1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
nucky thompson
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby nucky thompson » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:10 pm

Kage3212 wrote:The two issues that are significant here that I am trying to wrap my head around are:

1.) Did A the promisor, reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance? Is this reasonable expectation general (its clearer that it would induce B to make plans of some sort, as the need for a babysitter usually because plans are being made) but the question I have difficulty with is does it have to be associated with the specific speaking engagement. Did A reasonably expect B to go out and set up something so important and vital to her career? If A did not reasonably expect such a significant thing..does reliance fail?

2.) Injustice is avoided only by the enforcement of the promise. Enforcing the promise at this point doesn't avoid the injustice, it has already taken place and its hard to determine whether it can even be made up for. Also, you wouldn't be able to enforce this specific promise because you cant enforce a service contract. So would a court look at this and say we cant avoid injustice here....and then do what?

The more i get involved with reliance the more confusing it gets.


1. it seems like you're conflating foreseeablity with reliance. If i promise to babysit your kid, it is foreseeable that you will rely on that promise, and not seek other babysitters. That is reliance. it does not matter why you want a babysitter, what you are doing that night etc. etc. The second part of what you said, with regard to the speaking arrangement, seems like you're thinking foreseeability requirements for expectancy damages - hadley v. baxendale. If the loss is not reasonably foreseeable based on the nature of the contract, and the P did not give D notice of the special circumstances, P cannot recover for the special, above and beyond damages (haldey - carrier was not given proper notice that the shaft was the only working shaft, and it is not foreseeable that a late delivery results in paying lost profits - P could not recovery lost profits resulting from delay)

2. cant give specific performance because it is a service contract, but also because the date of performance has already passed. There is really no damage remedy that will bring justice to P - she already canceled the speaking engagement - she didnt have to hire a replacement etc.

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:13 pm

kage my advice is to break each of these q's up into parts. like is there a k? was there a breach? now what?

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:23 pm

Nucky - do u by any chance know what happens in comparative negligent jurisdictions where there are 2 D's, and P is 40% negligent, but the two D's are only 30%?

Could P recover if it's a state where if P >50% n they can't recover? If so, this seems like a clever way to get around the doctrine when P is more n than D.

nucky thompson
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby nucky thompson » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:25 am

uvabro wrote:Nucky - do u by any chance know what happens in comparative negligent jurisdictions where there are 2 D's, and P is 40% negligent, but the two D's are only 30%?

Could P recover if it's a state where if P >50% n they can't recover? If so, this seems like a clever way to get around the doctrine when P is more n than D.



beyond varying rules like "no greater than" " as much as" regarding comparative negligence rules, there are minority/majority rules regarding whether or not they aggregate the multiple D's vs. the amount of the P, or if the P has to be more than each single

edit: wisconsin i think the only state that does not combine D's fault. so P = 40, the D('s) = 60, therefore P can recover

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:41 am

nucky thompson wrote:
uvabro wrote:Nucky - do u by any chance know what happens in comparative negligent jurisdictions where there are 2 D's, and P is 40% negligent, but the two D's are only 30%?

Could P recover if it's a state where if P >50% n they can't recover? If so, this seems like a clever way to get around the doctrine when P is more n than D.



beyond varying rules like "no greater than" " as much as" regarding comparative negligence rules, there are minority/majority rules regarding whether or not they aggregate the multiple D's vs. the amount of the P, or if the P has to be more than each single

edit: wisconsin i think the only state that does not combine D's fault. so P = 40, the D('s) = 60, therefore P can recover

so say ur client is 49% negligent for the accident, and 5 d's are 10.2% each, if u can join all 5 to make the other 51% under rule 20 of FRCP, u can recover?

nucky thompson
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby nucky thompson » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:54 am

yeah thats right - think about it --> assuming those five acted together to be 51 percent negligent, they will share roughly half the damages in the case - and then only 1/5 of that. Torts is fault based recovery system, the P was a large portion of the apportionment, but he is still less than half the cause. If all of these actors have claims vs. each other, idk what happens. (what if each person says the other is at fault, instead of the 5 D's acting together to cause 51 percent of the harm)

Kage3212
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:34 am

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby Kage3212 » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:00 am

Sounds like a great policy question

nucky thompson
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby nucky thompson » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:06 am

uvabro wrote:
nucky thompson wrote:
uvabro wrote:Nucky - do u by any chance know what happens in comparative negligent jurisdictions where there are 2 D's, and P is 40% negligent, but the two D's are only 30%?

