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

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3098
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

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

Postby Lavitz » Thu Nov 21, 2013 5:57 pm

BigZuck wrote:
Lavitz wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Just wanted to thank Lavitz for his Erie case explanations, was pretty clutch while I was outlining today.

No problem. I hope it's right. :lol:


Me too brother, me too

Glannon seemed to agree I think

I hope so, considering that's how I learned it. :wink:

BPLawl
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:24 pm

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

Postby BPLawl » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:14 am

Did anyone read Gasperini in Civ Pro? Am I right in ascertaining that it's sole purpose in the casebook is showing Byrd/Hanna in action by the courts and how reasonable parties can differ in applying these tests?

dj_roomba
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:28 am

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

Postby dj_roomba » Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:06 pm

Difference between equitable and promissory estoppel?

I get that equitable estoppel precludes from alleging facts that contradict its representation. I don't get what that means (its application).

rambleon65
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 2:05 pm

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

Postby rambleon65 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:32 pm

For negligence (duty), we've established that there's an affirmative duty on the D to take care of P if D's acts (negligent or not) created P's risk of injury.

Would the same duty apply if P's actions towards D were justified?
i.e. in an attempt to recover from P's theft, D knocks P down and creates a situation where P needs medical attention.

I'm thinking yes, but wondering if there's exceptions...

rambleon65
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 2:05 pm

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

Postby rambleon65 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:36 pm

dj_roomba wrote:Difference between equitable and promissory estoppel?

I get that equitable estoppel precludes from alleging facts that contradict its representation. I don't get what that means (its application).


Equitable Estoppel is more about reliance on past/current action while promissory estoppel is more of a reliance on a future promise.

Equitable Estoppel is typcailly (but not always) with re: fraud.
X: "Is this your signature on this K?"
Y: "(fraudulently) Yes, yes it is. This is my signature"

Y is estopped from later denying that that is his signature and rebut existence of K.

Promissory Estoppel is a reliance on promise:
Y: "I promise to give you $400 when you complete this housing project"
X: (goes out and spends $100 on materials for completing the housing project)

X can probably recover $100 (reliance) from Y. (though i'm sure there's a claim for quantum meruit)
Last edited by rambleon65 on Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Swimp
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:32 am

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

Postby Swimp » Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:26 pm

The way my Contracts prof structured the syllabus, it seemed like "Precontractual Liability" and "Promissory Estoppel" were two separate/possible competing doctrines. This confused me in a vague way for a while. My understanding now is that precontractual liability is the general notion of holding a party liable even though no contract was ever formed--and promissory estoppel is a doctrine that courts can invoke to enforce that liability.

Now, assuming that's generally right (somebody please correct me if I'm still off base), what other doctrines fall under the umbrella of precontractual liability? Is there more to it than just p. estop.?

User avatar
moonman157
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:26 pm

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

Postby moonman157 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:46 pm

Tag

bdm261
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:19 am

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

Postby bdm261 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:52 pm

When will a Judge take a factual issue away from the jury?

Torts prof asked this to the class and no one could answer so he said it would be on the exam.

Thanks

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15419
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby sublime » Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:54 pm

..

User avatar
kay2016
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:23 am

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

Postby kay2016 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:52 pm

bdm261 wrote:When will a Judge take a factual issue away from the jury?

Torts prof asked this to the class and no one could answer so he said it would be on the exam.

Thanks


So the Judge does have this power...

Assume x is suing y for negligence... Jury decides no breach (question of fact), y wins. X appeals, Judge can decide there was breach.

The judge is only supposed to do this IF "no reasonable jury could have found" that there was no breach, in this case.

Problem is, sometimes judges do this even if a jury, an appellate court, and maybe some dissenters thought that there was no breach.. So a "reasonable jury" in fact DID find that there was no breach, but the judge still disagrees and overturned their finding anyway.

But the rule is that a Judge is only supposed to decide the question of fact (breach or whatever) if it's so clear that no reasonable jury would find the other way..


Does that help?

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

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

Postby Br3v » Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:05 am

bdm261 wrote:When will a Judge take a factual issue away from the jury?

Torts prof asked this to the class and no one could answer so he said it would be on the exam.

Thanks


Rule 50

User avatar
kay2016
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:23 am

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

Postby kay2016 » Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:10 am

Br3v wrote:
bdm261 wrote:When will a Judge take a factual issue away from the jury?

Torts prof asked this to the class and no one could answer so he said it would be on the exam.

Thanks


Rule 50



Br3v's answer > my answer.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

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

Postby Br3v » Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:12 am

kay2016 wrote:
Br3v wrote:
bdm261 wrote:When will a Judge take a factual issue away from the jury?

Torts prof asked this to the class and no one could answer so he said it would be on the exam.

Thanks


Rule 50



Br3v's answer > my answer.


Yours was way more helpful though. I just added mine on top of your explanation.

User avatar
kay2016
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:23 am

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

Postby kay2016 » Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:15 am

Br3v wrote:
kay2016 wrote:
Br3v wrote:
bdm261 wrote:When will a Judge take a factual issue away from the jury?

Torts prof asked this to the class and no one could answer so he said it would be on the exam.

Thanks


Rule 50



Br3v's answer > my answer.


Yours was way more helpful though. I just added mine on top of your explanation.


Ha well I'm glad that I was on the right track.. My torts professors never linked it back to the rule and we never covered it in Civ Pro. We just talked about it with a couple of crazy cases involving trains.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

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

Postby Br3v » Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:17 am

kay2016 wrote:
Ha well I'm glad that I was on the right track.. My torts professors never linked it back to the rule and we never covered it in Civ Pro. We just talked about it with a couple of crazy cases involving trains.


