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.

Topics - swifty

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12
Current Law Students / Problem with K Homework.
« on: April 02, 2005, 05:58:12 PM »
I've been given a fact pattern, and the Prof wants me to list all possible damages (if any)
can the Defendant rightfully claim as damages.  The problem is I don't think there was a breach, but there must be b/c I can't just answer "no breach, no damages."  I am ussually pretty good with these; this one has me stumped.

D offers P "to come work for him" and D offers to pay P 1500.00 "net" a week.
P asks for more details.  "What type of work?"  D answers "I open up a smog smog shop for you, I train you for three months, you'll make at least 1000.00 a week for the first 3 months while I train you.  After that you will be paid "about 1500.00" per week until the year is up, and then you can buy the shop from me, I buy it from you, or we keep the current relationship as is.  P thinks about it for a week, and goes to D for more clarification.  P asks about the need for a smog technician license, where the shop will be located, and how she will know how long this offer is open. D says "look all you need to do is promise me you will get your license.  I don't care when you get it, but once you pass the test, come to me, tell me you passed, and in three weeks time you will have your license mailed to you.  During that three weeks I will get the shop ready for you, and the shop will be in Ramsville, CA, about 60 miles from where you live."  P, still not sure asks:  "How do I know if I get my license, you will open a shop for me and pay me at least 1,000 a week?"  D answers, "I do this all the time, I have 7 smog shops right now.  What we have is a bilateral contract.  You promise me you will get your license, I promise to open a shop in Ramsville, Ca, and pay you at least 1000.00 a week.  My lawyer has advised me that this is a valid contract, I have done this before, I have made you an offer, if you accept, the consideration lies in those promises.  Thus, we have an offer, acceptance, consideration, AND, a meeting of the minds."  P tells D she accepts, they shake hands, and both parties are happy.

Two weeks later, D withdrawls his offer claiming he is burnt out, and no lomger wishes to carry out this contract.  P asks why D chooses her to bail on.  D reasserts he is burnt out, and no longer desires to carry out the contract.

P has turned down another job he was hired for, based on D's promise, and now is still unemployed.  P had also looked around at various schools to get certified, yet did not commit to a school because no school would start their program until May, about two months after D's originsal offer.

Instructions:  When answering this assignment, keep in mind the Doctrine of Good Faith, and the Doctrine of Conditional Promises.  HINT:  You will not pass this assignment without discussing "anticipatory breach."

Ackkk.  Help!  Any one do one similar.  Anybody got any case law on this.  This has me stumped.

Thanks in advance...

P.S. Don't do the homework for me, that's not what I'm asking.  Just looking for ideas.

« on: March 12, 2005, 07:28:56 PM »
An older student, realizing that I was looking for a job, (he overheard me talking to somebody about a job) stated and I quote:  "Why don't you come to work for me. I'll pat you 1500 a week net."  I took this offer to be in jest because I know the guy, and how in the hell does he know what I am going to net (after taxes)?

I decided to confront him and asked him if his offer was for real.  He said, absolutely, I don't joke about business.  He told me I need to get certified as a SMOG technician, and once I do, he will open up a shop, I run it, he trains me, after a year, I buy the shop from him.

I asked how do I know you will do this if I get certified?  He says, look, this is a K,
A promise for a promise, a bilateral K.  I promise to open up a shop for you and pay you 1500 a week net if when you show me your Smog license.  I said how do you know how much the shop will make?  He says it doesn't matter, if the shop loses money, you still get paid 1500 net per month for a year.

After all was said and done, I said "I think I am going to advantage of your offer."  He says the offer is open indefinetly to me because he has been burned before, and trusts me.  We shook hands, and I said "deal"

When I said "deal", did I make a promise?

The guy is very wealthy and really has nothing to lose.  What is his consideration then?  He isn't giving up anything.  It's contingent upon  me to get certified, therefore, I have created a detriment or benefit (1/2 glassful of water) and consideration on my side is not a problem.   What has he given up?  He is not doing anything UNLESS I get certified.

Since this is a Bi K, it is already in existance, I can breach by not getting certified, he can breach by not giving me a shop.  It seems I am missing something, and something just doesn't smell right.  Since the Bi K is already enforceable, he breaches by not opening a shop, he is out nothing, but I could sue, and should win 1500 a week for a year in damages, and even the cost of acquiring the certification  Correct? 

Obviously I won't spend the money to get certified until the exact terms are spelled out in a written agreement.  The problem is, he doesn't like written agreements, and if I ask him, he may be offended that I don't trust him.  He bases his success on the fact that his customers trust him, and he olnly makes offers like these to someone he nows he can trust.  I asked him if I could hire an employee to do the more difficult repairs, he said "Absolutley not. If your shop gets busy and you can't handle it alone, I will send one of my empolyees to your shop.  Thid is so similar to franchise type business, yet it is not as he has control over me and the shop.

Thoughts?  Helpful suggestions? 



Current Law Students / Civ/Pro SUCKS! Could use some help....
« on: February 08, 2005, 10:47:21 PM »
Seriously.  Does anybody actually enjoy this class?

Does anyone have online access to Benders Forms and pleadings?

My school doesn't seem to care about how tough it is going to
the library on cruthes!  Especially when it's on the top shelf!

I just need a sample claim for negligence in California.  If
it breaks it down into counties, Yolo county is what I need.
If you can get it please email me:
Thanks in advance...

Current Law Students / Westlaw - Does "disapproved" mean overruled?
« on: December 01, 2004, 02:53:45 PM »
I'm not real familiar with Westlaw, but my class is convinced that
this case has been "overruled in part" where I say it was "disaproved in part"
meaning it is not all "bad law," maybe only one part was disaproved.  I see
no where does it say it is "overruled."  Thoughts?

89 388


Current Law Students / Another not so funny hypo...
« on: November 25, 2004, 06:41:55 PM »
Manny Maniac tells Suzie's social worker he is planning on killing his supervisor at work.
Manny, however, doesn't have a job.  Is Manny's statement privileged?  Explain using the FRE's.  HMMMMMMM  ;D

Current Law Students / Anybody care to help me earn a 1/2 grade bump?
« on: November 21, 2004, 06:43:58 PM »
I am taking an Evidence class, and the Prof says if I can convince him that one of my answers was actually correct, if explained well, with supporting "evidence, ie, you guys)
I can get an extra 1/2 grade bump on the test.  This is one of the easiest questions he marked wrong and it was the very first question. 

T or F: A witness is incompetent to testify about matters of which he or she has no personal knowledge.
My argument would be that an expert witness does not need to have personal knowlwedge, as s/he is might only testifying about well for example, DNA evidence and how it works.  This person has no personal knowledge of the case or parties.  So I answered it false, when the correct answer according the the Prof is True.  His argument is that we all should know that when using the term witness, we should all presume this to be a layperson unless otherwise told so.  Bull.  What do you people think?  I won't cut and paste your replies for him to see, I'll just summarize them in a one page statement as he wants.  Do I have chance?  No?  Yes?  Nobody has taken evidence yet?  I really want to show how questions like that should not be even asked.  I have others I missed, but this is the easiest.  Your help really would be greatly appreciated.


Current Law Students / Man, I am in serious trouble...
« on: November 20, 2004, 05:25:53 PM »
Obviously I could use you help.  I have compensated (quite well mind you) for a reading disability I have had all my life.  Not gonna whine about that, I have it, period.  I was always able to compensate by using index cards while reading, and then the constant drilling process. This worked fine until I realized I am now catching myself writing out the text book verbatum, meaning it all IS IMPORTANT to me.  This didn't surprise me, what did surprise me is the amount of time it takes to read just one 25 page chapter, no matter what law topic.

I've looked at outling, but my outlines tend to be 10 pages long and I still average about 6 hours just to read the chapter, let alone drill myself with the cards. 

Honestly, although I have been diagnosed with a reading comprehension problem, ADD, all that crap, it could very well be that I am just a slow reader.  Seriously.  I bet some of you have tried many methods to speed up the process.  What did you find helpful?  What wasn't?  For now, I am just trying to address the reading issue, I take very good notes, and they are organized well, but before trying to integrate the whole process, I would like to address the reading time issue.  Anyone?  Please?  Outlining, again, is basically what I do with the index cards, plus I write instead of type, so it's supposed to "stick" better in my mind.  I don't know how to get through finals week as it stands now.   ???

Current Law Students / 4-4 Decision in Supreme court.
« on: November 13, 2004, 02:53:26 AM »
Okay, it took me 3 minutes to google the answer:
The lower court's decision is upheld.  I also spent
3 hours on Lexis/Nexis to find the black letter law.

No luck.  I need a whole semester class to figure out
their site!  Can anybody point me to the right direction.

The law of diminishing returns is an understatement in this situation  >:(

Current Law Students / Tape recorders
« on: November 04, 2004, 02:45:47 AM »
Tried to find the thread on it, no luck, so sorry if this is a repeat to people.

What are you guys using?  I need a small device quiet enough to not hear in book bag, but sensitive enough to record.  I'm usually no more than 30-45 feet from the prof, and I don't remember which one said not to record.  Screw it, I'm gonna.  Especially because I like the "burn audio to cd" part I read.  Any one?  The best and cheapest of course  ;)

Current Law Students / Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: October 29, 2004, 08:45:47 PM »
I'm just wondering if you all got his one yet:

Mary posts an ad in her local newspaper advertising her Corvette for sale and the asking price in the ad said 6000.00.  Jane calls up Mary, doesn't even want to look at the car, and offers Mary 6000.00 for the Corvette and informs Mary that she will come later that night with 6000.00 and to pick up the car.  Mary agrees, she is happy she sold the car on the first day, and got she was aking for.

Another person calls about 10 minutes later (Kitty) and offers 7,000.00; this person also does not want to check it out first.  Mary says well I have a buyer already for 6,000.00. Kitty explains "even if the car is not running, and your ad says it does, you are selling this car too cheap, will you accept 9,000.00 for the car, I am just down the street?"  Mary agrees, and sells the Corvette to Kitty.

Jane calls later that night and asks if it is a good time to come by. Mary said "sorry, I already sold it, and got 9000.00"  Jane is outraged, she tells Mary that they had a contract, (verbal) offer, acceptance(meeting of the minds) and consideration. (6000.00).
Jane tells Mary that she is attending law school and knows what a valid contract is, and she broke it.  Mary tells Jane, well I wentt to law school too, and you better go back to study contracts, because I don't have to sell the Corvette to you, and I won't,; it's already been sold.

How to resolve this issue.  I know the answer, so no need to look it up if you were so inclined.  Don't want to waste your time.

This`was the first one I got, wondering if some of you got this same one or similar?? 


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12