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 - drbuff123

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12]
Current Law Students / Re: torts hypo input?
« on: December 15, 2006, 12:53:36 PM »
If a BB gun is inherently dangerous/ adult activity then the child is held to an adult standard of care.  If it is not considered an adult activity then we would need to know the age of the child.  I don't know where intent comes into the analysis regarding a negligence claim.

Assuming you aren't mentally deficient and you knew the material as well as you claim you did, I wouldn't worry about it because it was just as hard for everyone else as it was for you.

Current Law Students / Re: Vested v. Contingent Remainders
« on: December 11, 2006, 04:39:22 PM »
In jurisdictions that follow the doctrine of destructibility, a contingent remainder is destroyed if the condition precedent is not met by the time the previous estate ends.  Also, with contingent remainders the grantor ALWAYS retains a reversion until the remainder vests.

Current Law Students / Re: contracts question
« on: December 07, 2006, 06:08:57 AM »
I'm going with 4, but I breezed through the fact pattern

Current Law Students / Re: promissory estoppel vs. detrimental reliance
« on: December 06, 2006, 05:55:30 PM »
actually I do agree with you that you couldn't refer to it as a legal contract, but it operates the same way

Current Law Students / Re: promissory estoppel vs. detrimental reliance
« on: December 06, 2006, 05:30:28 PM »
(detrimental reliance) Res. 2nd Contracts sec 87(2) - "an offer which the offeror should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the offeree before acceptance, and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding to extent necessary to prevent justice."  Basically, if the offeree has detrimentally relied on the offer and that reliance was reasonably forseeable by the offeror, then the offer is not revocable.  This situation mainly comes up in the contracting business when a general contractor makes a bid to an owner while relying on the bids of sub-contractors.

Promissory estoppel has been taught by my professor as a substitute for consideration... and it makes sense that way.  If there is assent, offer, and acceptance, the contract will fail for lack of consideration because one person has suffered a legal detrimental by their promise, while the other person has suffered no legal detriment.  That is where PE kicks in, if the offeree relied on the promise to their reasonable and forseeable detriment then the agreement can be enforced.  However, if you look at PE as a substitute for a contract in general I do not think it will change the outcome of the analysis either is apples and oranges.

Current Law Students / Re: promissory estoppel vs. detrimental reliance
« on: December 06, 2006, 04:31:25 PM »
Detrimental reliance is a doctrine by which an offer can not be revoked, promissory estoppel is a substitute for consideration.

Transferring / What NOT to say when transferring
« on: October 16, 2006, 10:41:45 AM »
The school I am wanting to transfer to requires a statement of why you want to transfer (as I am sure most other schools to also).  Is there anything I want to explicitly avoid as to a reason I want to transfer, such as talking about how bad my current school sucks, etc.  Does the statement really give any weight to your application?  I'm looking for every advantage I can get considering the school I want to transfer to is not very transfer friendly, even though it is a middle of the road T2.  Any insight is appreciated. 

There is also a "reasonable parent" standard that some states use, I forgot to mention it in my earlier post because the court in the case I read adopted a different approach. If you want to look up the case that should answer all your questions and outlines all the different theories that approach parent-child immunity try Broadwell v. Holmes 871 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. 1994). 

From my understanding, there are some intra-family bars against negligence tort actions. The rational behind this is to stop fraud in insurance claims between family members and also so that the court won't disturb "family harmony."  In most states, husband-wife intrafamily tort immunity has been abolished.  I won't give you the full out exam answer about all the rational behind parent-child tort immunity, but generally parents are liable to their children if their liability stems from an action outside the scope of their parental duties.  I can't remember the exact case, but the case in our caseboook that covered this issue had a similar fact pattern to your hypo.  Applying the general rule, the court found that driving a automobile is not something in the scope of parental duty, therefore the child could sue his mother for injuries. 

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12]