does your K professor treat the restatements as gospel?

[T. Durden]

i thought that the restatements were at best marginal primary authorities and generally considered to be good secondary authorities ...

my K professor treats them as absolute law. we read cases and come to class only to hear the logic that was applied in the particular cases be completely abandoned in favor of the strict language of the restatement

it's starting to drive me crazy as this practice is more or less the complete polar opposite of what we've learned / seen in other classes

but whatever - is this standard practice for a K professor?

i don't think i'm going to crim today

no way to get cases briefed in time d**mn memo d**mn west law training d**mn 8 million things that i have to do (such as this ever so important task)

[J D]

Mine doesn't.  In fact he's been quite critical of the Restatement on some points (recently Sec. 21, which takes the objectivist approach that intention to form a contract is not necessary to form one, but then proceeds to outline the fifteen zillion exceptions to that rule which would have to exist for contract law to conform to common sense, e.g. mistake, joke, theater, etc.).

[tacojohn]

Mine points out things he thinks are better explanations of the common law or where he thinks the rule in the restatement is better than the common law rule.

[jacy85]

My prof takes a similar approach as tacojohn's.  He likes the restatement for some things, and is equally as verbal about his criticisms.