Could P recover if it's a state where if P >50% n they can't recover? If so, this seems like a clever way to get around the doctrine when P is more n than D.



beyond varying rules like "no greater than" " as much as" regarding comparative negligence rules, there are minority/majority rules regarding whether or not they aggregate the multiple D's vs. the amount of the P, or if the P has to be more than each single

edit: wisconsin i think the only state that does not combine D's fault. so P = 40, the D('s) = 60, therefore P can recover

so say ur client is 49% negligent for the accident, and 5 d's are 10.2% each, if u can join all 5 to make the other 51% under rule 20 of FRCP, u can recover?



quote about a wisconsin supreme court case "The Wisconsin rule is not just a 50-50 deal because the plaintiffs negligence must be compared with the negligence of each defendant separately. If there are two defendants, the plaintiff cannot recover if all parties are all equally negligent. . . .If it were a four-car collision, the plaintiff could not recover if he was 25 percent guilty of negligence and all the rest were equally negligent. Where is the justice in deny- ing all recovery to a person 25 percent negligent when the other persons causing it are 75 percent negligent in the aggregate? The plaintiffs chance of recovery ought not to depend upon the fortuitous number of persons responsible for the loss."

Dead Parrot
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby Dead Parrot » Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:05 am

K's Hypo:
Farmer McGregor had a carrot stand, covered with large signs saying: “CARROTS: $50 A BOX!” Rabbit had just purchased a box of carrots from Farmer McGregor and was carrying them back to his hutch. Suddenly, Fox, who had been running around and annoying Farmer McGregor all day, started racing around madly, and accidentally crashed into Rabbit. The box of carrots was knocked into a nearby lake, and quickly disappeared. Rabbit also suffered an injured ear, and Dr. Dog, who happened to be nearby, wrapped it in a giant, brightly covered bandage.

Later that day, Fox came over to Rabbit and said, “I’m sorry about what happened. Please take this 50 dollar bill as my payment for the harm I caused.” Rabbit took the 50 dollar bill, saying, “You really need to be more careful next time.”

Two days later, Dr. Dog trotted over to Rabbit, and removed the large bandage. Dr. Dog then said, “You owe me $200 for medical services.” Rabbit went over to Fox and told him “I want $200 for the medical services you caused me to need.” Fox said, “I don’t think so. We’ve already agreed that I’ve paid you all I needed to.”

Of course, there are no courts in fables. Nonetheless, please analyze this fable from a contract lawyer's point of view. Please use the terminology, rules, and principles we have discussed this semester in your answer.

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:31 pm

Dead Parrot wrote:K's Hypo:
Farmer McGregor had a carrot stand, covered with large signs saying: “CARROTS: $50 A BOX!” Rabbit had just purchased a box of carrots from Farmer McGregor and was carrying them back to his hutch. Suddenly, Fox, who had been running around and annoying Farmer McGregor all day, started racing around madly, and accidentally crashed into Rabbit. The box of carrots was knocked into a nearby lake, and quickly disappeared. Rabbit also suffered an injured ear, and Dr. Dog, who happened to be nearby, wrapped it in a giant, brightly covered bandage.

Later that day, Fox came over to Rabbit and said, “I’m sorry about what happened. Please take this 50 dollar bill as my payment for the harm I caused.” Rabbit took the 50 dollar bill, saying, “You really need to be more careful next time.”