Just be sure to get out of your car next time you stop look and listen :lol:

wwwcol
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:57 am

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

Postby wwwcol » Sun Nov 24, 2013 2:01 am

Hi guys, checking in with a Contracts question! What is (are?) the difference(s?) between promissory estoppel and promissory restitution?

My notes sort of suggest that, in PR, "consideration" exists in the form of a moral obligation (a promise) to pay some other pre-existing obligation that would otherwise be unenforceable. Not sure how that compares to PE, though.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

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

Postby Br3v » Sun Nov 24, 2013 2:15 am

wwwcol wrote:Hi guys, checking in with a Contracts question! What is (are?) the difference(s?) between promissory estoppel and promissory restitution?

My notes sort of suggest that, in PR, "consideration" exists in the form of a moral obligation (a promise) to pay some other pre-existing obligation that would otherwise be unenforceable. Not sure how that compares to PE, though.


PE deals with reasonable reliance. Allows for recovery for amount of damages resulting from P relying on D not breaching. Restitution deals with unjust enrichment, allowing P to recover for benefits conferred to D. Moral obligations are a touchy (courts differ) subject (as in if it counts for anything) but when it is recognized as relevant it's probably going to be in connection with restitution.

User avatar
cynthia rose
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:42 pm

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

Postby cynthia rose » Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:42 am

I have a Civ Pro question about Erickson v. Hunter. This was a Florida case. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss re: 10(b), a motion to dismiss re: 12(b)(6), a motion for a more definite statement, and a motion to strike all claims for punitive damages.

The professor chose this case as an example of the threshold for a sufficient pleading, but didn't say anything about the motion itself being improper. The court also said nothing about the motion being improper, just that the defendants were wrong about the pleading being insufficient and that if there is a violation of 10(b) it usually results in dismissal with leave to replead. I'm confused b/c I thought a defendant could only move to dismiss under one of the 12(b) options. A judge could address it of course, but based on the rules I don't see how a defendant could do so except through an answer? Am I just reading rule 12 too literally/did I miss something somewhere else that allows for motions to dismiss outside of 12(b)?

criminaltheory
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:48 pm

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

Postby criminaltheory » Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:35 am

rambleon65 wrote:For negligence (duty), we've established that there's an affirmative duty on the D to take care of P if D's acts (negligent or not) created P's risk of injury.

Would the same duty apply if P's actions towards D were justified?
i.e. in an attempt to recover from P's theft, D knocks P down and creates a situation where P needs medical attention.

I'm thinking yes, but wondering if there's exceptions...



To begin with, D might be justified only in using a reasonable amount of force to recover the property; depending on the circumstances, it seems unlikely that creating a medical situation would be reasonable, because even if it is a justifiable recovery the harm to P outweighs D's damage. (someone jacks your cell phone, you push them over and they crack their skull).

I would think if it were an emergency situation (in the middle of a burning building), or if the stolen object were a child (who might also need care), D could come up with reasonable reasons for not prioritizing care of the injured. But even so, it don't think it will release D from the duty of care.

User avatar
AllDangle
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:30 pm

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

Postby AllDangle » Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:22 am

So intervening and superseding causes in torts. Intervening= occurs after the D's original negligence and joins with it to add to the injury, and only cuts off D's liability if it's unforeseeable? Superseding cause= occurs after D's original negligence, completely alters the natural course of D's original negligence, and cuts off D's liability?

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

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

Postby Br3v » Sun Nov 24, 2013 2:49 pm

cynthia rose wrote:I have a Civ Pro question about Erickson v. Hunter. This was a Florida case. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss re: 10(b), a motion to dismiss re: 12(b)(6), a motion for a more definite statement, and a motion to strike all claims for punitive damages.

The professor chose this case as an example of the threshold for a sufficient pleading, but didn't say anything about the motion itself being improper. The court also said nothing about the motion being improper, just that the defendants were wrong about the pleading being insufficient and that if there is a violation of 10(b) it usually results in dismissal with leave to replead. I'm confused b/c I thought a defendant could only move to dismiss under one of the 12(b) options. A judge could address it of course, but based on the rules I don't see how a defendant could do so except through an answer? Am I just reading rule 12 too literally/did I miss something somewhere else that allows for motions to dismiss outside of 12(b)?


We didnt cover a lot in this question but here is what I do know. You can file as many Rule 12 motions as you want (in one motion), and you are probably encouraged to do so because most of them are waivable (so if you file one Rule 12 and dont add on the waivable ones then you...waive the right to do so later)

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

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

Postby Br3v » Sun Nov 24, 2013 2:50 pm

AllDangle wrote:So intervening and superseding causes in torts. Intervening= occurs after the D's original negligence and joins with it to add to the injury, and only cuts off D's liability if it's unforeseeable?


yes
AllDangle wrote:Superseding cause= occurs after D's original negligence, completely alters the natural course of D's original negligence, and cuts off D's liability?


yes

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15419
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby sublime » Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:35 pm

..

User avatar
MarkinKansasCity
Posts: 11098
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:18 am

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

Postby MarkinKansasCity » Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:59 pm

ITT, law students seek to learn the law on a free internet message board because the place charging $50,000 a year to teach the law failed them.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

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

Postby Br3v » Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:54 pm

MarkinKansasCity wrote:the place charging $50,000 a year


Wouldn't that be nice




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: thisyearsgirl and 2 guests