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 - starter

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
41
General Board / Re: More torts stuff
« on: September 04, 2006, 06:55:48 PM »
Maybe I'm thinking more with respect to negligence.  You can't say "I'm too stupid to live up to the reasonable person standard" or "I tried my best."  That is never considered a defense.

42
General Board / Re: More torts stuff
« on: September 04, 2006, 06:23:05 PM »
Are you looking for validation, or do you have a question?  I don't understand your understanding of transferred intent, so I can't help you there.

The reasonable person standard is not subjective.

43
General Board / Re: Torts hypo
« on: September 04, 2006, 05:54:27 PM »
I feel pretty strongly that the guy that set the trap would surely by found liable for battery. First of all, it does not matter if he did not specifically target anyone, if he intended the consequences of his actions.. no matter on who.   It does not matter if it is possible that someone may not fall, it is important what his intent was. In fact, it does not really matter, now that I think about it, whether he was subst. certainty. In truth, he had a DESIRE to bring about a harmful or offensive contact with someone, i.e. he desired the consequences to result from his actions. To draw anything else fromt he purpose of him digging a hole in the ground and covering it up would be pretty difficult and likely fail in court.

Also, I do not see negligence here. This was carried out with an intent to "see if anyone would fall". This is quite different from, oops I dug this hole and forgot about it, I used it as a garbage can while camping. That would be negligence. Here he clearly intended the result of his actions, the absolute meaning of an intentional tort.

There is gross or willful negligence in this hypo.  There is a clear disregard for the safety of others when you dig a hole and then cover it up. 

44
General Board / Re: Transferred intent hypo
« on: September 04, 2006, 10:07:32 AM »
I don't think transferred intent is an issue at all here.  With transferred intent A sets out  to cause harm to B  instead, unintentionally, causes C to suffer the harm.  All we have in this hypo are two parties so I don't see how transferred intent can apply.  I believe you're better off sticking with assault.

45
General Board / Re: K's Hypo
« on: September 03, 2006, 09:28:41 PM »
Expectation is easiest. It is the benefit of the bargain. Assumes contract not breached so Helen's profit + costs=  $4,000+$15,000 = $19,000  Assuming she does not keep horse = $17,000 (She nets $4,000 which is the benefit of the bargain)

Reliance puts Promissee (Helen) in same position before contract breached (only damages to correct breach) = $15,000-$5,000-$2,000 = $8,000

Restitution puts Promisor (Troy) back in same position before contract breached. In this case the $5,000 goes back to Troy, $15,000 to Helen so the net damages awarded are $10,000.

Expectation $19,000  /   $17,000 if salvages horse
Reliance $8,000  (horse is salvaged)
Restitution $10,000  / $8,000 if salvages horrse





She's already received $5,000 under the contract, so why not reduce that expectation to 14K, 14K + 5K already received = 19K

19K - 15K for costs = 4K profits, which was her expectation

The expectation could be further reduced to 12K if she salvages the horse.

46
General Board / Re: Torts hypo
« on: September 03, 2006, 12:50:16 PM »
The fact that the walking trail was "frequently unused" might have something to do with determining whether it was substantially certain that someone would fall into the hole.  If it was a busy sidewalk and he covered up a hole it might be different. 

This is a much better case for negligence than battery.

47
General Board / Re: Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. Supreme Court)
« on: August 20, 2006, 07:47:32 PM »
You're probably not close to be honest.  You will soon find out that everyone is lost on this case because it is notoriously difficult.

http://www.suasponte.org/archives/000392.php

This will help explain the case and all of the litigants.  Just know that most of this stuff isn't even good law any more, as you will find out soon.

48
General Board / Re: briefing in technicolor? hmm...
« on: August 20, 2006, 06:36:29 PM »
What you're missing is relying LSC as a "tried and true" method.  It is not.  It is a method to sell books and scare you into thinking that you must do things that way or else you'll fail.  You're supposed to be confused at first.  If everything came naturally there would be no point in going to law school; everyone could go ahead and become a lawyer after they got a 4 year degree.  You'll figure it out eventually, but you will feel lost the first few weeks, rainbow highlighting or not.

Anyway, why stress so much about having the perfect brief?  It's largely a waste of time to brief cases and even if you do choose to brief them your professor isn't going to collect them and give you a check minus if isn't done correctly.  What your school gave you and what LSC recommends are almost the same thing.  Facts, procedural history, reasoning, issue, and holding. That's all you need if you must brief.

49
General Board / Re: Survey for all you 2L's, 3L's
« on: August 19, 2006, 05:36:56 PM »
Thanks to all who answered so far.  Please keep them coming.  The larger the sample the better the idea new students can get. Thanks again.

You do realize that you're not getting a representative sample right?

50
General Board / Re: CONTRACT LAW help
« on: July 28, 2006, 07:54:59 AM »
This is funny.

#1 - Can Jean enter into a contract, she is a minor, but did she reaffirm the contract by continuing to lease after she turned 18?
Was the original contract modified by the rent abatement?
If so, this will affect the calculation of damages.  Sol should get damages under one contract but not two.  Which contract do we calculate his damages under? 
It looks like she mitigated damages properly by finding a new tenant for S, so no issue there.  You have to subtract what he got from the new tenant when calculating his total loss.  It looks like the place was rented at a higher rate than wat J signed for.  The landlord may not get anything if rent received from new tenant exceeds rent expected under old contract.

You can take it from there.  Have fun, sir.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8