Took K's last semester, but IIRC there's some authority which says 2-207 applies only when you have 2 preprinted forms ("battle of the forms" and only "battle of the forms.") I think that's a minority view though.bsktbll28082 wrote:Is there a split of authority on UCC 2-207? Someone mentioned it in class the other day and I had no idea what they were talking about. I know 2-207 deals with after arriving terms, but that's it.
1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT) Forum
- Over the top
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:41 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Last edited by Over the top on Tue May 06, 2014 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
- BVest
- Posts: 7887
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
That is also true, but Easterbrook is one heck of a minority:Over the top wrote:Took K's last semester, but IIRC there's some authority which says 2-207 applies only when you have 2 preprinted forms ("battle of the forms" and only "battle of the forms." I think that's a minority view though.bsktbll28082 wrote:Is there a split of authority on UCC 2-207? Someone mentioned it in class the other day and I had no idea what they were talking about. I know 2-207 deals with after arriving terms, but that's it.
Our K prof described reading ProCD as having him literally falling out of his chair and that Easterbrook's dismissal of 2-207 was dead wrong.Easterbrook in ProCD wrote:Our case has only one form; UCC § 2-207 is irrelevant.
Last edited by BVest on Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:21 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
is it bad that i took two semesters of K's and have no idea what this means whatsoever. as in we never covered this whatsoever. we never worked with UCC's. and i don't know who easterbrook is?BVest wrote:I can't say whether either of these is what they're talking about exactly, but first, there is a bit of a split between ProCD and Gateway where under Gateway there has to be some form of affirmative consent to the additional terms.bsktbll28082 wrote:Is there a split of authority on UCC 2-207? Someone mentioned it in class the other day and I had no idea what they were talking about. I know 2-207 deals with after arriving terms, but that's it.
Second, the knockout rule for when you have different terms (rather than additional, which is all 2-207 addresses) is only a majority rule. Some states, including California, apply 2-207 to different terms as if they were additional terms.
- beepboopbeep
- Posts: 1607
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:36 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Easterbrook is a god among men, and ProCD is is the bible He hath given us.toothbrush wrote:is it bad that i took two semesters of K's and have no idea what this means whatsoever. as in we never covered this whatsoever. we never worked with UCC's. and i don't know who easterbrook is?BVest wrote:I can't say whether either of these is what they're talking about exactly, but first, there is a bit of a split between ProCD and Gateway where under Gateway there has to be some form of affirmative consent to the additional terms.bsktbll28082 wrote:Is there a split of authority on UCC 2-207? Someone mentioned it in class the other day and I had no idea what they were talking about. I know 2-207 deals with after arriving terms, but that's it.
Second, the knockout rule for when you have different terms (rather than additional, which is all 2-207 addresses) is only a majority rule. Some states, including California, apply 2-207 to different terms as if they were additional terms.
- Easy-E
- Posts: 6487
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
My civpro professor spent some time on expected values of cases, but I think I'm missing something obvious
P --> (reward) x (probability of receiving reward) - (cost of litigation)
D --> (reward) x (probability of receiving reward) + (cost of litigation)
I feel like this is probably obvious, but why does D's expected value of the case add cost of litigation as opposed to subtracting it. I don't know if this something that gets covered in all civ pro courses, but I think it's general enough someone might be able to help. Wouldn't the cost of litigation be added/subtracted depending on the outcome?
P --> (reward) x (probability of receiving reward) - (cost of litigation)
D --> (reward) x (probability of receiving reward) + (cost of litigation)
I feel like this is probably obvious, but why does D's expected value of the case add cost of litigation as opposed to subtracting it. I don't know if this something that gets covered in all civ pro courses, but I think it's general enough someone might be able to help. Wouldn't the cost of litigation be added/subtracted depending on the outcome?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 12612
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
You're confusing what the D side of the equation is calculating. D isn't going to win something-he is either losing money or not paying out money. His type of win is not paying cash damages. So adding in trial costs is the total of pocket sum the defendant will have to pay on average. If that number is greater than the size a plaintiff will accept as a settlement, then the case will settle.emarxnj wrote:My civpro professor spent some time on expected values of cases, but I think I'm missing something obvious
P --> (reward) x (probability of receiving reward) - (cost of litigation)
D --> (reward) x (probability of receiving reward) + (cost of litigation)
I feel like this is probably obvious, but why does D's expected value of the case add cost of litigation as opposed to subtracting it. I don't know if this something that gets covered in all civ pro courses, but I think it's general enough someone might be able to help. Wouldn't the cost of litigation be added/subtracted depending on the outcome?