Two days later, Dr. Dog trotted over to Rabbit, and removed the large bandage. Dr. Dog then said, “You owe me $200 for medical services.” Rabbit went over to Fox and told him “I want $200 for the medical services you caused me to need.” Fox said, “I don’t think so. We’ve already agreed that I’ve paid you all I needed to.”

Of course, there are no courts in fables. Nonetheless, please analyze this fable from a contract lawyer's point of view. Please use the terminology, rules, and principles we have discussed this semester in your answer.

the issue is whether rabbit signed a waiver that waived his rights. contracts do not need to be written down unless they fall under the statute of frauds. a liability waiver or pre-litigation settlement does not need to be written down (indeed, the court system tries to encourage parties to settle their disputes outside of court), and the payment can serve as evidence of a contract as courts look at the behavior of the parties to measure what their subjective intent was.

it is possible for a liability waiver to lay out payment for past harms but not future harms. p obviously hopes the $50 was just a mere down payment. however, if we look at the offer the expressed words were, please take this $50 payment for the harm that I caused you. This wording suggests that the contract refers to all of the harm caused by D. P will point to the fact he had further harm, but this was still harm caused by D in the initial accident so would fall under the scope of the offer. D will argue for the doctrine of caveat emptor - that the same way a buyer often bares the burden of non-disclosures (as long as there is not a non-disclosure with concealment [is this right?]), there is no reason why liability waivers should not be treated in similar fashion.

By his actions, D seems to have accepted the offer. A party does not have to say I agree, and can accept by silence. When no method of acceptance is prescribed by the buyer, one can accept the offer by doing anything consistent with acceptance (either by returning a promise in lines with the content of the offer, or by performance). Here P seems to have accepted by performance in taking the check.

However, (NOT SURE IF I'M RIGHT HERE - PLEASE CORRECT: If this was a check, P may be able to argue that D just dropped it in his hand and it was not acceptance until he deposited it, which he may not have done yet). Regardless, D clearly made tender by showing a willingness to pay, and based on his carrot stand business in which he makes $50 per box it is reasonable to presume he had the $50 in his account to clear, particularly if P saw him sell any boxes of carrots.

P's major argument may come in the form of capacity as he just had an ear injury from an accident that may have rendered him mentally deficient when he accepted the K (an ear injury can potentially impact cognitive function, if the inner ear is injured, and certainly influences hearing). Generally, if a party lacks the capacity to reasonably understand the nature and consequences of a contract, or is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to their duties within the contract then that K may be voidable or void ab initio (no K from the start). In addition to the party's mental states, the courts also look at the fairness of the underlaying agreement and the knowledge the non-disadvantaged party had of the disadvantaged party's capacity.

If P was still having the ill mental effects, he may be able to void the contract. However, in all likelihood, because it was later that day and an ear injury in all likelihood P regained his senses. Nonetheless, because he had an injured ear it's feasible that P did not hear D's offer, which would make him similar to an ILLITERATE PARTY when dealing with a written K (illiterates can't read, deaf people can't hear). Although it's true, he still had another ear, the injury may have produced ringing that effected his ability to comprehend sound.

The general rule is that an illiterate party has a duty to have the contract read to them, and can only escape liability if they are fraudulently induced or pressured into signing the contract. D may have acted in bad faith to induce him into an oral contract. The contract itself does seem highly unfair, D was aware of the condition P suffered (as he caused it), and it would not be unreasonable for P to assume if he could not hear that the $50 is just a down payment to show good faith and D will cover any additional costs.

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:40 pm

Dead Parrot wrote:K's Hypo:
Farmer McGregor had a carrot stand, covered with large signs saying: “CARROTS: $50 A BOX!” Rabbit had just purchased a box of carrots from Farmer McGregor and was carrying them back to his hutch. Suddenly, Fox, who had been running around and annoying Farmer McGregor all day, started racing around madly, and accidentally crashed into Rabbit. The box of carrots was knocked into a nearby lake, and quickly disappeared. Rabbit also suffered an injured ear, and Dr. Dog, who happened to be nearby, wrapped it in a giant, brightly covered bandage.

