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

[2807]

When can evidence be included to show that a contract is not integrated despite an integration clause?

I assume you are referring to a valid written contract and the parol evidence rule?

I think if you are bringing it to "contradict" ... then you cannot.

But... If you bring something to "explain" the integration clause to show "what was integrated, and what was NOT," then maybe you are not "contradicting" you are merely "explaining" what the parties meant.

Good luck with that.

[North]

This might out me as not understanding basic principles of evidence the day before my evidence exam, but:

So, if an expert writes a letter to a company saying that in their expert opinion one of the company's products is defective and should be recalled, does that count as expert testimony/opinion (subject to those rules) if someone suing the company later over the defective product tries to introduce the letter? Or is it just an exhibit and subject to hearsay and all that?

I mean, I guess it's not testimony if you can't cross the doctor. I don't know. Bad at law school.

[Br3v]

North, sorry I can't be helpful, but why are you taking your Evidence exam so soon? Trying to get outa town?

[Br3v]

What is the difference between a negative easement and a an equitable servitude?

For example: A agrees (and intends to bind future assigns) to B to not use A house except for single family use. C buys house from A and has notice.

Seems like it can be an ES easily: (1) intent to bind future (2) touch and concern (3) notice

But couldn't it also be a negative easement appurtenant?

Privity.

negative easements are covenants. Law of real covenants call for vertical and horizontal privity (as well as writing, notice, intent for restriction to run on both sides and touch and concern).

Equitable servitudes have the same requirements minus privity.

Can get damages with the former but limited to an injunction with the latter.

Your example doesn't make clear whether there's horizontal privity between A and B (are they neighbors or did A buy from B). The answer to your question hinges on this.

I see your disclaimer below but, an ES doesn't need privity right, so seems like it's the same thing as a Neg easement

[North]

North, sorry I can't be helpful, but why are you taking your Evidence exam so soon? Trying to get outa town?

Got to be in the car driving on WEDNESDAY afternoon for something with my SO that's "too important to miss."

...

So yeah, I'm pretty much winging all of these.

Might take Evidence on Tuesday. But that'd give me three exams in a row.

[feralinfant]

What is the difference between a negative easement and a an equitable servitude?

For example: A agrees (and intends to bind future assigns) to B to not use A house except for single family use. C buys house from A and has notice.

Seems like it can be an ES easily: (1) intent to bind future (2) touch and concern (3) notice

But couldn't it also be a negative easement appurtenant?

Privity.

negative easements are covenants. Law of real covenants call for vertical and horizontal privity (as well as writing, notice, intent for restriction to run on both sides and touch and concern).

Equitable servitudes have the same requirements minus privity.

Can get damages with the former but limited to an injunction with the latter.

Your example doesn't make clear whether there's horizontal privity between A and B (are they neighbors or did A buy from B). The answer to your question hinges on this.

I see your disclaimer below but, an ES doesn't need privity right, so seems like it's the same thing as a Neg easement

neg easements are covenants. real covenants need privity. otherwise they're just equitable servitudes.

so you're right that ES doesn't need privity but you're wrong that its the same thing as a negative easement.

History lesson FWIW: Traditionally the court didn't really like to allow negative easements so it traditionally only allowed them for the right tto lateral supoport of a building, the right prevent light and air from being blocked by construction, and the right to prevent interference with flow of artificial stream.

However covenants allow for the creation of non-traditional negative easements. The RS has abolished a distinction between covenants and negative easements because there really isn't one.

Real covenants need privity. Equitable servitudes do not.

I mean arguably i guess the term negative easement could encapsulate both these things but in that case they're still not the same thing.


Affirmative easement: writing, intent, notice.

Negative easement can't really make except in a few traditional categories except...

Real covenants: writing, intent, notice, touch and concern, privity.

Equitable servitudes: writing intent notice touch and concern

[Pleasye]

This might out me as not understanding basic principles of evidence the day before my evidence exam, but:

So, if an expert writes a letter to a company saying that in their expert opinion one of the company's products is defective and should be recalled, does that count as expert testimony/opinion (subject to those rules) if someone suing the company later over the defective product tries to introduce the letter? Or is it just an exhibit and subject to hearsay and all that?

I mean, I guess it's not testimony if you can't cross the doctor. I don't know. Bad at law school.

No, it would not be expert testimony. If you wanted to introduce that letter at trial it would be hearsay and you would have to try to get it in under one of the exceptions. Off the top of my head it doesn't seem to fit any (but I'm not trying very hard to think of them rn). If you really wanted that evidence in without issues you would just call that expert to testify, or hire a different expert.

[North]

This might out me as not understanding basic principles of evidence the day before my evidence exam, but:

So, if an expert writes a letter to a company saying that in their expert opinion one of the company's products is defective and should be recalled, does that count as expert testimony/opinion (subject to those rules) if someone suing the company later over the defective product tries to introduce the letter? Or is it just an exhibit and subject to hearsay and all that?

I mean, I guess it's not testimony if you can't cross the doctor. I don't know. Bad at law school.

No, it would not be expert testimony. If you wanted to introduce that letter at trial it would be hearsay and you would have to try to get it in under one of the exceptions. Off the top of my head it doesn't seem to fit any (but I'm not trying very hard to think of them rn). If you really wanted that evidence in without issues you would just call that expert to testify, or hire a different expert.

TYTY pleasye. That's what I went with on the PT I'm taking, so that's a solid confidence boost.

The doctor’s letter do not fall under any hearsay exception and are thus likely to be barred from admission. I don’t see a residual exception working wither.

JFC that's barely comprehensible. Maybe that's why I get shit grades, I write like cockwined DF on my exams

[Pleasye]

LOL at "working wither"

[Ded Precedent]

The doctor’s letter do not fall under any hearsay exception and are thus likely to be barred from admission. I don’t see a residual exception working wither.

Maybe business records exception?

[North]

The doctor’s letter do not fall under any hearsay exception and are thus likely to be barred from admission. I don’t see a residual exception working wither.

Maybe business records exception?

Thought about that, but I figured that a letter from a non-employee that was simply received and filed away by the company didn't constitute a business record. Right? Maybe I should have reasoned through that at least.

I always have trouble deciding what's worth spending time crafting a paragraph on.

ETA: Damn it, that's a grey area. Is it a business record if the company keeps record of it, but doesn't actually create the record? Maybe this is why I get shit grades.

[Ded Precedent]

The doctor’s letter do not fall under any hearsay exception and are thus likely to be barred from admission. I don’t see a residual exception working wither.

Maybe business records exception?

Thought about that, but I figured that a letter from a non-employee that was simply received and filed away by the company didn't constitute a business record. Right? Maybe I should have reasoned through that at least.

I always have trouble deciding what's worth spending time crafting a paragraph on.

Yeah it's a close call but probably worth mentioning.

A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that complies with Rule 902(11), Rule 902(12), or a statute permitting certification, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.

[North]

Thanks guys, lesson learned.

Might push the Evidence exam back to next Tuesday.

[Pleasye]

I think it pretty clearly isn't a business record because it's not kept in the course of regularly conducted business - unless the business usually asks for expert opinions for each product or something? It would depend on the facts but the way you presented it just sounded like some consumer letter that they received that happened to be from an expert.

Anyway, TCR on an exam is to put down everything that comes to mind. If you thought BR exception then write it and dismiss it in a sentence. That way you'll get the points for spotting the issue at least. For your example I probably would have written about BR and maybe something dumb like present sense impression just to throw it out there. It is hard to decide what to spend time on but if something seems like it might fit, just throw in an argument for it.

[Ded Precedent]

I agree TCR is to mention it in a sentence, dismiss it for the given reasons and then to move on in the analysis. You'll pick up a few points for the issue spot.

[North]

some consumer letter that they received that happened to be from an expert.

Yup, unsolicited random letter that they filed away.

Anyway, TCR on an exam is to put down everything that comes to mind. If you thought BR exception then write it and dismiss it in a sentence. That way you'll get the points for spotting the issue at least. For your example I probably would have written about BR and maybe something dumb like present sense impression just to throw it out there. It is hard to decide what to spend time on but if something seems like it might fit, just throw in an argument for it.

I agree TCR is to mention it in a sentence, dismiss it for the given reasons and then to move on in the analysis. You'll pick up a few points for the issue spot.

I've been having that 'when is it worth talking about' debate in my head since the beginning of last semester. After this convo, I think I'll run with it especially on this exam because he's a "checkmark for every good point" kind of grader. TY again both of you.

Summer is so close... I'm going home to drink

[Pleasye]

It took me a long time to figure out that you really do just have to write about everything. Just don't get caught up in super detailed analysis of everything because then you waste time. Good luck! You're almost done!

[Ded Precedent]

Good luck! You're almost done!

+1

[First Offense]

This might out me as not understanding basic principles of evidence the day before my evidence exam, but:

So, if an expert writes a letter to a company saying that in their expert opinion one of the company's products is defective and should be recalled, does that count as expert testimony/opinion (subject to those rules) if someone suing the company later over the defective product tries to introduce the letter? Or is it just an exhibit and subject to hearsay and all that?

I mean, I guess it's not testimony if you can't cross the doctor. I don't know. Bad at law school.

That sounds like it will be protected as work product, actually.

Edit: just saw it's unsolicited. So yeah, probably hearsay, and I can't see any exception. Sounds like you were right on the PT.

[Virindi]

What's an example of MPC Manslaughter when one kills another due to extreme mental/emotional disutrbance with reasonable explanation/excuse (EMED-REE)?

Specifically: what constitutes an example of an acceptable EMED-REE?

[Easy-E]

For the purposes of an essay exam, why do I care about the Lochner era? It's not going to be the approach applied, was it just in the course to show that the Court can do whatever the hell it wants and the class has taught me nothing

[sublime]

..

[JDanger007]

My other question is about vested v. contingent remainders.
The test for vested is born and ascertainable. Fine, totally understand that.
What I am having trouble on is the phrase of "no express conditino precedent in the same clause creating the remainder or the preceding clause." Could someone please explain what that means?

I get that it must come before the remainder can become posessory, but am just having a hard time taking an example of a conveyance of O to A etc etc and making any sense of it.
Any input would be great,
Thanks.

[2807]

My other question is about vested v. contingent remainders.
The test for vested is born and ascertainable. Fine, totally understand that.
What I am having trouble on is the phrase of "no express conditino precedent in the same clause creating the remainder or the preceding clause." Could someone please explain what that means?

I get that it must come before the remainder can become posessory, but am just having a hard time taking an example of a conveyance of O to A etc etc and making any sense of it.
Any input would be great,
Thanks.

Sounds like this to me.

(If we are talking about A's Kids... as vested/contingent)

O to A, then to A's kids if the Lakers win. (<-- condition in the clause creating)

O to A if the Lakers win, then to A's kids. (<-- condition in the preceding clause)

[Easy-E]

I think this is a just applying to state vs individuals, but when do I use 5A vs 14A (con law)? I hope I'm wording that right. Con law is too intermingled, I miss the common law.