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 - PharmD
« on: December 11, 2008, 10:13:56 PM »
This hypo was on a contracts exam that I took today. Except it was a high-powered speedboat tester. I mean... to the T. Unbelievable. Right down to following procedure after the cockpit caught fire.
Button, I owe you a drink. And PharmD, whoever you are, I totally used your forbearance argument.
Suddenly, my hours on LSD seem totally worthwhile.
Reez, no problem. I'm glad that it worked out for you. I'm certain you'll get points for finding a way to use law principles in lieu of a fabricated, reactionary, anecdotal, moral consideration doctrine. I personally think its satisfying when you get to validate the time-tested tools instead settling for a somewhat officious (pun intended) consideration doctrine. I just got done w/ my contracts and I was more prepared that I felt I was. Glad its over for a little while.
« on: December 11, 2008, 04:12:20 AM »
This is strange as hell, honestly. Both the claims against Sportsworld are related to unjust enrichment, but you're tempted to figure that dog won't hunt unless you're saying the benefit conferred was 900 worth of advertising (plus some incalculable advantage to their actual business), and there's no way a court holds that the only way to avoid injustice is to fix a nonparty's mistake by levying against the store that wasn't involved at all.
As for Ed's v. Sportsland, there's a third party beneficiary issue here, but Sportsland couldn't have contemplated that Ed's would benefit from the K, and, in any event, Sportsland had satisfied its obligation to the party with whom it was in privity.
I don't know what to tell you, dude. Other than, there's a male private part's right across Peachtree form Phipp's, so it's a wonder Lenox has got two sporting goods stores. I think this is a trick question.
ETA: I should probably mention that my K class didn't cover third-party beneficiaries or outright fraud (as in, where a party plain absconds), so I could be missing some big stuff here.
I'm thinking its a trick question too. Couldn't come up with anything. BTW, are you in the ATL area, I see you recognized Lenox + Phipps.
« on: December 11, 2008, 12:52:04 AM »
I was wondering if anyone can give me some insight as to the final part of this hypo from my k class. Thanks in advance.
Specifically, the nature and extent of any claims SPORTSLAND has against SPORTSWORLD
Larry owns SPORTSLAND, a sporting goods store located at Lenox Shopping
Center. He entered into a contract with FRED'S AD AGENCY wherein Fred's agreed to
arrange for an airplane to fly over Turner Field during a Braves/Mets baseball game on
8/4/99 with a trailer reading: "QUALITY YOU CAN AFFORD - SPORTSLAND AT
LENOX." Pursuant to the contract, Larry paid the ad agency $900 in advance. Fred's
then contracted with ED'S FLYING ADS to fly the plane with the message over the
stadium for $600.
Larry went to the game on 8/4/99 and waited patiently to see the plane carrying
his message fly over the capacity crowd at the stadium. Finally, in the 8th inning, a plane
flew over with a trailer reading: "QUALITY YOU CAN AFFORD - SPORTSWORLD AT
LENOX." Sportsworld is another, competing, sporting goods store located at Lenox.
FRED=S ad agency admitted it gave ED'S FLYING ADS the wrong name and
promised to refund Larry's $900. A few weeks later, ED'S called Larry and demanded
$600 for flying the message over the stadium. Apparently, FRED'S had not paid ED'S or
most of its other creditors before closing its doors and skipping town. Needless to say,
Larry never received his refund. Analyze the nature and extent of any claims ED'S has
against SPORTSLAND; that ED'S has against SPORTSWORLD; and that
SPORTSLAND has against SPORTSWORLD.
« on: December 09, 2008, 12:10:53 AM »
Let me know if I'm way off... First post from a First Year
The consideration for the monthly check was S's forbearance from seeking damages/compensation at the time of the accident. So S suffers legal detriment in exchange for the check, which you would reasonably expect him to have reliance on, etc..
I think the whole "wheeling" him in is to throw you off("red herring"?) so you think this is the consideration for the check. It's not b/c he gets check independent of appearances.
At the time of the accident, S could have sued for unjust enrichment or sought alternative avenues of compensation that may or may not be available 10 years later.
I'm not sure this k falls w/i SOF because it would be possible to perform this within a year. The payment period is month-to-month, and conditional to the company being profitable. The way it is worded, one could interpret that once the company is not profitable, they are discharged from their duty to pay. This event could theoretically occur the following month. I thought that in order for a k to fall w/i SOF, it must be impossible to complete in a year. But you could always argue it all.
Material Benefit Rule
I would be cautious about using this as the top arguement, because sec.(86) isn't universally accepted (And for good reason). One problem with sec.86 is that a promise has to first be made, then it can be enforced. So basically, ungrateful people who don't acknowledge a benefit are not obligated to anything, where considerate people that want to return the favor get penalized. I would just try to find an alternative before going this route.
I'm not really sure how these other facts play in, Gotta think about it..