1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT) Forum

[Br3v]

Made for 1L Exam prep, though 2L and 3L students welcome to share your knowledge.

This question was answered in another thread but to get the ball rolling:
For battery, does defendant need to intend the contact and for it to be harmful or offensive, or just to intend the contact?

[North]

Checking in.

No shame ITT.

[nickb285]

..

[Jsa725]

.

[lawhopeful10]

Made for 1L Exam prep, though 2L and 3L students welcome to share your knowledge.

This question was answered in another thread but to get the ball rolling:
For battery, does defendant need to intend the contact and for it to be harmful or offensive, or just to intend the contact?

Also this is pretty obvious but know the minority the rules and cases that applied different rules for what you did in class. We had a case that allowed a battery for just intending te contact without the harmful or offensive part which goes against the restatement.

[iworkforlsac]

Great thread. I have a question (or two) as well. I am having trouble grasping the idea of 'attendant circumstances' in crim law. Also, what would be a good way to parse out differences btw. a result and non-result crime? It's in my head, but I can't seem to articulate these well.
Any knowledgeable 2-3Ls that can shed light on this?

[Easy-E]

Subbed so I can pester everyone as I get more into my outlines and realize I know nothing. Good idea br3v

[kay2016]

Checking in

[Br3v]

Checking in.

No shame ITT.

Never

Subbed so I can pester everyone as I get more into my outlines and realize I know nothing. Good idea br3v

I'm glad people like the idea. Figure it can work as a commitment free straight to the point study group of sorts.


Also, thank you everyone who answered by battery question.

And lastly, I learn a lot better when I have to answer peoples own questions so hopefully a lot of you guys have questions!

[desiballa21]

great thread! I think everyone in the world has contracts this semester except me.

[lhanvt13]

Made for 1L Exam prep, though 2L and 3L students welcome to share your knowledge.

This question was answered in another thread but to get the ball rolling:
For battery, does defendant need to intend the contact and for it to be harmful or offensive, or just to intend the contact?

First of all, thanks for making this thread Br3v. This is a great idea.

Anyway, the way I learned it was: Battery is 1) a volitional act with 2) intent to touch and 3) intent to harm or offend which 4) results in harmful or offensive contact.

Single intent jurisdictions, which is the minority view, only require the 1), 2), and 4). However, Dual intent jurisdictions require all 4 elements. Intent can be either desire or knowledge; the actor can simply know that a reasonable person or would be harmed or offended by his act.

I have a follow-up question though: if somebody was hypersensitive and tapped them on the shoulder and they either freak out immensely or has a heart attack, would that still be battery in dual intent jurisdictions or only in single intent jurisdictions?

[Dolphine]

.

[rambleon65]

checking in....wtf is property law?

[BigZuck]

Said this in the other thread and don't want to be annoying, but...

Peeps keep saying "intend" but as I understand it that doesn't neccessarily mean that you have the purpose of causing the touch, it could also mean that you know (or should know) that the touch is likely to occur with a high degree of probability.

Ex.: You shoot a gun into a crowd of people but are not actually trying to hit anyone. However, if you do hit someone the intent element is satisfied because you should know that by firing a gun into a crowd, that bullet is likely to hit (and harm) someone.

Anyway, checking in!

[vinnnyvincenzo]

Made for 1L Exam prep, though 2L and 3L students welcome to share your knowledge.

This question was answered in another thread but to get the ball rolling:
For battery, does defendant need to intend the contact and for it to be harmful or offensive, or just to intend the contact?

First of all, thanks for making this thread Br3v. This is a great idea.

Anyway, the way I learned it was: Battery is 1) a volitional act with 2) intent to touch and 3) intent to harm or offend which 4) results in harmful or offensive contact.

Single intent jurisdictions, which is the minority view, only require the 1), 2), and 4). However, Dual intent jurisdictions require all 4 elements. Intent can be either desire or knowledge; the actor can simply know that a reasonable person or would be harmed or offended by his act.

I have a follow-up question though: if somebody was hypersensitive and tapped them on the shoulder and they either freak out immensely or has a heart attack, would that still be battery in dual intent jurisdictions or only in single intent jurisdictions?

I believe that normally it would not be. However if the defendant knew the plaintiff was hypersensitive then it could be.

[North]

Contracts. Independent and Dependent Promises. Why is this distinction important? Intuitively, I figure it matters for when you're determining whether there was breach. But it seems lumped together with Conditions syllabus/hornbook wise. What's the deal with these things?

So, so close to finishing this outline. This is holding me up.

[ph14]

Said this in the other thread and don't want to be annoying, but...

Peeps keep saying "intend" but as I understand it that doesn't neccessarily mean that you have the purpose of causing the touch, it could also mean that you know (or should know) that the touch is likely to occur with a high degree of probability.

Ex.: You shoot a gun into a crowd of people but are not actually trying to hit anyone. However, if you do hit someone the intent element is satisfied because you should know that by firing a gun into a crowd, that bullet is likely to hit (and harm) someone.

Anyway, checking in!

It's a long time since i've taken torts (3L), but if i'm recalling correctly that is correct. You can intend the result, or you are substantially certain it will occur, and both will count for purposes of "intent."

Moreover, there is another fork in the law (if your class covered this): the intent to cause the action versus the intent to cause the result (through the action). Some jurisdictions require only the former, whereas others require the latter.

[desiballa21]

Said this in the other thread and don't want to be annoying, but...

Peeps keep saying "intend" but as I understand it that doesn't neccessarily mean that you have the purpose of causing the touch, it could also mean that you know (or should know) that the touch is likely to occur with a high degree of probability.

