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
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 12:51 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.


Ah! But do YOU have any idea what I'm talking about?

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

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

Postby 5ky » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:54 am

ben4847 wrote:
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.


Ah! But do YOU have any idea what I'm talking about?


not what you specifically are talking about, no.

edit: are we getting trolled here?

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 1:01 am

5ky wrote:
ben4847 wrote:
Ah! But do YOU have any idea what I'm talking about?


not what you specifically are talking about, no.

edit: are we getting trolled here?


I can't tell. I just looked at his post history; they're all pretty dumb, but they seem genuine.

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 1:04 am

Renzo wrote:
5ky wrote:
ben4847 wrote:
Ah! But do YOU have any idea what I'm talking about?


not what you specifically are talking about, no.

edit: are we getting trolled here?


I can't tell. I just looked at his post history; they're all pretty dumb, but they seem genuine.


I am not a troll. I am pretty dumb, but genuine usually.
Here, I started off with what I thought was a clever definition, and then decided to defend it. I had fun; I hope you did as well.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

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

Postby BeenDidThat » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:26 am

ben4847 wrote:
Renzo wrote:
5ky wrote:
ben4847 wrote:
Ah! But do YOU have any idea what I'm talking about?


not what you specifically are talking about, no.

edit: are we getting trolled here?


I can't tell. I just looked at his post history; they're all pretty dumb, but they seem genuine.


I am not a troll. I am pretty dumb, but genuine usually.
Here, I started off with what I thought was a clever definition, and then decided to defend it. I had fun; I hope you did as well.


Have fun with exams.

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 5:01 am

ben4847 wrote:
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.

Please cite a contract not based upon a promise.

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 2:42 pm

shepdawg wrote:
ben4847 wrote:
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.

Please cite a contract not based upon a promise.


I did above. Any contract implied in law. See Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos, 380 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (Or at least, that is what my contracts textbook thought you should see)

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 5:48 pm

ben4847 wrote:
shepdawg wrote:Please cite a contract not based upon a promise.


I did above. Any contract implied in law. See Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos, 380 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (Or at least, that is what my contracts textbook thought you should see)


This is how I see it. An implied in law K is a "quasi contract," where a "recipient of services knows the services are being rendered with an expectation of compensation, and by a word could prevent the mistake, he is held to acceptance if he doesn't speak. R2d §69. In these cases the "promise" is proffered by the laborer.

Here are some of my own examples. Editors of Glannon's or Emmanuels may use them if I am given credit.

Example 1: D is in line at a traffic stop and sees a bum ask the car in front of him if he'd like his windows washed, the driver says "yes" and gives the bum money after the service is complete. The bum then comes to D's car looks at him with his head nodded forward at an angle and one eyebrow raised. D sits in his car as the bum washes the window. Here, the promise was to provide window washing in return for money. Everyone knows that you yell at bums once they start washing your window if you don't want to pay them. Because D let the bum wash his window, the bum is entitled to quantum meriut.

Example 2: D sees his neighbors lawn looks immaculate and asks him who his gardener is. The neighbor says his gardener is Paul and he only charges $15 a week. Neighbor then says he'll send P over to D's house. The next day D sees P mowing his lawn while he is enjoying his coffee. He doesn't say a thing to P. In fact, he lets P mow his law every week for 2 months. Again, the promise was made by P to mow D's lawn for money. D accepted by allowing P to complete the services, and owes P quantum meriut.

The case you cited is a great example. Hospital promised D to render services and D who was "mentally alert during her at-home recuperation period" accepted the services by not telling the nurses to stop caring for her. No expects a health care provider to go uncompensated, so D knew P would be expecting payment. If she was not on welfare, she'd have to pay.
Last edited by shepdawg on Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 7:02 pm

shepdawg wrote:
ben4847 wrote:
shepdawg wrote:Please cite a contract not based upon a promise.


I did above. Any contract implied in law. See Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos, 380 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (Or at least, that is what my contracts textbook thought you should see)


I admit that many students have trouble with this concept, so I am going to help you out here.


