1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
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 1:39 pm

Not sure if Civ Pro is wanted in here but:
Consider the following proposed amendment to the United States Constitution:

For claims arising out of torts (including products liability), a defendant may, without its consent, be subject to personal jurisdiction in the following States and in no others:

1. The State in which the defendant is domiciled. A corporation shall be deemed to be domiciled only in the State in which it has its corporate headquarters.

2. The State in which the defendant’s act or the defendant’s omission giving rise to the harm occurred.

3. The State in which the harm occurred, unless the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that its conduct might have effects in that State.

Explain how the proposed amendment would change current law.
[question goes on to say espouse policy shit (for/against changing), so do that if you want, but really the beginning part is nice for ironing out PJ]

I'm struggling tremendously with this so below is my answer to show that I've attempted it, but is certainly not a good answer :lol:

  • The most noticeable thing is that it eliminates the possibility for general jurisdiction in the place that they're incorporated. It also eliminates general jurisdiction for "essentially at home" or the prior/weaker language of "systematic contacts". In terms of policy, who really cares? Noone's gonna sue these fucks in DE :lol: . I guess eliminating a potential forum may be bad.
  • Similarly, I think it fucks with the "principal place of business" = citizenship for corporations, but I'm not sure if that's more of a SMJ issue in terms of spotting diversity?
  • It affects "minimum contacts" analysis. If it occurs there, you can be subject for it... although again, this doesn't proscribe a court from saying that it would be unfair. Saying, "unforeseeable" seems to merely be the first suggested defense. [I really wish this hypo just said, "is subject" :lol: ]
  • Same thought, somewhat cleans up stream of commerce debate for specific pj in the sense that merely being "reasonably foreseeable" = allowed, but I suppose fairness factors still may be at play considering the amendment merely says, "may be subject." (i.e. I'm not sure if Asahi can go fuck itself or not)
  • Eliminates "presence" in the forum, Pennoyer jank, although that's arguably gone already...
  • Expands possibility of tort forum being placed in originating state rather than the "directed at" state, although still permits the latter.
  • Pretty sure nothing else in terms of distinguishing in personam from in rem/qir, especially because this is only a torts amendment

I feel like I'm confusing shit and definitely missing shit. Also, this is an exam question my professor emailed out without answers, so I don't know if it's against any policy to post it, but I doubt it.

aladdinismyprince
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:33 am

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby aladdinismyprince » Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:35 pm

paulshortys10 wrote:Here's a variation of a contracts exam I got.

1. J begins employment at a private school at a salary of 50k for one year. The written employment contract provides a 50% discount off tuition at the school for J's 2 children, who were enrolled in the school. Tuition was ordinarily 10k a year per student. Another provision in contract provides that J is obligated to pay the tuition for the full year, even if she withdraws her kids, "because of difficulty in enrolling additional children once school starts". J quits the job at the beginning of the 2nd week, without notice. School finds a new teacher with equal skills and pays her 47k a year. The new teacher ALSO has 2 children enrolled in the school with the same tuition break as Theodora's children. The school has a capacity of 100 children, but had only enrolled 95 but the time J accepted employment. What are the school's rights against J?

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?



I'll take a crack at this:
1) I analyzed this as loss volume seller, though I see know that it could also be seen as liquidated damages issue.

J's best argument is that the school didn't suffer any loss. In fact, they gained money because they hired a new teacher with two children for $3000 less.

I don't think they are a lost volume seller because one requirement for LVS is that the seller would have made the subsequent sale even if buyer had not breached. In this case, it is unlikely the new teacher would have sent her children there if she hadn't been hired. And I doubt she would have been hired if J hadn't breached. So no lost volume seller.

2) playground
I didn't notice unilateral/bilateral issue here-but good call!