Later that day, Fox came over to Rabbit and said, “I’m sorry about what happened. Please take this 50 dollar bill as my payment for the harm I caused.” Rabbit took the 50 dollar bill, saying, “You really need to be more careful next time.”

Two days later, Dr. Dog trotted over to Rabbit, and removed the large bandage. Dr. Dog then said, “You owe me $200 for medical services.” Rabbit went over to Fox and told him “I want $200 for the medical services you caused me to need.” Fox said, “I don’t think so. We’ve already agreed that I’ve paid you all I needed to.”

Of course, there are no courts in fables. Nonetheless, please analyze this fable from a contract lawyer's point of view. Please use the terminology, rules, and principles we have discussed this semester in your answer.

wow i'm way too slow today. it took me forever to pick up on the real argument the professor's gotta be looking for - which is ILLITERACY.

damn i really hope i'm sharper on my actual exams. u can make really interesting on both sides based around illiteracy.

Dead Parrot
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby Dead Parrot » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:08 pm

uvabro wrote:
Dead Parrot wrote:K's Hypo:
Farmer McGregor had a carrot stand, covered with large signs saying: “CARROTS: $50 A BOX!” Rabbit had just purchased a box of carrots from Farmer McGregor and was carrying them back to his hutch. Suddenly, Fox, who had been running around and annoying Farmer McGregor all day, started racing around madly, and accidentally crashed into Rabbit. The box of carrots was knocked into a nearby lake, and quickly disappeared. Rabbit also suffered an injured ear, and Dr. Dog, who happened to be nearby, wrapped it in a giant, brightly covered bandage.

Later that day, Fox came over to Rabbit and said, “I’m sorry about what happened. Please take this 50 dollar bill as my payment for the harm I caused.” Rabbit took the 50 dollar bill, saying, “You really need to be more careful next time.”

Two days later, Dr. Dog trotted over to Rabbit, and removed the large bandage. Dr. Dog then said, “You owe me $200 for medical services.” Rabbit went over to Fox and told him “I want $200 for the medical services you caused me to need.” Fox said, “I don’t think so. We’ve already agreed that I’ve paid you all I needed to.”

Of course, there are no courts in fables. Nonetheless, please analyze this fable from a contract lawyer's point of view. Please use the terminology, rules, and principles we have discussed this semester in your answer.

wow i'm way too slow today. it took me forever to pick up on the real argument the professor's gotta be looking for - which is ILLITERACY.

damn i really hope i'm sharper on my actual exams. u can make really interesting on both sides based around illiteracy.


When I read this hypo I found two main issues to be: 1) whether there was a proper Accord & Satisfaction between the rabbit and the fox?; and 2) was there an implied contract between the doctor and the rabbit or was it gratuity?

1) Accord & Satisfaction
Fox says yes because he made offer to pay settle the debt, and the rabbit accepted by silence implying that he would sue for more. However, there may be a problem with consideration because the 50 dollars for the ruined carrots is certain but the head injury was not. Rabbit would argue that a reasonable person in his position would understand the offer was only to pay him back for the carrots, and not for the head injury, because the fox gave him the exact amount that was advertised for the carrots (pre-existing duty maybe?) and nothing extra for the innjury that the fox caused. Fox will counter saying that his offer made clear that it was for the harm and not just the carrots.

2) Implied contract between doctor and rabbit
Rabbit will argue gratuitty
Doctor will arguet that he accepted the service and a reasonable person in the rabbits shoes would know that he would have to pay for it.

User avatar
paulshortys10
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby paulshortys10 » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:57 pm

Anyone want to answer my 2 other ones?


2. P puts an add in the classified ads, on Oct 10, saying " free swingset to anyone that will the swingset from my backyard" P was trying to remodel the backyard and had no use for it anymore. On oct 13, H calls P and says she wants the swingset, without having seen it yet, and will pick it up oct 15; P gives H directions to her house. On Oct 14, Z goes straight to P's house and tells her she wants the swingset, and with P's permission removes it and takes it home. Does H have any rights?

3. X orally agrees to build a wall for Y for 16k. X quits the job after expending 4k on the job, and Y having already paid 2k towards the price. Y hires A for 15k to complete construction. X's total cost to complete job would've been 12. What are the rights of each party?

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:09 pm

paulshortys10 wrote:Anyone want to answer my 2 other ones?


2. P puts an add in the classified ads, on Oct 10, saying " free swingset to anyone that will the swingset from my backyard" P was trying to remodel the backyard and had no use for it anymore. On oct 13, H calls P and says she wants the swingset, without having seen it yet, and will pick it up oct 15; P gives H directions to her house. On Oct 14, Z goes straight to P's house and tells her she wants the swingset, and with P's permission removes it and takes it home. Does H have any rights?

3. X orally agrees to build a wall for Y for 16k. X quits the job after expending 4k on the job, and Y having already paid 2k towards the price. Y hires A for 15k to complete construction. X's total cost to complete job would've been 12. What are the rights of each party?

for 3.) i think x is out of luck w the materials because y expected to spend 16k - he now spent 17k. x will try to get the 4k back as restitution, but did leave the job voluntarily and breach which forced y to spend another 15k (presuming it was reasonable). x expected a 4k profit, but got 2k and will need to pay Y 1k of each as cover.

but it's possible there was no k as construction k's normally fall under the statute of frauds;

minnie7
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:23 am

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby minnie7 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:55 am

dumb K question.

I offer you a job that pays 20, at the same time you had another opportunity that paid 15. You take the job, but I breach.

What would you recover under Promissory Estoppel?

Also, could someone do the following.
I get hired for a 10k job. I spend 8k on it and then breach it. Cost of completiong for owner will be 9k. His Increase in land has been 4k thus far.
What am I entitled to under UE/Restitution?

User avatar
Phife Dawg
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:35 am

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby Phife Dawg » Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:52 am

uvabro wrote:
paulshortys10 wrote:Anyone want to answer my 2 other ones?


2. P puts an add in the classified ads, on Oct 10, saying " free swingset to anyone that will the swingset from my backyard" P was trying to remodel the backyard and had no use for it anymore. On oct 13, H calls P and says she wants the swingset, without having seen it yet, and will pick it up oct 15; P gives H directions to her house. On Oct 14, Z goes straight to P's house and tells her she wants the swingset, and with P's permission removes it and takes it home. Does H have any rights?

3. X orally agrees to build a wall for Y for 16k. X quits the job after expending 4k on the job, and Y having already paid 2k towards the price. Y hires A for 15k to complete construction. X's total cost to complete job would've been 12. What are the rights of each party?

for 3.) i think x is out of luck w the materials because y expected to spend 16k - he now spent 17k. x will try to get the 4k back as restitution, but did leave the job voluntarily and breach which forced y to spend another 15k (presuming it was reasonable). x expected a 4k profit, but got 2k and will need to pay Y 1k of each as cover.

but it's possible there was no k as construction k's normally fall under the statute of frauds;

#2 -Ambiguous wording in regards to unilateral vs bilateral allows offerree to decide. here I don't think it's ambiguous: in response to "i'll pick it up," he merely gives him directions. In the unilateral k, revocation is allowed until performance is begun. I suppose it's foreseeable that such a promise would induce reliance in the form of renting a truck/moving crew and shit, and renting in itself could be considered partial performance, but it doesn't seem like this is the case. if you want to add that to the hypo though, I'm pretty confused :lol: . I'd think reliance damages (for renting, but not consequential) indeed but no specific perf in that case.
#3 -I'm not entirely sure if the UCC applies here (improvement to land? not goods but it's construction...), but exceptions to 2-201 mean no issue of lack of written k for statute of frauds anyways. You've got a partial performance for shit that can't be done elsewhere. The breacher's not getting restitution, but 15k to complete a job that's 4k finished is possibly high. if it's reasonable though, then $1k is right.
Last edited by Phife Dawg on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Phife Dawg
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:35 am

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby Phife Dawg » Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:00 am

minnie7 wrote:dumb K question.

