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
Over the top
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:41 pm

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

Postby Over the top » Mon May 05, 2014 7:57 pm

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.


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.
Last edited by Over the top on Tue May 06, 2014 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BVest
Posts: 5691
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

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

Postby BVest » Mon May 05, 2014 8:51 pm

Over the top wrote:
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.


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.

That is also true, but Easterbrook is one heck of a minority:
Easterbrook in ProCD wrote:Our case has only one form; UCC § 2-207 is irrelevant.


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.

toothbrush
Posts: 2388
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:21 pm

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

Postby toothbrush » Mon May 05, 2014 11:07 pm

BVest wrote:
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.


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.

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.

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?

User avatar
beepboopbeep
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:36 pm

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

Postby beepboopbeep » Tue May 06, 2014 2:03 am

toothbrush wrote:
BVest wrote:
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.


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.

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.

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?


Easterbrook is a god among men, and ProCD is is the bible He hath given us.

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5694
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

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

Postby Easy-E » Tue May 06, 2014 6:06 pm

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?

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

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

Postby Mal Reynolds » Tue May 06, 2014 6:11 pm

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?


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.

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.

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5694
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

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

Postby Easy-E » Tue May 06, 2014 6:45 pm

Mal Reynolds wrote:
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?


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.

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.


Oh, duh. I knew it was something obvious like that. Thanks a ton man.

kcam1991
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:26 am

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

Postby kcam1991 » Tue May 06, 2014 7:00 pm

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?

arklaw13
Posts: 1704
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm

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

Postby arklaw13 » Tue May 06, 2014 7:02 pm

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?


No.

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?


Still no insanity defense. Accomplices can never claim the benefit of the principal being insane.

kcam1991
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:26 am

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

Postby kcam1991 » Tue May 06, 2014 7:23 pm

arklaw13 wrote:
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?


No.

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?


Still no insanity defense. Accomplices can never claim the benefit of the principal being insane.


Thanks for the response. Just one more question:

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?

arklaw13
Posts: 1704
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm

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

Postby arklaw13 » Tue May 06, 2014 7:28 pm

kcam1991 wrote:
arklaw13 wrote:
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?


No.

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?


Still no insanity defense. Accomplices can never claim the benefit of the principal being insane.


Thanks for the response. Just one more question:

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?


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
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:26 am

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

Postby kcam1991 » Tue May 06, 2014 9:50 pm

arklaw13 wrote:
kcam1991 wrote:
arklaw13 wrote:
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?


No.

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?


Still no insanity defense. Accomplices can never claim the benefit of the principal being insane.


Thanks for the response. Just one more question:

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?


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.


Perfect. I understand. Thanks

POTUS2044
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:30 pm

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

Postby POTUS2044 » Wed May 07, 2014 2:47 am

arklaw13 wrote:
kcam1991 wrote:
arklaw13 wrote:
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?


No.

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?


Still no insanity defense. Accomplices can never claim the benefit of the principal being insane.


Thanks for the response. Just one more question:

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?


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.


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?

User avatar
bsktbll28082
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 5:25 am

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

Postby bsktbll28082 » Wed May 07, 2014 11:38 am

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.

arklaw13
Posts: 1704
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm

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

Postby arklaw13 » Wed May 07, 2014 11:55 am

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?


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.

kcam1991
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:26 am

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

Postby kcam1991 » Wed May 07, 2014 3:15 pm

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.

arklaw13
Posts: 1704
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm

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

Postby arklaw13 » Wed May 07, 2014 3:40 pm

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.


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.

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.

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

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

Postby Swimp » Wed May 07, 2014 3:59 pm

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?

arklaw13
Posts: 1704
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm

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

Postby arklaw13 » Wed May 07, 2014 4:16 pm

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?


Really a difference of degree.

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

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

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

Postby Swimp » Wed May 07, 2014 4:21 pm

arklaw13 wrote:
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?


Really a difference of degree.

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


Okay, thanks.

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 » Wed May 07, 2014 7:11 pm

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.

User avatar
BVest
Posts: 5691
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

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

Postby BVest » Wed May 07, 2014 8:03 pm

moonman157 wrote:I guess I'm just confused as to the difference between channels and instrumentalities.


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.

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.

User avatar
FSK
Posts: 6357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:47 pm

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

Postby FSK » Wed May 07, 2014 8:20 pm

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.

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

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

Postby BPLawl » Wed May 07, 2014 10:49 pm

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.


Have a beer?

arklaw13
Posts: 1704
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm

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

Postby arklaw13 » Wed May 07, 2014 10:54 pm

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.


Do what you did last semester?




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests