Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - camelbx

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12
11
General Board / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 13, 2004, 01:07:29 PM »
Out of curiousity how much have y'all covered in Contracts thus far?

12
General Board / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 13, 2004, 12:59:11 PM »
If that were the case (and theres objective evidence to that effect, not just her subjective idea) then the reliance would not be reasonble

13
General Board / Re: K's
« on: November 11, 2004, 11:44:01 PM »
(a) Well its four classes a week, and each class is about an 1:05 but usually ends up at least 1:15 per class.

Contracts being a year long is about equivalent to our 2 quarter class. Property and Torts are also two quarter classes.

(b) Really? I'm assuming y'all go into more detail but we've read something like 150 or so RSKs that were part of the final for K I.

14
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 11, 2004, 11:29:05 PM »
(a) I mean I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with you.
(b) Contracts I, for us addressed, Formation, Promissory Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, Parol Evidence, Warranties, Statute of Frauds, Battle of Forms, couple of other things I can't recall. We're on the quarter system and Contracts is two quarters long.

15
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 11, 2004, 11:05:11 PM »
The fact that people are still arguing with Louder is very reassuring to me that there are people who do not get K at all. :P

I say this, I just finished Contracts I; and took the final. I'm on the quarter system.

16
General Board / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 10, 2004, 11:59:38 PM »
Yeah, ok, here:

You don't need to bargain away a "benefit" in promissory estoppel, there's no bargain at all. I was just telling jeff that there is no need for his "detriment test" in PE questions.

I think detriment/benefit got confused up there between "contract-benefit" and "actual-benefit" ... in any case... blah...

Promissory estoppel is not a bargained for exchange thats an agreement with consideration.

Repeat this to yourself over and over again.

Don't think about "injustice" the way you normally do, think about it in relation to the reliance, NOT whether or not it was detrimental to anyone.

17
General Board / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 10, 2004, 11:43:53 PM »
Presumably, at least in part, if she did not why would she want the money now?

In other words if she did not rely on his promise for her trip why is she asking for money if she was planning on paying for it anyway?

Yes, forcing her uncle to act under the promise he gave to forseeable and reasonable ends is the only way to avoid injustice.

This is also probably a SOF problem.

18
General Board / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 10, 2004, 11:30:31 PM »
You don't need a bargained away "detriment" for promissory estoppel.

1. Promise? Yes.
2. Reliance? Yes, her trip.
3. Promise induced reliance? Rresumably she would not have tripped if he hadn't promised.
4. Reliance Foreseeable by promisee? Of course.
5. Injustice... has 3 elements according to Restatement 90.
 A. Formality-- not met here but a specific amount is cited so its so-so
 B. Specific and substantial character of rememdy in relation to promise? certainly.
 C. Resonableness of reliance? I don't see why not, unless the uncle was poor and was obviously not serious.

... This looks good, check out Hamer v. Sidway I believe that one today would be considered a "Promissory Estoppel" case, Further.... we could even argue that its an agreement with consideration if the uncle "bargained for" a lawyer in the family from which he would gain benefit....

In any case there's no need for detriment in promissory esoppel.

19
General Board / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 10, 2004, 11:28:29 PM »
You don't need a bargained away "detriment" for promissory estoppel.

1. Promise? Yes.
2. Reliance? Yes, her trip.
3. Promise induced reliance? Rresumably she would not have tripped if he hadn't promised.
4. Reliance Foreseeable by promisee? Of course.
5. Injustice... has 3 elements according to Restatement 90.
 A. Formality-- not met here but a specific amount is cited so its so-so
 B. Specific and substantial character of rememdy in relation to promise? certainly.

20
General Board / Re: Requesting Help with the Rule Against Perpetuities
« on: October 25, 2004, 12:53:59 AM »
Sho,

Parts to RAP [common-law, pre-USRAP]:

Might it [the Contingent remainder, vested remainder subject to open, or executory interest]

vest [become possessory or class close]

too late [21 years beyond the death of every life in being]


Example:

O to A for life; then X; then to X's children.

Since the Vested Remainder subject to Open in FSA will vest upon X's death [or not vest and revert to O] this conveyance does not violate RAP.

If you did:

O to A for life; then to X, then to X's children who reach 30.

You see that after you kill off all the LIBs you /could/ be left with children of X who are under 30 but could reach 30, so it ///could/// remain subject to open 21 years after X's death. And thus violate common-law RAP.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12