I said: "H will have the most rights if he can sue under a contract theory. He will argue that H offered to take the swing-set, which P accepted by giving H directions. Thus, there was a valid contract.
P will argue there is no consideration. She wasn’t getting paid for the swingset. H might argue that his removal of the swingset from the yard, which would probably require some work, constituted consideration, as P didn’t have to do it himself.

However, courts would like construe the removal as a condition of the gift. They will likely say that P’s offer was purely gratuitous, and not meant to be construed as an offer to contract.

If H cannot sue under contract, he may assert promissory estoppel. The elements of promissory estoppel are: a promise, foreseeability of reliance, reliance, and remedies to prevent injustice. In this case, I’m not even sure there was a promise, but H could argue P’s giving her the directions was an implicit promise to give it to her. It is probably foreseeable that by giving her the directions, H was going to show up on October 15, since H said she wanted the swingset and gave a specific date. The hardest element for H to prove is justifiable reliance. Was H justified in thinking she has exclusive rights to the swingset? P will argue that he wasn’t justified. This was a public ad, so it is reasonable to assume other people will see and respond to it. Furthermore, it was a gift. Courts generally don’t want to make gifts enforceable, as we want to give people the ability to feel free to give a gift without fear of liability. H will argue that this wasn’t really a gift, in that H had to pick it up himself and P and H didn’t have a social relationship that warranted a gift.

H would prefer to sue under the contract theory because he can recover expectation damages. If he sues under the promissory estoppel theory, he can only obtain reliance damages, which are generally less than expectation damages. In this case, it isn’t clear that H had any reliance. If H went to buy tools or rented a truck in anticipation of removing the swingset, the court would probably award these damages if the found in the promissory estoppel theory."

3)
Because X breached, Y can sue for expectation damages. In this case, Y ended up spending $17,000 for a wall he expected to cost $16,000. Therefore, Y should recover $1000.

Because X breached, he cannot sue his for his expectation damages; he has given up his rights to expectation. He can sue under restitution theory. He will argue he conferred a benefit of $4000 on Y. Since Y has only paid him $2000, then X should get $2000. However, restitution is limited by the contract price (some case we talked about in class), so X will recover nothing.

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

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby paulshortys10 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:45 pm

aladdinismyprince wrote:
paulshortys10 wrote:Here's a variation of a contracts exam I got.

1. J begins employment at a private school at a salary of 50k for one year. The written employment contract provides a 50% discount off tuition at the school for J's 2 children, who were enrolled in the school. Tuition was ordinarily 10k a year per student. Another provision in contract provides that J is obligated to pay the tuition for the full year, even if she withdraws her kids, "because of difficulty in enrolling additional children once school starts". J quits the job at the beginning of the 2nd week, without notice. School finds a new teacher with equal skills and pays her 47k a year. The new teacher ALSO has 2 children enrolled in the school with the same tuition break as Theodora's children. The school has a capacity of 100 children, but had only enrolled 95 but the time J accepted employment. What are the school's rights against J?

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?



I'll take a crack at this:
1) I analyzed this as loss volume seller, though I see know that it could also be seen as liquidated damages issue.

J's best argument is that the school didn't suffer any loss. In fact, they gained money because they hired a new teacher with two children for $3000 less.

I don't think they are a lost volume seller because one requirement for LVS is that the seller would have made the subsequent sale even if buyer had not breached. In this case, it is unlikely the new teacher would have sent her children there if she hadn't been hired. And I doubt she would have been hired if J hadn't breached. So no lost volume seller.

2) playground
I didn't notice unilateral/bilateral issue here-but good call!

I said: "H will have the most rights if he can sue under a contract theory. He will argue that H offered to take the swing-set, which P accepted by giving H directions. Thus, there was a valid contract.
P will argue there is no consideration. She wasn’t getting paid for the swingset. H might argue that his removal of the swingset from the yard, which would probably require some work, constituted consideration, as P didn’t have to do it himself.

However, courts would like construe the removal as a condition of the gift. They will likely say that P’s offer was purely gratuitous, and not meant to be construed as an offer to contract.