I offer you a job that pays 20, at the same time you had another opportunity that paid 15. You take the job, but I breach.

What would you recover under Promissory Estoppel?

Also, could someone do the following.
I get hired for a 10k job. I spend 8k on it and then breach it. Cost of completiong for owner will be 9k. His Increase in land has been 4k thus far.
What am I entitled to under UE/Restitution?

A. Why PE and not just straight O+A+C? You recover what you don't cover up to 20...
B. Could you rephrase? What does getting job for a 10k job mean and then spending 8k on it? It was going to cost you 10k to complete it and you spend 8/10? Were you going to earn anything? Or you get hired to complete a 17k job (orig 8k plus 9k left) and were expecting to get paid only 10k so you quit after realizing it's a shitty K?

User avatar
Phife Dawg
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:35 am

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby Phife Dawg » Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:07 am

football hypo answered in the worst english possible:

CIF: Likely satisfied by showing obvious link between event and injury
PC/Duty: D argues that in sports, assumption of risk bars recovery: getting sacked as a result of not paying attention is part of the game. However, facilities maintainer still must take reasonable care not to subject athlete to unreasonable risks or unreasonably increase the chances of their risks. Whereas certain distractions are part of the game, a collapsing stadium (or whatever I forgot the hypo :oops: ) so far exceeds typical expectations that we cannot say the athlete assumed that risk.

Nucky's suggestion that arm breaking is inherent so therefore the mechanism that causes the arm breaking is irrelevant is troubling :lol:

User avatar
Mick Haller
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby Mick Haller » Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:37 am

nucky thompson wrote:probably so - dying is not an inherent risk to the game of football. Broken limbs are an inherent risk when playing football.


Are you the guy who got punked out by Ken?

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:09 pm

minnie7 wrote:dumb K question.

I offer you a job that pays 20, at the same time you had another opportunity that paid 15. You take the job, but I breach.

What would you recover under Promissory Estoppel?

Also, could someone do the following.
I get hired for a 10k job. I spend 8k on it and then breach it. Cost of completiong for owner will be 9k. His Increase in land has been 4k thus far.
What am I entitled to under UE/Restitution?

someone more confident in contracts, please let me know if i'm correct (not so confident in this class generally):

1.) i'd get the 20 from you. that's the benefit of my bargain. i have a duty to mitigate, but only have to take the job if it's of the same general quality and type as the job i signed for with u (see parker v. 20th century fox). so if u paid me 20 bucks to play football and my 15 dollar job was to clean toilets, i would not even ask for the toilet cleaning job back. it's not even promissory estoppel. u owe me 20 bucks asshole.

2.) what's increase in land mean? i mean owner planned on spending 10k. that was the benefit of his bargain. he needs to spend 9k to finish it. true, u spent 8k but that's not the employer's fault. you'd be entitled to 1k in restitution. so ull wind up having lost 7k. i think the increase in land stuff is irrelevant and just there to confuse you.

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:10 pm

Phife Dawg wrote:football hypo answered in the worst english possible:

CIF: Likely satisfied by showing obvious link between event and injury
PC/Duty: D argues that in sports, assumption of risk bars recovery: getting sacked as a result of not paying attention is part of the game. However, facilities maintainer still must take reasonable care not to subject athlete to unreasonable risks or unreasonably increase the chances of their risks. Whereas certain distractions are part of the game, a collapsing stadium (or whatever I forgot the hypo :oops: ) so far exceeds typical expectations that we cannot say the athlete assumed that risk.

