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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.