If H cannot sue under contract, he may assert promissory estoppel. The elements of promissory estoppel are: a promise, foreseeability of reliance, reliance, and remedies to prevent injustice. In this case, I’m not even sure there was a promise, but H could argue P’s giving her the directions was an implicit promise to give it to her. It is probably foreseeable that by giving her the directions, H was going to show up on October 15, since H said she wanted the swingset and gave a specific date. The hardest element for H to prove is justifiable reliance. Was H justified in thinking she has exclusive rights to the swingset? P will argue that he wasn’t justified. This was a public ad, so it is reasonable to assume other people will see and respond to it. Furthermore, it was a gift. Courts generally don’t want to make gifts enforceable, as we want to give people the ability to feel free to give a gift without fear of liability. H will argue that this wasn’t really a gift, in that H had to pick it up himself and P and H didn’t have a social relationship that warranted a gift.

H would prefer to sue under the contract theory because he can recover expectation damages. If he sues under the promissory estoppel theory, he can only obtain reliance damages, which are generally less than expectation damages. In this case, it isn’t clear that H had any reliance. If H went to buy tools or rented a truck in anticipation of removing the swingset, the court would probably award these damages if the found in the promissory estoppel theory."

3)
Because X breached, Y can sue for expectation damages. In this case, Y ended up spending $17,000 for a wall he expected to cost $16,000. Therefore, Y should recover $1000.

Because X breached, he cannot sue his for his expectation damages; he has given up his rights to expectation. He can sue under restitution theory. He will argue he conferred a benefit of $4000 on Y. Since Y has only paid him $2000, then X should get $2000. However, restitution is limited by the contract price (some case we talked about in class), so X will recover nothing.


Awesome, we had similar answers.
For 1. I said pretty much the same exact thing, except added the provision could be construed as a liquidated damages penalty. not sure how that will fly. Also, is the reason why the school can't recover under lost volume because the 2 new students would be "substitutes" and wouldn't really count as a "lost sale"?

For 2. I actually did think there was a case for consideration. The swingset was a burden to P's plans of doing backyard work, so instead of paying someone to remove it, she just gave it away instead. This seems like a bargain for a bargain. However, it also seems like it's a unilateral K since it's asking for a performance, and not a subsequent promise.
With that said, Can you make the case H made an "offer" to go pick it up by whenever, which P "accepted" by giving her directions. It seems objectively and subjectively reasonable that H would believe this to be the case, No?
Didn't even think about reliance...definitely a good argument to throw in though just for extra points.

3. This one I haven't been able to get a satisfying answer yet.
I would say X gets nothing, because under UE, the benefit he conferred is already calculated in the costs for Y to finish completion.
For Y, shouldn't he be entitled to cost of completion? also, I don't understand how to factor the money he already gave X, if factored at all.

Pokemon
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:58 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby Pokemon » Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:07 pm

I hope you guys realize that what you are doing on this thread is at best useless, and at worse counter-productive.

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

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby nucky thompson » Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:39 pm

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


the mechanism that causes the harm is the inherent risk. Getting distracted did not cause the harm. Getting sacked by the opposing team's DE caused the harm. Getting sacked and suffering harm as a result is a risk inherent in football. You really think someone could litigate WHY they got sacked? I was distracted - if i was not distracted i would not have been sacked. that is highly speculative

Also, you say CIF is likely established by showing the obvious link between event and injury

did any of you play football? what is the quarterback going to say - uh, i was paying attention enough to take the snap, then i looked over to the football stands and saw them collapse and then i got sacked. If those things did not distract me I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SACKED - that is not sufficient to establish but for causation. Only thing to argue here is increasing the likelihood like UVA said


UVA to the point about someone running onto the field and causing harm --- if someone running onto the field and causing harm an inherent risk when playing football? - no.

