Page 3 of 32

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

Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 5:57 pm
by Lavitz
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:

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

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:14 am
by BPLawl
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?

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

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:06 pm
by dj_roomba
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).

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

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:32 pm
by rambleon65
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...

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

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:36 pm
by rambleon65
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)

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

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:26 pm
by Swimp
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.?

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

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:46 pm
by moonman157
Tag

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

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:52 pm
by bdm261
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

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

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:54 pm
by sublime
..

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

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:52 pm
by kay2016
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?

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:05 am
by Br3v
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

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:10 am
by kay2016
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.

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:12 am
by Br3v
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.

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:15 am
by kay2016
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.

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:17 am
by Br3v
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:

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 2:01 am
by wwwcol
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.

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 2:15 am
by Br3v
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.

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:42 am
by cynthia rose
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)?

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:35 am
by criminaltheory
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.

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:22 am
by AllDangle
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?

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 2:49 pm
by Br3v
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)

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 2:50 pm
by Br3v
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

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:35 pm
by sublime
..

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:59 pm
by MKC
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.

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

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:54 pm
by Br3v
MarkinKansasCity wrote:the place charging $50,000 a year
Wouldn't that be nice