convoluted 2-207 question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
ogurty

Bronze
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:16 am

Re: convoluted 2-207 question

Postby ogurty » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:40 pm

midwesternlife33 wrote:The "confirmations" were sent simultaneously, does this implicate things at all? I would think seller would have an argument that he never assented to the terms of the oral K at all.


Yes, he might, but when the facts of the hypo say "oral K for sale of tigers", it does not mean "there MIGHT be a contract".

midwesternlife33

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:23 pm

Re: convoluted 2-207 question

Postby midwesternlife33 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:42 pm

ogurty wrote:
midwesternlife33 wrote:The "confirmations" were sent simultaneously, does this implicate things at all? I would think seller would have an argument that he never assented to the terms of the oral K at all.


Yes, he might, but when the facts of the hypo say "oral K for sale of tigers", it does not mean "there MIGHT be a contract".


The facts didn't say that, it went through the entire negotiation, which amounted to what looked like an oral K for the sale of tigers. I didn't want to type out a 3 page fact pattern.

ogurty

Bronze
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:16 am

Re: convoluted 2-207 question

Postby ogurty » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:44 pm

midwesternlife33 wrote:
ogurty wrote:
midwesternlife33 wrote:The "confirmations" were sent simultaneously, does this implicate things at all? I would think seller would have an argument that he never assented to the terms of the oral K at all.


Yes, he might, but when the facts of the hypo say "oral K for sale of tigers", it does not mean "there MIGHT be a contract".


The facts didn't say that, it went through the entire negotiation, which amounted to what looked like an oral K for the sale of tigers. I didn't want to type out a 3 page fact pattern.


Then it's a completely different question. Can't oversummarize the facts.

midwesternlife33

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:23 pm

Re: convoluted 2-207 question

Postby midwesternlife33 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:47 pm

ogurty wrote:
midwesternlife33 wrote:
ogurty wrote:
midwesternlife33 wrote:The "confirmations" were sent simultaneously, does this implicate things at all? I would think seller would have an argument that he never assented to the terms of the oral K at all.


Yes, he might, but when the facts of the hypo say "oral K for sale of tigers", it does not mean "there MIGHT be a contract".


The facts didn't say that, it went through the entire negotiation, which amounted to what looked like an oral K for the sale of tigers. I didn't want to type out a 3 page fact pattern.


Then it's a completely different question. Can't oversummarize the facts.


Right, I wasn't asking for specific answers to my practice question (if I was I would have posted the hypo or something), just looking for pertinent issues and how they hypothetically work out.



Return to “Forum for Law School Students�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests