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 - taterstol

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 46
Current Law Students / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 11, 2004, 12:51:15 PM »
if a promise can reasonably be expected to induce reliance, and it in fact does, then the promissor can be estopped from denying the contract. that part's simple--this is clearly a promissory estoppel case and reliance is appropriate to the extent that justice requires.

reliance expenditures is what is important. the court will not put a value on the 'benefit' she received from the vacation. she did exactly what her uncle's promise intended to induce her to do.

the injustice is not relative to someone's idea of whether a vacation is a good thing. it's relative to her having done exactly what the promise called for, and having spent money in the process with the understanding that she would receive the benefit of the promise.

the injustice is in causing her to take an expensive vacation, which she might not have otherwise taken in order to be prudent with her money, and then denying to reimburse her for her expenses. i agree that it would be an injustice to give her more than her reliance expenses (the full 10k if she actually spent less), so she probably could only receive damages for the amount she can prove she spent.

the courts do rule like this (they don't care if it was a vacation, or a healthy lifestyle, or a new car, etc)... see Hammer v. Sidway and any promissory estoppel case.

Current Law Students / Re: offer/acceptance hypo
« on: November 05, 2004, 12:44:20 PM »
I think the standard is "reasonable time" for acceptance before the offer lapses. If he says he'll keep it open for 10 days, then 10 days is the reasonable time. Of course, he's not bound to actually keep it open that long without some sort of consideration (i.e., it's not really an option contract), and the news of the auction seems like an indirect revocation once the buyer became aware.

Current Law Students / Re: offer/acceptance hypo
« on: November 04, 2004, 02:29:12 PM »
Similar to Smith learning of the revocation when he heard of the auction, wouldn't Green's offer had also been revoked once the auction began? After all, if hearing of the auction second-hand would be revocation, wouldn't being a witness to the start of the auction be an even stronger indication of revocation?

I do agree with Thomas as the eventual owner of the bike, but I'm wondering about Green.

Otherwise, rather than legislative intent, wouldn't Jones be in breach to Green? Then again, perhaps he could raise a statute of frauds defense.

I think I agree with you. The start of the auction surely would have been an indication to Green that the offer was revoked, just like news of the auction was the indication to Smith. Jones could have at any time ended the auction before the hammer fell--but he didn't. So it would go to Thomas without having to worry about this legislative intent stuff.

I'm not positive about this though.

Current Law Students / Re: Torts v. contracts
« on: October 29, 2004, 09:42:31 AM »
Right. Another way to think of it is that a duty that arises out of law is tort, and a duty that arises out of a contract is contract. You can fulfill the contract while breaching some other totally separate duty that results in having committed a tort.

But, at least to me, the interesting question is when the breach of the contract itself is also a tort.

I think the other thing that's important to remember is the whole "test" of when a breach of contract is a tort is a highly manipulable part of the doctrine. You can make the test come out whichever way you need it to in most situations. I think that a lot of the time, what dictates how the "test" comes out is how the court wants it to come out.

Current Law Students / Re: Torts v. contracts
« on: October 29, 2004, 09:26:10 AM »
The simplest rule is that breach of contract is almost never a tort. If it were a true or false question on a torts exam, the answer would be false.

The reason breach is almost never a tort isn't just because somebody said so. Pain and suffering is almost never reasonably expected to follow from a breach, and awarding punitive damages goes against the ideas of economic efficiency that contract law loves so much. If you can just get the money you were going to get anyway, why should you be entitled to punitive damages? It does nothing to advance the expectation, reliance, or restitution interest.

Courts have awarded pain and suffering where it was an expected consequence of a breach. Think burial contracts, funeral services, etc. They've awarded punitive damages if the breach was particularly egregious, like fraud, extortion, perjury in court related to the contract, etc. Damages for personal injury are sometimes awarded if they flow naturally from the breach.

But generally breach of contract is almost never a tort becuase usually money damages directly related to the contract, or an order of specific performance, are adequate to remedy the situation.

He has a slight advantage if he's looking for a 1L summer associate gig at a large law firm, but only because of the contacts he made and probably only for the firm he worked for. Several people in my class went back to the firms they paralegaled for during their 1L summer.

Other than that very narrow situation, I think there's no difference. Working as a paralegal isn't that impressive, and is pretty common among law students.

1. All done with 1L.

2. 'bout to head out for first day of work!
2a. I forgot what it's like to work.
2b. But so did you guys 'cuz I always see you posting here! ;)

3. j/k
3a. Well, not j/k about _T_
3b. ZING!  :o

I just gave you the numbers.  Nearly 1/2 of their attorneys are associates.  This is much better than your average law firm, where 3/4+ of the attorneys are associates.  Think about it, if you assume a ten year partner track, and that a significant number of partners take some time off to do government work, then it seems that between 1/2-3/4 of newly hired associates make partner.  Obviously this is guess work, but it's something.

And I'm just going off of the vault book, general hearsay, and a biography of the firm's founder, which describes the firm in some detail.

Also, it IS much harder to get into W and C than it is to get into most other biglaw firms.  Vault rated it the third most selective biglaw firm.  Since they only have 200 attorneys, they can afford to be a little more picky than other places.  If you go through the list of associates, you will also see that the W and C guys' credentials are much better than their counterparts at other firms (although Covington and Burling is in the same league).  Literally like 3/4 of their associates have clerked for a COA or above.  I don't know of any other "biglaw" firm that is like this (I mean, Wachtel is pretty hard to get into too, but they don't emphasize the clerkships as much because they're more into corporate stuff than litigation).

Covington and W&C are very hard to get into. I forget which one it is, but they make you list a professor as a reference and then they call them and talk about you. I think I might interview with them in the Fall... kinda curious to see what they're like.

For Big DC firms? I'd say about 10% of new associates make partner at Covington and Burling, Wilmer Cutler, and the DC branches of NY firms. It seems like it's more like 50% at Arnold Porter...and maybe about 75% for Williams & Connoly. Those are just my educated guesses, though...

are these firms growing at ridiculously fast rates?  how on earth can 50-75% of new associates at an estalished law firm eventually be promoted to partner?

Vino I think your intuition is right. I don't think 50% of associates are making partner at any firm here. Covington hires like 50 new associates each year.

So it might be good to "save" your top choice law firm for your 2L summer rather than your 1L then?

Also, is it easy to tranfer from one location to another (different city) in a law firm?

I don't think it matters. A firm will only hire you for either summer if they would be willing to hire you full time. Just because you spend your 1L vs. 2L summer with someone doesn't affect your ability to work full time with them. If you screw something up during the summer, that might. Also just remember that 1L spots at big firms are extremely limited--if you get an offer from a firm and it's something you want, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to game it and put them off until 2L.

As far as transfering from city to city, it totally depends on the firm. Some firms make it very difficult, and some do it all the time.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 46