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby laxbrah420 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:59 pm

Pokemon wrote:I hope you guys realize that what you are doing on this thread is at best useless, and at worse counter-productive.

Elaborate

User avatar
Rawlberto
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby Rawlberto » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:37 am

Dead Parrot wrote:
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.


Doctor can also argue restitution/unjust enrichment. Rabbit can argue that ear damage was not severe enough to cause that he naturally would have taken the service as it was not an emergency. Further argue that due to Dog being a doctor it should be implied that he was acting as a good samaritan.

User avatar
salix
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby salix » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:17 am

Here's a practice problem I don't think I'm seeing everything on:

A contracts with B for a service, for which A pays B $900. B subcontracts a component to C for $500, but hasn't paid C. B gives C erroneous information, causing C to perform in a way that benefits D, but not A. B skips town. What are C's claims against A? against D? What about A's claims against D?

I think C almost has an unjust enrichment claim against D, but I wonder if it fails at officiousness, since D was unaware of receiving the benefit. I think any claim A might have against D would fail for the same reason.

I don't think C has an unjust enrichment claim against A since there was no benefit conferred on A, and there was no privity between A and C.

I'm sure I'm missing a big chunk of this problem because I'm not even sure what other basis (besides unjust enrichment) anyone could pursue. HELP!

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

Re: 1L HYPOTHETICALS - WE DISCUSS GOOD HYPOS

Postby uvabro » Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:14 pm

Phife Dawg wrote:Not sure if Civ Pro is wanted in here but:
Consider the following proposed amendment to the United States Constitution:

For claims arising out of torts (including products liability), a defendant may, without its consent, be subject to personal jurisdiction in the following States and in no others:

1. The State in which the defendant is domiciled. A corporation shall be deemed to be domiciled only in the State in which it has its corporate headquarters.

2. The State in which the defendant’s act or the defendant’s omission giving rise to the harm occurred.

3. The State in which the harm occurred, unless the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that its conduct might have effects in that State.

Explain how the proposed amendment would change current law.
[question goes on to say espouse policy shit (for/against changing), so do that if you want, but really the beginning part is nice for ironing out PJ]

I'm struggling tremendously with this so below is my answer to show that I've attempted it, but is certainly not a good answer :lol:

  • The most noticeable thing is that it eliminates the possibility for general jurisdiction in the place that they're incorporated. It also eliminates general jurisdiction for "essentially at home" or the prior/weaker language of "systematic contacts". In terms of policy, who really cares? Noone's gonna sue these fucks in DE :lol: . I guess eliminating a potential forum may be bad.
  • Similarly, I think it fucks with the "principal place of business" = citizenship for corporations, but I'm not sure if that's more of a SMJ issue in terms of spotting diversity?
  • It affects "minimum contacts" analysis. If it occurs there, you can be subject for it... although again, this doesn't proscribe a court from saying that it would be unfair. Saying, "unforeseeable" seems to merely be the first suggested defense. [I really wish this hypo just said, "is subject" :lol: ]
  • Same thought, somewhat cleans up stream of commerce debate for specific pj in the sense that merely being "reasonably foreseeable" = allowed, but I suppose fairness factors still may be at play considering the amendment merely says, "may be subject." (i.e. I'm not sure if Asahi can go fuck itself or not)
  • Eliminates "presence" in the forum, Pennoyer jank, although that's arguably gone already...
  • Expands possibility of tort forum being placed in originating state rather than the "directed at" state, although still permits the latter.
  • Pretty sure nothing else in terms of distinguishing in personam from in rem/qir, especially because this is only a torts amendment

I feel like I'm confusing shit and definitely missing shit. Also, this is an exam question my professor emailed out without answers, so I don't know if it's against any policy to post it, but I doubt it.

i suck at civ pro but i think it eliminates the purposeful availment requirement - allows pure stream of commerce if it's foreseeable and is otherwise the same?




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cavalier1138, jg_ and 3 guests