Say there is a $100 award total and the plaintiff has a 50/50 shot of winning. Trial costs are $20. That means on average the defendant will pay $70 against a similarly situated plaintiff (half the time he will pay $100 and half the time he will pay $0). If the plaintiff will accept anything lower than $70 the defendant should immediately settle.
- Easy-E
- Posts: 6487
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Oh, duh. I knew it was something obvious like that. Thanks a ton man.Mal Reynolds wrote:You're confusing what the D side of the equation is calculating. D isn't going to win something-he is either losing money or not paying out money. His type of win is not paying cash damages. So adding in trial costs is the total of pocket sum the defendant will have to pay on average. If that number is greater than the size a plaintiff will accept as a settlement, then the case will settle.emarxnj wrote:My civpro professor spent some time on expected values of cases, but I think I'm missing something obvious
P --> (reward) x (probability of receiving reward) - (cost of litigation)
D --> (reward) x (probability of receiving reward) + (cost of litigation)
I feel like this is probably obvious, but why does D's expected value of the case add cost of litigation as opposed to subtracting it. I don't know if this something that gets covered in all civ pro courses, but I think it's general enough someone might be able to help. Wouldn't the cost of litigation be added/subtracted depending on the outcome?
Say there is a $100 award total and the plaintiff has a 50/50 shot of winning. Trial costs are $20. That means on average the defendant will pay $70 against a similarly situated plaintiff (half the time he will pay $100 and half the time he will pay $0). If the plaintiff will accept anything lower than $70 the defendant should immediately settle.
-
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:26 am
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
If A is guilty of murder, but has a valid insanity defense and B is an accomplice to A in that murder. Can B avail himself of the insanity defense?
Also, what is B is an accomplice to A, but not in murder but in tangential crimes, such as drug distribution. A's actions were in furtherance of their agreed upon crimes. Is the answer the same?
Also, what is B is an accomplice to A, but not in murder but in tangential crimes, such as drug distribution. A's actions were in furtherance of their agreed upon crimes. Is the answer the same?
-
- Posts: 1862
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
No.kcam1991 wrote:If A is guilty of murder, but has a valid insanity defense and B is an accomplice to A in that murder. Can B avail himself of the insanity defense?
Still no insanity defense. Accomplices can never claim the benefit of the principal being insane.kcam1991 wrote:Also, what is B is an accomplice to A, but not in murder but in tangential crimes, such as drug distribution. A's actions were in furtherance of their agreed upon crimes. Is the answer the same?
-
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:26 am
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Thanks for the response. Just one more question:arklaw13 wrote:No.kcam1991 wrote:If A is guilty of murder, but has a valid insanity defense and B is an accomplice to A in that murder. Can B avail himself of the insanity defense?
Still no insanity defense. Accomplices can never claim the benefit of the principal being insane.kcam1991 wrote:Also, what is B is an accomplice to A, but not in murder but in tangential crimes, such as drug distribution. A's actions were in furtherance of their agreed upon crimes. Is the answer the same?
What if A has a partial excuse such as where A kills spouse's lover after finding them in the act, but B drives him there only to beat up the lover? Is B guilty of voluntary manslaughter or murder?
-
- Posts: 1862
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Murder, assuming he meets the requirements of accomplice liability (actual aid for CL, etc. etc.). Only principal gets to claim the benefit of being emotionally disturbed. If accomplice was also emotionally disturbed, he could also get the benefit, of course. Say two brothers witness their sister/mother being assaulted and one brotherhands the other a gun to kill the perpetrator (assume no self-defense issue, was totally retribution). Both could get voluntary manslaughter in that situation.kcam1991 wrote:Thanks for the response. Just one more question:arklaw13 wrote:No.kcam1991 wrote:If A is guilty of murder, but has a valid insanity defense and B is an accomplice to A in that murder. Can B avail himself of the insanity defense?
