F**k the Rule Against Perpetuities!

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Verity
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Fuck the Rule Against Perpetuities!

Postby Verity » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:16 pm

Only B-school kids like perps.

User avatar
TCScrutinizer
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Fuck the Rule Against Perpetuities!

Postby TCScrutinizer » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:20 pm

Renzo wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:
solotee wrote:RAP anecdote:

On one of my call backs, a partner asked me what the RAP was. I am so glad my professor made us memorize the rule.

Needless to say, got an offer on the spot.

Lesson: memorize the RAP!


"No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest" got you a job?

Damn.

And if the RAP is hard, I clearly need to pursue property law as a career path.


The RAP is so hard that it's not malpractice in California for a lawyer to screw it up. If you didn't think it was hard, then you were being fed softball questions.


I'd say it's challenging, but I find the RAP interesting and sort of fun to think about, so it's difficult to conceive of it as "hard". I highly doubt I was given softballs in class.

User avatar
soaponarope
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:02 pm

Re: Fuck the Rule Against Perpetuities!

Postby soaponarope » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:28 pm

TCScrutinizer wrote:
Renzo wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:
solotee wrote:RAP anecdote:

On one of my call backs, a partner asked me what the RAP was. I am so glad my professor made us memorize the rule.

Needless to say, got an offer on the spot.

Lesson: memorize the RAP!


"No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest" got you a job?

Damn.

And if the RAP is hard, I clearly need to pursue property law as a career path.


The RAP is so hard that it's not malpractice in California for a lawyer to screw it up. If you didn't think it was hard, then you were being fed softball questions.


I highly doubt I was given softballs in class.


You wouldn't know one way or the other (unless you completed RAP problems outside of your property class which were similar/equal to/ harder). And by your own admission, you have some doubt to whether or not your property classed gave you "softball questions," thus a reasonable inference is that you did not practice RAP problems outside of your class because if you did then you would know with absolute certainty that the RAP problems in your property class were not of a "softball" nature.

User avatar
TCScrutinizer
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Fuck the Rule Against Perpetuities!

Postby TCScrutinizer » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:32 pm

soaponarope wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:
I highly doubt I was given softballs in class.


You wouldn't know one way or the other (unless you completed RAP problems outside of your property class which were similar/equal to). And by your own admission, you have some doubt to whether or not your property classed gave you "softball questions," thus a reasonable inference is that you did not practice RAP problems outside of your class because if you did then you would know with absolute certainty that the RAP problems in your property class were not of a "softball" nature.


Brutal cross, counselor. Unfortunately, far from the mark. I did, in fact, practice a lot of property questions outside of class, including RAP questions. Perhaps you should learn that "reasonable inferences" spring necessarily from "reasonable" amounts of information.

Let's put it this way: I'm sure that in the universe of RAP questions, there were more difficult ones than I got in class... but I didn't find them. If you're looking for absolute certainty, I suggest a life plan that doesn't involve further education.

User avatar
soaponarope
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:02 pm

Re: Fuck the Rule Against Perpetuities!

Postby soaponarope » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:35 pm

TCScrutinizer wrote:
soaponarope wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:
I highly doubt I was given softballs in class.


You wouldn't know one way or the other (unless you completed RAP problems outside of your property class which were similar/equal to). And by your own admission, you have some doubt to whether or not your property classed gave you "softball questions," thus a reasonable inference is that you did not practice RAP problems outside of your class because if you did then you would know with absolute certainty that the RAP problems in your property class were not of a "softball" nature.


Brutal cross, counselor. Unfortunately, far from the mark. I did, in fact, practice a lot of property questions outside of class, including RAP questions. Perhaps you should learn that "reasonable inferences" spring necessarily from "reasonable" amounts of information.

Let's put it this way: I'm sure that in the universe of RAP questions, there were more difficult ones than I got in class... but I didn't find them. If you're looking for absolute certainty, I suggest a life plan that doesn't involve further education.


An absence of a fact is indeed a fact... don't be mad at me because you were imprecise in the language you used... counselor.

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Fuck the Rule Against Perpetuities!

Postby fatduck » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:36 pm

i'm about to hold both of you in contempt for not laughing at my amazing joke, counselors

User avatar
soaponarope
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:02 pm

Re: Fuck the Rule Against Perpetuities!

Postby soaponarope » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:39 pm

fatduck wrote:i'm about to hold both of you in contempt for not laughing at my amazing joke, counselors


I'm just trollin, so I ought to be held in contempt. :D

As for the joke, I laffed.

User avatar
TCScrutinizer
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Fuck the Rule Against Perpetuities!

Postby TCScrutinizer » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:44 pm

soaponarope wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:
soaponarope wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:
I highly doubt I was given softballs in class.


You wouldn't know one way or the other (unless you completed RAP problems outside of your property class which were similar/equal to). And by your own admission, you have some doubt to whether or not your property classed gave you "softball questions," thus a reasonable inference is that you did not practice RAP problems outside of your class because if you did then you would know with absolute certainty that the RAP problems in your property class were not of a "softball" nature.


Brutal cross, counselor. Unfortunately, far from the mark. I did, in fact, practice a lot of property questions outside of class, including RAP questions. Perhaps you should learn that "reasonable inferences" spring necessarily from "reasonable" amounts of information.

Let's put it this way: I'm sure that in the universe of RAP questions, there were more difficult ones than I got in class... but I didn't find them. If you're looking for absolute certainty, I suggest a life plan that doesn't involve further education.


An absence of a fact is indeed a fact... don't be mad at me because you were imprecise in the language you used... counselor.


Are you my wife's troll account?




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests