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 - camelbx

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11
11
Current Law Students / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 11, 2004, 09:05:11 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.

12
Current Law Students / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 10, 2004, 09:59:38 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.

13
Current Law Students / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 10, 2004, 09:43:53 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.

14
Current Law Students / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 10, 2004, 09:30:31 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.

15
Current Law Students / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 10, 2004, 09:28:29 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.

16
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.


17
Law School Admissions / Re: Baylor Scholarship
« on: November 22, 2005, 09:00:13 AM »
Ok. Here is the Baylor line-- most of the poeple above have no idea what Baylor requires. Baylor generally requires to keep the scholarship a 2.75 GPA-- that is the approximate MEDIAN grade for 1L. MEDIAN.

But, they changed it for our class (Fall 2004) to 2.6. Easy to keep a below median grade, in my opinion.

My impression is that for every class Baylor decides how much to LOWER the 2.75 requirement. So that in the past years it has NEVER been above the MEDIAN. Call the very friendly Dean of Students/Student Liason and ask her, she's very helpful.

Some people in my class did lose their ride, but most kept it.

18
Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: Baylor Open House
« on: November 22, 2005, 08:55:56 AM »
"Maybe I shouldn't be doing this for fear of dissuading anyone from coming to Baylor, but I am currently in my second quarter here, and let me tell you. As a 1L, there is absolutely no way that you can do law school 8-6 everyday, and be done with it. My first quarter I was at school at 6:30am every morning, and didn't get home till 11 or 12 at night...and that was just to get by...the people who do really well put in more time than that. This quarter I have more classes than last quarter, but I am lazier. I still get to school at about 6:30am every morning, but I'm usually done by 8pm. So just be warned. I believe that Baylor produces better lawyers than most schools, but you will go through hell to become that better lawyer."

I am a 5Q here at Baylor and let me say that this is a valid criticism. But, and this is a big BUT, a little over the top. I made top quarter after 1L so I think my work ethic was acceptable. I kept my full-ride and can enjoy another very affordable year-and-a-half here. 2Q is the hardest quarter here (except maybe Practice Court I) so what you are going through is not "normal" even by Baylor standards. And I think you may be being a bit dramatic. I worked longer than 8-6 -- but I never got up before 730 (class at 915) and was done with work by 1030. That was 1Q and 2Q-- 3Q things changed drastically. Your 3Q until PCI is very light, or as light as you want it to be. Part of the challenge of Baylor is working hard but not giving into the group mentality around here that to win you have to be the hardest worker.

I have a little bit of a reputation for not prepping for classes adequately and I've been dressed down at least 3 times for it in class. I partied a lot 1L and went to bars once--more often twice a week and had a good time.

Make no mistake, you will work harder at Baylor than other Law schools, but that level is really up to the individual. You don't get shot for not preparing for class--and I would say it doesn't even effect grades very much.

If anyone has specific questions email me.

19
Incoming 1Ls / Re: 1L Studying Tactics and Strategies
« on: August 27, 2005, 10:35:37 PM »
CCIH what school do you go to?

Summer starter with a curve average of 2.7 sounds like my school...

20
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Regent - awesome or sucky?
« on: February 09, 2005, 07:35:45 AM »
If you could buy stock in a law school, I'd load up on Regent.  I visited the law school facilities this weekend and was amazed.  The building was like a dream and everything was brand new and beautiful.  From what I hear, applications are dramatically up and the reputation for the law school (which was only established in 1986) is rising quickly.  I live in Richmond and know of many Regent grads in large firms in the Richmond-Tidewater area.  I didn't apply, nor would I attend, but if your friend is a serious Christian who would like that perspective in her legal education, I would encourage her to apply.

Sometimes its just *painfully* obvious that an admin person from a school trolls these boards and posts crap like this. This, Mr/Ms. Helmut is one of those times.

CRAP.

Regent is not a TERRIBLE school. That being said look at its numbers.
154/148 75/25 LSAT.

That should tell you the entire story. Their median is about the median on the test, not impressive.

Their starting salary is horrific. ilrg.com with (granted 1-2 year old numbers) puts the starting salary at 40k for public practice and 36k for private. That is terrible, period.

http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/median.php/4/desc/MSPrivate

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11