Nucky's suggestion that arm breaking is inherent so therefore the mechanism that causes the arm breaking is irrelevant is troubling :lol:

idk im confident in my answer, but i should have focused more on assumption of risk. i think it's a great question because (1) it's football and (2) it deals with almost every possible issue in the course.

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:13 pm

Phife Dawg wrote:football hypo answered in the worst english possible:

CIF: Likely satisfied by showing obvious link between event and injury
PC/Duty: D argues that in sports, assumption of risk bars recovery: getting sacked as a result of not paying attention is part of the game. However, facilities maintainer still must take reasonable care not to subject athlete to unreasonable risks or unreasonably increase the chances of their risks. Whereas certain distractions are part of the game, a collapsing stadium (or whatever I forgot the hypo :oops: ) so far exceeds typical expectations that we cannot say the athlete assumed that risk.

Nucky's suggestion that arm breaking is inherent so therefore the mechanism that causes the arm breaking is irrelevant is troubling :lol:

on cause in fact, really? he was on the field. risk happened in the stands. it isn't obvious. i think the only argument is that it's self proving causation by substantially increasing the risk (see Reynolds - staircase case). he could have been sacked anyway (look at the eagles' quarterbacks), but this substantially increased the risk he wouldn't be paying attention.

User avatar
Phife Dawg
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:35 am

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby Phife Dawg » Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:55 pm

Ehl you may be right. Should at least entertain the idea that it could happen anyways. I really just wanted to get the AR point in because I think that's the most important thing in sports cases. Also, I suppose after that discussion (in PC/Duty), I should moved on to discuss the more traditional PC arguments, because even if the AR fails, facilities maintainer may be able to say that he's an unforeseeable plaintiff --you make good stands to ensure safety to users of the stands... but I think that fails in the sense that it's not unforeseeable that players may be affected by fucked up stands. But then they say that's shit like actual materials hitting players or fans falling/stampeding onto field and hurting players. But then they respond and say nah, that's pretty foreseeable that a huge distraction beyond the normal game can fuck with the players to the point they get injured. But then they go back to AR and say that's EXACTLY the type of injury they assumed. And they can even cite that fucking bobsled case where there was a shitty track and they got hurt but they didn't recover because it was the fact that they were going 80MPH on a fucking sled on ice that caused the injury (and the fact that the suggested track improvement might not even have done anything...so back to CIF :lol: )

FUCK.

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:05 pm

On Nucky's argument about the risk being there so it doesn't matter if it happens, if that were law, a football stadium with no security personnel would not be liable if a spectator jumped on the field, and with nobody to stop him proceeded to give a quarterback he didn't like a concussion when his back was turned as concussions could happen in the sport in general.

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:06 pm

Phife Dawg wrote:Ehl you may be right. Should at least entertain the idea that it could happen anyways. I really just wanted to get the AR point in because I think that's the most important thing in sports cases. Also, I suppose after that discussion (in PC/Duty), I should moved on to discuss the more traditional PC arguments, because even if the AR fails, facilities maintainer may be able to say that he's an unforeseeable plaintiff --you make good stands to ensure safety to users of the stands... but I think that fails in the sense that it's not unforeseeable that players may be affected by fucked up stands. But then they say that's shit like actual materials hitting players or fans falling/stampeding onto field and hurting players. But then they respond and say nah, that's pretty foreseeable that a huge distraction beyond the normal game can fuck with the players to the point they get injured. But then they go back to AR and say that's EXACTLY the type of injury they assumed. And they can even cite that fucking bobsled case where there was a shitty track and they got hurt but they didn't recover because it was the fact that they were going 80MPH on a fucking sled on ice that caused the injury (and the fact that the suggested track improvement might not even have done anything...so back to CIF :lol: )

FUCK.

it's called getting to maybe.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests