Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
introversional
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:59 am

Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby introversional » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:58 am

Why? Because it'll be amusing to see how many variations of the same fundamental term are out there... "consideration" would be a good one too.

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

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby shock259 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:00 pm

Legally enforceable promise

Bargained-for exchange

User avatar
jacketman03
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby jacketman03 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:02 pm

shock259 wrote:Legally enforceable promise

Bargained-for exchange

What shock said.

User avatar
introversional
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:59 am

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby introversional » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:03 pm

shock259 wrote:Legally enforceable promise

Bargained-for exchange


Wow, mine prefers "mutual manifestation of assent to an exchange between two or more parties that is also legally enforceable."

User avatar
jacketman03
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby jacketman03 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:08 pm

introversional wrote:
shock259 wrote:Legally enforceable promise

Bargained-for exchange


Wow, mine prefers "mutual manifestation of assent to an exchange between two or more parties that is also legally enforceable."

That just seems a bit unnecessarily wordy to me.

thegrayman
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby thegrayman » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:21 pm

I don't know and courts don't either

RelativeEase
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby RelativeEase » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:38 pm

an agreement enforceable by law

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:43 pm

Contract: a bargain for exchange which has consideration, manifestation of mutual assent and certainty of terms in which the parties are liable under the law.

Consideration: rendering performance or promise to perform.

Full disclosure: prof faps to the restatement.
Last edited by MrPapagiorgio on Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Transferthrowaway
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby Transferthrowaway » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:44 pm

A 1997 science-fiction movie starring Jodie Foster

User avatar
shepdawg
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:00 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby shepdawg » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:23 am

My old Ks prof defines a contract as "A promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law provides remedy."
Last edited by shepdawg on Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ben4847
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby ben4847 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:26 am

A non-tort liability.

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

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby Bronte » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:29 am

ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.


That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.

User avatar
AlexanderSupertramp
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby AlexanderSupertramp » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:31 am

An agreement with a legal effect.

User avatar
ben4847
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby ben4847 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:31 am

Bronte wrote:
ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.


That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action.


No, because my tort professor defined tort as a non-contract liability. So I guess those are all torts.

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6360
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby 5ky » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:34 am

ben4847 wrote:
Bronte wrote:
ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.


That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action.


No, because my tort professor defined tort as a non-contract liability. So I guess those are all torts.


oh dear

User avatar
ben4847
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby ben4847 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:40 am

Bronte wrote:
ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.


That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.


That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.

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

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby Bronte » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:41 am

AlexanderSupertramp wrote:An agreement with a legal effect.


The title of the thread wasn't "Disagree with other's prof's definitions of contracts," but I'm going to anyway. This definition is also overly broad. It would include, for example, an enforceable agreement that nevertheless had legal effects. For example, an agreement to rob a bank is not a contract because it's unenforceable, but it nevertheless has the legal affect of exposing the counterparties to criminal liability. It's also overly narrow because it excludes nonagreements enforceable based on reliance, which are considered a part of modern contract law.

User avatar
kwais
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby kwais » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:41 am

my contracts professor doesn't teach contracts. We do economics, graphs, formulas. We have his exam next week. We have not learned consideration.

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

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby Bronte » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:43 am

ben4847 wrote:
Bronte wrote:
ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.


That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.


That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.


I've already explained why your definition doesn't work. It's absurdly over broad. Your response, which I thought was a joke, was that a tort is noncontractual liability. Crimes are definitely not torts and a variety of other civil liability is almost certainly not tort liability.

As to contracts "implied in law," they arise out of implied promises, so they're not excluded from that definition.

User avatar
ben4847
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby ben4847 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:46 am

Bronte wrote:
ben4847 wrote:
Bronte wrote:
ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.


That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.


That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.


I've already explained why your definition doesn't work. It's absurdly over broad. Your response, which I thought was a joke, was that a tort is noncontractual liability. Crimes are definitely not torts and a variety of other civil liability is almost certainly not tort liability.

As to contracts "implied in law," they arise out of implied promises, so they're not excluded from that definition.


I think crimes are torts. Assault is a tort, even though it is also a crime. We had a plaintiff's lawyer who sues corporations in M & A deals tell us he was practicing torts, in class today.
And you will have a hard time imagining that a contract implied in law is an implied promise in any sense except that some judges thought you ought to pay.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby Renzo » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:46 am

ben4847 wrote:
Bronte wrote:
ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.


That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.


That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.


Does that mean that replevin is a contract action in your "superior" definition? What about a child custody suit?

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6360
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby 5ky » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:47 am

ben4847 wrote:
I think crimes are torts. Assault is a tort, even though it is also a crime. We had a plaintiff's lawyer who sues corporations in M & A deals tell us he was practicing torts, in class today.
And you will have a hard time imagining that a contract implied in law is an implied promise in any sense except that some judges thought you ought to pay.


You have no idea what you're talking about.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby Renzo » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:47 am

5ky wrote:
ben4847 wrote:
I think crimes are torts. Assault is a tort, even though it is also a crime. We had a plaintiff's lawyer who sues corporations in M & A deals tell us he was practicing torts, in class today.
And you will have a hard time imagining that a contract implied in law is an implied promise in any sense except that some judges thought you ought to pay.


You have no idea what you're talking about.


Also, this.

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

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby Bronte » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:48 am

ben4847 wrote:I think crimes are torts. Assault is a tort, even though it is also a crime. We had a plaintiff's lawyer who sues corporations in M & A deals tell us he was practicing torts, in class today.
And you will have a hard time imagining that a contract implied in law is an implied promise in any sense except that some judges thought you ought to pay.


Crimes are not torts. Some crimes and torts share the same name. And some actions give rise to both criminal and tort liability, but crimes are not torts. Contracts "implied in law" are a legal fiction either way. It's no harder to "imagine" them as contracts than it is to imagine them as implied contracts.

User avatar
ben4847
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm

Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"

Postby ben4847 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:50 am

Renzo wrote:
ben4847 wrote:
Bronte wrote:
ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.


That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action. The credited definition is a promise or set of promises the breach of which has a legal remedy, like shepdawg said.


That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.


Does that mean that replevin is a contract action in your "superior" definition? What about a child custody suit?

replevin is a contract in my definition. I quote the case of Sherwood v. Walker which begins "Replevin for a cow" (you may have read it in regard to mistake in contracts)
Child custody suit is also an action in contract, since you contractually bind yourself to the normal custody rules when having unprotected sex.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests