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 - dubsy

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 98
41
i'm clearly running low on brain cells here.  i cannot figure out for the life of me how to make a table of contents using the new microsoft word.  Has anyone successfully done this??

42
Current Law Students / index feature in word?
« on: December 08, 2008, 09:55:18 AM »
does anyone know how to use it/where to find it? 

43
Current Law Students / Re: just venting.
« on: December 08, 2008, 09:32:12 AM »
ah, while attempting to write you my problem with it, I actually figured it out. Thanks!!!   :D

44
Current Law Students / Re: hill v gateway 2000
« on: December 08, 2008, 09:31:22 AM »
here's my short summary:

easterbrook rejects UCC 2-207 because that applies to "battle of the forms," whereas only 1 form was involved here.  Instead, he just treats this as a normal contract where the offeror can specify manner of acceptance, and if the offeree complies with that then there is a binding contract.  Thus, Gateway specified acceptance-by-opening-the-box, and Hills accepted by opening the box. Thus, there was a contract, and the Hills were bound to its terms.

But in terms of the significance of this case, I think it's important because there are 3 ways you can go about approaching this kind of situation:

1) Use common law/restatement and treat Hill as offeror, Gateway as offeree.  Hill offers to buy, Gateway gives a counteroffer by sending the box with new terms, performance is commenced when Hill opens the box, and the last doctrine dictates that Gateway's terms govern. (*note, this would actually only apply to service contracts)

2) Use 2-207 with Hill as offeror, Gateway as offeree.  Hill offers to buy, Gateway's new terms are a proposal to contract, but since Hill is a nonmerchant, the terms are only adopted with their consent.  Hill did not consent, so even though there was a contract, Hill can recover under this because technically their original terms only governed the contract.

3) Easterbrook's method. Hill is the offeree, and Gateway is the offeror.  Gateway specified form of acceptance, Hill performed that specified acceptance, there is a normal contract to which parties are bound.

45
Current Law Students / just venting.
« on: December 07, 2008, 11:34:24 PM »
#$&*@#*(#%* UCC 2-207 #$&^@*#^%$&!&#@^&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 >:(

46
Current Law Students / Re: R2d 74. Settlement of Claims?
« on: December 07, 2008, 11:33:02 PM »
ahh, makes much better sense with the context. thanks!

47
Current Law Students / R2d 74. Settlement of Claims?
« on: December 07, 2008, 09:35:54 PM »
can someone explain this one to me? i'm totally lost.

48
Current Law Students / unconscionability under the restatement?
« on: December 07, 2008, 08:00:20 PM »
where is it? i know ucc 2-302 is the unconscionability provision, but where is its equivalent in the restatement?

49
yes, anyone?

F*cking neurotic 1Ls.  What a bunch of lameasses. 

On the other hand, people who start threads to mock them are obviously awesome.

Not OK  >:(

So with K's... does anyone have a concise list of mandatory v. default rules?  Thankss!!

50
Current Law Students / Re: contracts questions
« on: December 07, 2008, 07:36:13 AM »
disclaimer: i'm a 1L in the middle of studying for contracts as well so i could be totally wrong.


1) On the exam, I'm sure if you find a way around it you can always argue for reliance damages (think of Grant Gilmore's skepticism of how you can find reliance damages in everything so promissory estoppel is a never-ending game).  But technically speaking it's when the promisee incurs some detriment because they thought the promise was for real - so reliance damages need to restore them back to the way they would have been had the contract not been performed/relied on.

2) Adhesion contracts are unconscionable if they don't give you the option to walk away from it. that's why even though EULA's (the extremely long, convoluted contracts that pop up when you download a file and it says "Accept" or not) seem a bit unfair by forcing you take all or nothing, at least they give you the option so they're not unconscionable). also, they're unconscionable if they dupe you somehow into signing it or signing into terms you didn't understand.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 98