First off, eat shit you smug fuck.

Second, you actually seem to be having trouble with this. There is no promise in a quasi-contract--that's why you have to imply one as an operation of the law. If there was a promise, you wouldn't have a quasi-contract; you'd just have a regular plain old boring contract, with no legal fiction needed.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

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

Postby Bildungsroman » Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:04 pm

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.

Lord did I lol.

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 11:01 pm

Renzo wrote:
shepdawg wrote:
ben4847 wrote:
shepdawg wrote:Please cite a contract not based upon a promise.


I did above. Any contract implied in law. See Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos, 380 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (Or at least, that is what my contracts textbook thought you should see)


I admit that many students have trouble with this concept, so I am going to help you out here.


First off, eat s--- you smug f---.

Second, you actually seem to be having trouble with this. There is no promise in a quasi-contract--that's why you have to imply one as an operation of the law. If there was a promise, you wouldn't have a quasi-contract; you'd just have a regular plain old boring contract, with no legal fiction needed.


Also, I got an A in contracts at a T14, thank you very much.

edit: removed bad words.
Last edited by ben4847 on Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:07 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 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:06 pm

ben4847 wrote:Also, I got an A in contracts at a T14, thank you very much.


But Shepdawg went to Cal Western, so...

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

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

Postby johansantana21 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:37 pm

Offer + Acceptance = Contract

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

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

Postby Bronte » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:42 pm

johansantana21 wrote:Offer + Acceptance = Contract


You bumped the thread to give this definition? It's too broad in that it includes agreements that are unenforceable for lack of consideration, capacity, or legality. It's too narrow in that it fails to include promises enforceable on reliance theory.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

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

Postby BeenDidThat » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:32 am

Bronte wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:Offer + Acceptance = Contract


You bumped the thread to give this definition? It's too broad in that it includes agreements that are unenforceable for lack of consideration, capacity, or legality. It's too narrow in that it fails to include promises enforceable on reliance theory.


In fairness, I was taught that simple equation. The others were taught to me as exceptions to the general rule.

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

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

Postby shepdawg » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:38 am

ben4847 wrote:
Also, I got an A in contracts at a T14, thank you very much.

edit: removed bad words.

Proof?

Transferthrowaway wrote:
But Shepdawg went to Cal Western, so...

Should I hide behind a screen name and toss around a possibly fabricated grade from an unnamed school in order to make up for my lack of knowledge in a simple subject?

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

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

Postby Extension_Cord » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:01 am

Bronte 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.


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.


The tort definitions of Assault and Battery are not even the same as criminal definitions, lol.

I think Ben is trolling you guys.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

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

Postby Extension_Cord » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:06 am

MrPapagiorgio wrote:Full disclosure: prof faps to the restatement.


I lol'd.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

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

Postby johansantana21 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:12 am

Bronte wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:Offer + Acceptance = Contract


You bumped the thread to give this definition? It's too broad in that it includes agreements that are unenforceable for lack of consideration, capacity, or legality. It's too narrow in that it fails to include promises enforceable on reliance theory.


Do you have brain damage? It's the equation given by our professor, verbatim. Stop stroking your e-dick with your awesome knowledge of contracts.

Did it take you a law school education to realize that submitting the word contract to a short succinct definition might be a little overbroad?

Oh God, PLEASE teach me more!

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

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

Postby Bronte » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:58 am

johansantana21 wrote:Do you have brain damage? It's the equation given by our professor, verbatim. Stop stroking your e-dick with your awesome knowledge of contracts.

Did it take you a law school education to realize that submitting the word contract to a short succinct definition might be a little overbroad?

Oh God, PLEASE teach me more!


I shouldn't have been so snide. I'm sorry. As to your substantive point, there is a succinct definition that's neither overbroad nor overnarrow: a promise the breach of which has a remedy at law. This doesn't get you very far in terms of blackletter law, but it does accurately define the term.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Egzon and 5 guests