Is consideration really unimportant?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
agathos
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:38 am

Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby agathos » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:48 pm

My K professor said he will only use very little time to teach consideration-like half hour...He said consideration is an unimportant. He also will use little time to teach estoppel. It seems like very bizarre. He is a new professor who never teach before....

User avatar
law4vus
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:35 am

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby law4vus » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:50 pm

We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!

agathos
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:38 am

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby agathos » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:51 pm

law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!

I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..

User avatar
law4vus
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:35 am

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby law4vus » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:55 pm

agathos wrote:
law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!

I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..


All I can tell you is that if you really want to know about consideration and estoppel, then use the E and Es and learn it on your own. Neither are overly complicated concepts but I wouldn't call them unimportant.

User avatar
SilverE2
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby SilverE2 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:57 pm

agathos wrote:My K professor said he will only use very little time to teach consideration-like half hour...He said consideration is an unimportant. He also will use little time to teach estoppel. It seems like very bizarre. He is a new professor who never teach before....


Dude...I just looked at your post history, where the fuck do you go to law school?

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby romothesavior » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:58 pm

agathos wrote:
law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!

I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..

Who cares? Nothing you learn in law school really makes a difference.

agathos
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:38 am

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby agathos » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:59 pm

law4vus wrote:
agathos wrote:
law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!

I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..


All I can tell you is that if you really want to know about consideration and estoppel, then use the E and Es and learn it on your own. Neither are overly complicated concepts but I wouldn't call them unimportant.

Yes, I already did that. However, I want something deep than that. I really like K...I think it is very interesting. That is why I care this so much...So I just read the hornbook by myself?...

agathos
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:38 am

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby agathos » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:00 pm

romothesavior wrote:
agathos wrote:
law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!

I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..

Who cares? Nothing you learn in law school really makes a difference.

Yes, I know that~ :P

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby BarbellDreams » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:08 pm

Umm...yes, consideration is important.

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby bartleby » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:29 pm

I think it depends on the professor. It's so crazy, my friend at Emory said UCC is useless in K's but my professor has the biggest boner for UCC.

thedive
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby thedive » Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:19 am

bartleby wrote:I think it depends on the professor. It's so crazy, my friend at Emory said UCC is useless in K's but my professor has the biggest boner for UCC.


Same here, we spent considerable time just on 2-207.

bhan87
Posts: 850
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:08 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby bhan87 » Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:25 am

My professor spent a long time on consideration, estoppel, and 2-207.

He's skipping the entire chapter on Statute of Frauds.

I think it really depends on the professor, so study accordingly. The E&E for Contracts has very long chapters for the topics it covers, but some may not warrant a detailed study.

shock259
Posts: 1737
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:30 am

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby shock259 » Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:45 am

I don't think there is a single chapter when we haven't spent extensive time in the Rest or UCC. My outline is like half super-concise paraphrasing of relevant Rest and UCC sections. Meanwhile in most of my other classes, we haven't touched a Rest.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby JCougar » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:12 am

thedive wrote:
bartleby wrote:I think it depends on the professor. It's so crazy, my friend at Emory said UCC is useless in K's but my professor has the biggest boner for UCC.


Same here, we spent considerable time just on 2-207.


We didn't even get to 2-207. Our professor had it scheduled for the last day, but we got behind and didn't even cover it.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby JCougar » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:14 am

romothesavior wrote:
agathos wrote:
law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!

I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..

Who cares? Nothing you learn in law school really makes a difference.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby Bronte » Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:43 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:Umm...yes, consideration is important.


It's really not that important. It's one of those old rules that's easy to test because it makes for good problems. However, many commentators think it's a useless rule in practice. Further, in real business transactions, it very rarely comes up. It's not surprising that a young professor would choose not to spend much time on it.

Edit: Wow, in doing a quick Westlaw search to inflate my ego, I came across what has to be the weirdest law review article ever written: 75 Cornell L. Rev. 987. The first footnote is just... amazing.

User avatar
gothamm
Posts: 506
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:10 am

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby gothamm » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:00 am

SilverE2 wrote:
agathos wrote:My K professor said he will only use very little time to teach consideration-like half hour...He said consideration is an unimportant. He also will use little time to teach estoppel. It seems like very bizarre. He is a new professor who never teach before....


Dude...I just looked at your post history, where the fuck do you go to law school?


lol...

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby BarbellDreams » Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:26 pm

Bronte wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:Umm...yes, consideration is important.


It's really not that important. It's one of those old rules that's easy to test because it makes for good problems. However, many commentators think it's a useless rule in practice. Further, in real business transactions, it very rarely comes up. It's not surprising that a young professor would choose not to spend much time on it.

Edit: Wow, in doing a quick Westlaw search to inflate my ego, I came across what has to be the weirdest law review article ever written: 75 Cornell L. Rev. 987. The first footnote is just... amazing.


It doesn't come up in real life because every lawyer knows about it and knows that you need it for a valid contract. In the case that you get a lawyer like OP who had a prof that didn't teach consideration, yes, it would become important rather quickly.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby Bronte » Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:16 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:It doesn't come up in real life because every lawyer knows about it and knows that you need it for a valid contract. In the case that you get a lawyer like OP who had a prof that didn't teach consideration, yes, it would become important rather quickly.