Ex.: You shoot a gun into a crowd of people but are not actually trying to hit anyone. However, if you do hit someone the intent element is satisfied because you should know that by firing a gun into a crowd, that bullet is likely to hit (and harm) someone.

Anyway, checking in!

That's Garrett v. Daily principle, right? Intent is either you intended to or substantially certain that your action could lead to a chain of events where it happens.

[BigZuck]

Said this in the other thread and don't want to be annoying, but...

Peeps keep saying "intend" but as I understand it that doesn't neccessarily mean that you have the purpose of causing the touch, it could also mean that you know (or should know) that the touch is likely to occur with a high degree of probability.

Ex.: You shoot a gun into a crowd of people but are not actually trying to hit anyone. However, if you do hit someone the intent element is satisfied because you should know that by firing a gun into a crowd, that bullet is likely to hit (and harm) someone.

Anyway, checking in!

That's Garrett v. Daily principle, right? Intent is either you intended to or substantially certain that your action could lead to a chain of events where it happens.

Yeeeeaaaaaah, buddy!

[danitt]

Contracts. Independent and Dependent Promises. Why is this distinction important? Intuitively, I figure it matters for when you're determining whether there was breach. But it seems lumped together with Conditions syllabus/hornbook wise. What's the deal with these things?

So, so close to finishing this outline. This is holding me up.

I almost burst into tears when I read this because we're not even there yet.

[goden]

TORTS question crossposted in 1L thread:

Can anyone help me with successive causation damages in cases like Baker v. Willoughby? In cases like this does D have to pay all the damages or just up to the point before a second dude further fucked up his injury?

I'm thinking about a fact pattern where person A negligently runs over person B's leg and cripples it, then person C shoots person B's crippled leg at a later time and it has to be amputated.

Here's basically what my notes say but I'm not sure if this is correct or how to make sense of it:
-Measure of damages against C, if negligent: difference between crippled leg and amputated leg
-Measure of damages against A, if C is negligent: crippled leg (because A robbed B of a potential cause of action against C?)
-Measure of damages against A, if C is NOT negligent: only pain and suffering (because C can be thought of as a "natural" cause that B would have had no cause of action against anyway?)

[Br3v]

Here are my thoughts, obviously take them for what they are worth.

I have a follow-up question though: if somebody was hypersensitive and tapped them on the shoulder and they either freak out immensely or has a heart attack, would that still be battery in dual intent jurisdictions or only in single intent jurisdictions?

In dual intent, if you don't have the intent to cause h/O contact then I guess the unforeseen extent of the harm (of the battery) doesn't apply because their wasn't a battery to begin with.

Said this in the other thread and don't want to be annoying, but...

Peeps keep saying "intend" but as I understand it that doesn't neccessarily mean that you have the purpose of causing the touch, it could also mean that you know (or should know) that the touch is likely to occur with a high degree of probability.

Ex.: You shoot a gun into a crowd of people but are not actually trying to hit anyone. However, if you do hit someone the intent element is satisfied because you should know that by firing a gun into a crowd, that bullet is likely to hit (and harm) someone.

Anyway, checking in!

Yeah I agree, intend = "intend" and know that it will result with near certainty

Contracts. Independent and Dependent Promises. Why is this distinction important?

Yeah my K class hasn't covered this (and I don't think we are going to) sorry can't be any help there.

[Swimp]

Contracts. Independent and Dependent Promises. Why is this distinction important? Intuitively, I figure it matters for when you're determining whether there was breach. But it seems lumped together with Conditions syllabus/hornbook wise. What's the deal with these things?

So, so close to finishing this outline. This is holding me up.

One reason why the distinction might be important is in articulating a rationale for enforcing or not enforcing a particular promise.

If π's promise A is dependent on ∆'s promise 1, and ∆ didn't fulfill his side of the bargain, π isn't bound to deliver on his side either.

If, however, π's promise and ∆'s promise are actually independent, π might still be bound.

E.g. Kent v. Jacob & Youngs: Kent contracts with a builder to buy a house. Kent makes a number of stipulations about the way the house should be built, including that all the pipe used in the house must be made by the Reading Co. The builder uses a bunch of different kinds of pipe of equal quality. The court does not exempt Kent from upholding his side of the bargain, because his promise to pay for the builder's work and the builder's promise to use ONLY Reading pipe were independent. The builder's promise to substantially perform (i.e. build the house to reasonably satisfy the specs) and Kent's promise were dependent.

[North]

Contracts. Independent and Dependent Promises. Why is this distinction important? Intuitively, I figure it matters for when you're determining whether there was breach. But it seems lumped together with Conditions syllabus/hornbook wise. What's the deal with these things?

So, so close to finishing this outline. This is holding me up.

One reason why the distinction might be important is in articulating a rationale for enforcing or not enforcing a particular promise.

If π's promise A is dependent on ∆'s promise 1, and ∆ didn't fulfill his side of the bargain, π isn't bound to deliver on his side either.

If, however, π's promise and ∆'s promise are actually independent, π might still be bound.

E.g. Kent v. Jacob & Youngs: Kent contracts with a builder to buy a house. Kent makes a number of stipulations about the way the house should be built, including that all the pipe used in the house must be made by the Reading Co. The builder uses a bunch of different kinds of pipe of equal quality. The court does not exempt Kent from upholding his side of the bargain, because his promise to pay for the builder's work and the builder's promise to use ONLY Reading pipe were independent. The builder's promise to substantially perform (i.e. build the house to reasonably satisfy the specs) and Kent's promise were dependent.

It's hard to explain the misunderstanding I now realize I had, but this was the perfect explanation and how they fit in makes sense now. Thank you so much. Srsly. We even used that case in class.

[cynthia rose]

checking in