution ever apply when there is O + A + C?
What if there was a contract that had all the elements (O,A,C) and it was breached, what remedies or damages should be mentioned?
« on: November 28, 2005, 05:55:18 PM »
Is reliance or promissory estoppel used only whether there is no valid K? How about restitution?
« on: November 15, 2005, 11:37:36 PM »
Wow -- you are so far off it's incredible. Get your stats right because you look like a buffoon.
Let's see, Fordham is outside the top 20 (#34) and its in NYC. Salaries in the private sector: 25-75th percentile = 115-125K. Median = 125K.
Oh you meant to say that you'll be lucky to make 40K a year if you're not at a Tier 1? OK...
New York Law School is Tier 3. Salaries in the private sector: 25-75th = 50-125K. Median = 75K.
You have a good point, but I do know a few people who graduated with just an economics degree in undergrad and started out at $55k. i don't know if you're from NY but if you're not in Law Review or in Top20, you'll be lucky to start w/ $40k. It's so competitive here b/c people from all over U.S. and worldwide flock over here. Each yr, more and more students apply to law schools.
I am referring to STARTING salary. In any professional field, of course after several years you can make 125k. But no tier 2 or tier 3 coming straight from law school can start at 125k.
« on: November 15, 2005, 05:42:49 PM »
HYPO: M purchased estate from previous owner. One day, F (a guest) visited M's new house and found a broach on top of the window ledge.
F brought it to M, who indicated it did not belong to anyone else.
The former owner of the estate, while not claiming to be the true owner of the broach, claims best rights to it. So do F and M.
Who has better rights under NY law?
« on: November 15, 2005, 02:50:03 AM »
My torts exam is an open book exam. Should I state the law straight from the casebook or from how my professor defines it?
« on: November 15, 2005, 02:42:16 AM »
Hi, this is urgent - can someone please list the case names from Ch. 11 for Torts: Cases and Materials, 11th Edition (Prosser, Wade and Schwartz)? I have an older edition and I think the new edition added new cases. Thanks!
« on: November 15, 2005, 01:14:05 AM »
I'm not saying money is everything, but money is a factor esp. if you don't have any - otherwise what's the point of working? Would anybody wake up 7am everday and work for 8 hrs/day for 365 days if they don't get paid? Also, money has to be a factor b/c we're investing 100k in something that is supposed to benefit us. If the main reason people go to law school is b/c they like the law, can't they simply sit at the beach and bust out a casebook and read as leisure all they want? You don't see people becoming car mechanics just b/c they "like" cars. I guess I'm just trying to find a more compelling reason that law school is worth the 3 yrs and there are more benefits than the 55k-60k a college grad can also get. Sometimes, I see my friends (23-24 yr olds) moving on with their lives already b/c they're making $$ after college and now close to being able to by a house. Whereas, I need another 3-4 years just to pay off loans? I'll be in mid-30s b4 i can buy a house for my mom. 20 years ago, if you're a lawyer, you make more than most people. But today, it's not the same anymore - the benefit isn't as great. Society puts more emphasis on business, the big corps, finance, stock market. There's got be an advantage for attending school for 1/3 of our lives.
« on: November 15, 2005, 12:41:43 AM »
Ok, let's just say i'm off on the 40k. But even if starting salary is $60k, a 22 year old college graduate can also make starting salary 55k to 60k in a financial industry. So, after 3-4 years of law school, we're no better off financially (not to mention paying off loans) than the 22 yr old who didn't have a JD but just a college degree (who by the way didn't have to throw in another 100k for law school)?