That's not the only or even the primary reason it doesn't come up in real life. It's also because the doctrine of consideration has been whittled down to a stub by courts and legislatures over the years. It's also because in the vast majority of commercial contexts, parties are naturally going to make mutually beneficial promises based on the forces of self-interest.

As to lawyers like OP not learning consideration, it would be just one in an infinite array of critical doctrines that you don't learn in law school. How do lawyers get by without learning these doctrines? They research them, or they're taught to them by more senior lawyers. For example, if OP were told to structure a contract, he would look up "requirements of a contract" in, say, American Jurisprudence. He would then learn that there's this archaic doctrine called consideration that he should keep an eye on. It's really not that important.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby BarbellDreams » Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:22 pm

Bronte wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:It doesn't come up in real life because every lawyer knows about it and knows that you need it for a valid contract. In the case that you get a lawyer like OP who had a prof that didn't teach consideration, yes, it would become important rather quickly.


That's not the only or even the primary reason it doesn't come up in real life. It's also because the doctrine of consideration has been whittled down to a stub by courts and legislatures over the years. It's also because in the vast majority of commercial contexts, parties are naturally going to make mutually beneficial promises based on the forces of self-interest.

As to lawyers like OP not learning consideration, it would be just one in an infinite array of critical doctrines that you don't learn in law school. How do lawyers get by without learning these doctrines? They research them, or they're taught to them by more senior lawyers. For example, if OP were told to structure a contract, he would look up "requirements of a contract" in, say, American Jurisprudence. He would then learn that there's this archaic doctrine called consideration that he should keep an eye on. It's really not that important.


Yes, in a commercial context there will certainly be consideration 99.99999% of the time and thus you won't need to use it. To say that this is a valid reason for not learning an essential element to a contract is pretty bad.

Essentially you're second paragraph says that because he can research the requirements to a contract later his prof has an excuse to not teach him consideration now. I doubt I need to explain why this is problematic.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby Bronte » Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:09 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:Yes, in a commercial context there will certainly be consideration 99.99999% of the time and thus you won't need to use it. To say that this is a valid reason for not learning an essential element to a contract is pretty bad.

Essentially you're second paragraph says that because he can research the requirements to a contract later his prof has an excuse to not teach him consideration now. I doubt I need to explain why this is problematic.


It's only an "essential element of a contract" in name. There's probably more exceptions to the doctrine then there are circumstances where it applies. Further, to call something that's only relevant 0.00% percent of the time (rounding to the hundredth) "essential" is oxymoronic.

Your second paragraph is just a conclusory statement that you're right, so it's hard to address. Although I'm not one to claim that you don't learn anything of practical value in law school, I do think that the main point of the classes is not to learn the substantive law on a practical level. The purpose is to gain a broad understanding of certain core areas of the law, to learn a certain form of critical thinking, and to learn certain technical skills.

Probably the best argument as to why consideration should be taught, which I'll make for you, is that it's a famous doctrine that attorneys might expect you to know. This will be because they learned it, not because it's particularly important.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby Bronte » Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Nightrunner wrote:Man, I'm going to go through life with breathing problems 0.00% of the time (rounding to the nearest hundredth), but that shit's still essential. Same for my truck's drive train. Just because something is infrequently encountered doesn't mean it stops being an essential element of the system.

Although I agree that it seems that the vast, vast majority of commercial contract situations will have almost zero time dedicated to consideration, you overstate your case.


The 0.00% of the time thing was mostly a joke. The rest of my argument is right there, waiting to be addressed in even a vaguely coherent manner.

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby AreJay711 » Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:43 pm

The basics of consideration aren't that damn complicated. Also, with promissory estoppel it seems like there aren't very many unenforceable promises that people would bother suing over in the first place.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby Bronte » Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:47 pm

Nightrunner wrote:Like I said, I largely agree with you; from my limited experience and perspective, it seems that consideration is irrelevant (or borderline irrelevant) in almost all commercial contracts. You just overstated it.

Although if we leave "big time lawyer$" aside for a moment, I imagine there are plenty of situations in non-merchant contracts (e.g., contracts between family members) where ignoring consideration would be mind-numbingly poor lawyering.


Yeah I'll concede that the 0.00% argument was frivolous. As to the non-big law argument, I think there's dozens of more important reasons that a fresh JD should not attempt to practice without supervision than that he didn't thoroughly learn consideration in law school, which is something that one can easily learn.

For example, he could learn it by reading this article: 75 Cornell L. Rev. 987. But seriously NR, please read the first three footnotes of that article. It's really worth it in an lol kind of way.

User avatar
MC Southstar
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Is consideration really unimportant?

Postby MC Southstar » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:01 pm

I'm not sure consideration is really that important in practice since I've seen nominal consideration in use all the time in stuff I've worked on, but maybe that is just an exception.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: highfashionlover, shineoncrazydiamond and 8 guests