Still no insanity defense. Accomplices can never claim the benefit of the principal being insane.kcam1991 wrote:Also, what is B is an accomplice to A, but not in murder but in tangential crimes, such as drug distribution. A's actions were in furtherance of their agreed upon crimes. Is the answer the same?
What if A has a partial excuse such as where A kills spouse's lover after finding them in the act, but B drives him there only to beat up the lover? Is B guilty of voluntary manslaughter or murder?
-
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:26 am
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Perfect. I understand. Thanksarklaw13 wrote:Murder, assuming he meets the requirements of accomplice liability (actual aid for CL, etc. etc.). Only principal gets to claim the benefit of being emotionally disturbed. If accomplice was also emotionally disturbed, he could also get the benefit, of course. Say two brothers witness their sister/mother being assaulted and one brotherhands the other a gun to kill the perpetrator (assume no self-defense issue, was totally retribution). Both could get voluntary manslaughter in that situation.kcam1991 wrote:Thanks for the response. Just one more question:arklaw13 wrote:No.kcam1991 wrote:If A is guilty of murder, but has a valid insanity defense and B is an accomplice to A in that murder. Can B avail himself of the insanity defense?
Still no insanity defense. Accomplices can never claim the benefit of the principal being insane.kcam1991 wrote:Also, what is B is an accomplice to A, but not in murder but in tangential crimes, such as drug distribution. A's actions were in furtherance of their agreed upon crimes. Is the answer the same?
What if A has a partial excuse such as where A kills spouse's lover after finding them in the act, but B drives him there only to beat up the lover? Is B guilty of voluntary manslaughter or murder?
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:30 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
BUT don't you need True Purpose as to result? If your true purpose was to facilitate a beatdown I don't think this gets you murder?arklaw13 wrote:Murder, assuming he meets the requirements of accomplice liability (actual aid for CL, etc. etc.). Only principal gets to claim the benefit of being emotionally disturbed. If accomplice was also emotionally disturbed, he could also get the benefit, of course. Say two brothers witness their sister/mother being assaulted and one brotherhands the other a gun to kill the perpetrator (assume no self-defense issue, was totally retribution). Both could get voluntary manslaughter in that situation.kcam1991 wrote:Thanks for the response. Just one more question:arklaw13 wrote:No.kcam1991 wrote:If A is guilty of murder, but has a valid insanity defense and B is an accomplice to A in that murder. Can B avail himself of the insanity defense?
Still no insanity defense. Accomplices can never claim the benefit of the principal being insane.kcam1991 wrote:Also, what is B is an accomplice to A, but not in murder but in tangential crimes, such as drug distribution. A's actions were in furtherance of their agreed upon crimes. Is the answer the same?
What if A has a partial excuse such as where A kills spouse's lover after finding them in the act, but B drives him there only to beat up the lover? Is B guilty of voluntary manslaughter or murder?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- bsktbll28082
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 5:25 am
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Do the Slaughterhouse cases only concern the privileges OR immunities? Does the privileges AND immunities clause come up? My notes are confusing. It's my understanding Slaughterhouse limited the P or I clause.
-
- Posts: 1862
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Pretty sure it's murder if you intend to cause serious bodily harm and death results. Don't necessarily need purpose as to death. Think of how many murderers could use that as an excuse and get mitigated down to manslaughter/aggravated assault/whatever. So if the accomplice intended serious bodily harm, which he would have if he handed his brother a weapon, then he would be liable for murder.POTUS2044 wrote:
BUT don't you need True Purpose as to result? If your true purpose was to facilitate a beatdown I don't think this gets you murder?
-
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:26 am
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
If a potential felony murder has an insanity defense for the underlying felony does this mean the felony murder rule does not apply? For example, person has guilty for actual murder, but because of extremely low IQ sees nothing wrong with illegal gun distribution.
-
- Posts: 1862
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
I don't really know what you're asking, but I'll give it a shot. If there is an insanity defense for the predicate felony upon which felony murder liability is based, and the insanity defense is successful, then there would be no felony murder liability. How this actually plays out depends whether the jurisdiction is a not guilty by reason of insanity state, or a guilty but insane state. That would be an interesting question.kcam1991 wrote:If a potential felony murder has an insanity defense for the underlying felony does this mean the felony murder rule does not apply? For example, person has guilty for actual murder, but because of extremely low IQ sees nothing wrong with illegal gun distribution.
Example: guy goes to a grocery store and carries a gun with him. He's insane as fuck and believes that he is actually going to the lair of an evil dragon that stole his money. Walks up to the guy at the counter, tells him to give him the money back, and points the gun at him. Gets money, turns around to leave, but slips on a puddle, causing the gun to go off and hit a bystander. Absent the insanity defense, there would be FM liability based on the robbery (assuming it was a felony charge). With the insanity defense, there is no liability for the underlying robbery (maybe in the guilty-but insane states, I guess, who knows?) so there would be no felony murder liability.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:32 am
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Model Penal Code § 2.02(7) reads:
"When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist."
How does this differ from Recklessness?
"When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist."
How does this differ from Recklessness?
-
- Posts: 1862
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Really a difference of degree.Swimp wrote:Model Penal Code § 2.02(7) reads:
"When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist."
How does this differ from Recklessness?
Negligence - there is a risk that X is true - D doesn't know about the risk, but should have
Recklessness - D knew about the risk that X was true and consciously disregarded it
Knowledge - D knew the probability that X was true was so great that we imply knowledge of X's truth, unless the evidence otherwise suggests that D actually did not know
-
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:32 am
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Okay, thanks.arklaw13 wrote:Really a difference of degree.Swimp wrote:Model Penal Code § 2.02(7) reads:
"When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist."
How does this differ from Recklessness?
Negligence - there is a risk that X is true - D doesn't know about the risk, but should have
Recklessness - D knew about the risk that X was true and consciously disregarded it
Knowledge - D knew the probability that X was true was so great that we imply knowledge of X's truth, unless the evidence otherwise suggests that D actually did not know
- moonman157
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:26 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
What's the difference between prongs one and top of Lopez? And which one does Heart of Atlanta fall under? I guess I'm just confused as to the difference between channels and instrumentalities. I know Sebelius was argued under prong three and failed because it was not economic activity, but could it have fit under one of the other prongs as well, if you deem the free riders in the system to be threats to commerce? Or does it have to be a threat to the specific instrumentalities (shooting down an airplane engaged in interstate commerce)? Thanks.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- BVest
- Posts: 7887
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Instrumentalities are generally physical things that can be regulated because they are what cause the interstate commerce, i.e. the things that actually move stuff from state to state. e.g. regulation of ships, planes, trucks, etc.moonman157 wrote:I guess I'm just confused as to the difference between channels and instrumentalities.
Channels are the conduits through which things move from state to state (highways, telephone lines, pipelines, etc. I suspect airports probably fall under this, definitely navigable waters and airways) Channels themselves don't move from state to state, they just facilitate interstate movement. Heart of Atlanta was a channel of interstate commerce, being an important way station for out of state travelers.
Last edited by BVest on Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 8058
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:47 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
How do I not go crazy waiting for my grades for a month? I feel really good going into my finals, felt OK afterwards but worried I could have done more analysis/missed an issue, and am now terrified that I bombed it all. Gaaahhhh.
Last edited by FSK on Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:24 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Have a beer?flawschoolkid wrote:How do I not go crazy waiting for my grades for a month? I feel really good going into my finals, felt OK afterwards but worried I could have done more analysis/missed an issue, and am now terrified that I bombed it all. Gaaahhhh.
-
- Posts: 1862
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm
Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)
Do what you did last semester?flawschoolkid wrote:How do I not go crazy waiting for my grades for a month? I feel really good going into my finals, felt OK afterwards but worried I could have done more analysis/missed an issue, and am now terrified that I bombed it all. Gaaahhhh.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login