"Attacking" Contracts

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
sam91
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:03 pm

"Attacking" Contracts

Postby sam91 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 3:43 pm

Hey all-- quick question to some contracts veterans who may have some fast suggestions.
I found enormous success on my civ pro midterm (highest grade) basically having an attack in my head. For instance, I had that essay basically written in my head beforehand, prior to fact. Maybe its a little easier with PJ because you can say Long Arm Statute? (yes/no) Traditional Notions? (tag/in rem) General Jurisdiction? Specific Jurisdiction, and just go in depth analyzing each parties view point.
For whatever reason, Ks is tripping me up. Any pointers on a baseline attack to bring into that final?

Thanks

User avatar
FSK
Posts: 6365
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:47 pm

Re: "Attacking" Contracts

Postby FSK » Sun Nov 16, 2014 3:47 pm

Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Breach, Justifications for nonperformance, Damages. Huge categories, but they break into fairly logical trees.

User avatar
sam91
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:03 pm

Re: "Attacking" Contracts

Postby sam91 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 3:49 pm

flawschoolkid wrote:Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Breach, Justifications for nonperformance, Damages. Huge categories, but they break into fairly logical trees.


Yeah this sounds solid. I need to fight the urge I seem to have to attack one flaw in the hypo. For instance, "no consideration...mere gratuitous promise", that is likely the median answer. I need to stick to the above. My professor actually said he prefers if we list some "Brief Determinative Facts" which is annoying and a huge time sink. prior to discussing

User avatar
Kratos
Posts: 6773
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:50 pm

Re: "Attacking" Contracts

Postby Kratos » Sun Nov 16, 2014 3:52 pm

sam91 wrote:
flawschoolkid wrote:Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Breach, Justifications for nonperformance, Damages. Huge categories, but they break into fairly logical trees.


Yeah this sounds solid. I need to fight the urge I seem to have to attack one flaw in the hypo. For instance, "no consideration...mere gratuitous promise", that is likely the median answer. I need to stick to the above. My professor actually said he prefers if we list some "Brief Determinative Facts" which is annoying and a huge time sink. prior to discussing

if its an issue spotter then the consideration issue might be a big one. There will of course be other issues. Your job is to find all the issues and devote the proper amount of time to the ones which deserve more time.

platesup
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:03 pm

Re: "Attacking" Contracts

Postby platesup » Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:01 pm

flawschoolkid wrote:Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Breach, Justifications for nonperformance, Damages. Huge categories, but they break into fairly logical trees.


after outlining that's what i found, with defenses in the trees

User avatar
FSK
Posts: 6365
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:47 pm

Re: "Attacking" Contracts

Postby FSK » Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:34 pm

Kratos wrote:
sam91 wrote:
flawschoolkid wrote:Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Breach, Justifications for nonperformance, Damages. Huge categories, but they break into fairly logical trees.


Yeah this sounds solid. I need to fight the urge I seem to have to attack one flaw in the hypo. For instance, "no consideration...mere gratuitous promise", that is likely the median answer. I need to stick to the above. My professor actually said he prefers if we list some "Brief Determinative Facts" which is annoying and a huge time sink. prior to discussing

if its an issue spotter then the consideration issue might be a big one. There will of course be other issues. Your job is to find all the issues and devote the proper amount of time to the ones which deserve more time.


Yeah, rack up quick points for saying "Offer because [x obvious facts], acceptance because [y obvious facts], but consideration is more difficult becasue [z conflicting facts & possible interpretations.]." DOn't leave points on the table for obvious answers, but obv. spend time on the complicated issues. If the outcome is ambiguous, don't forget to discuss the possible implications of each finding....answer trees you know.

User avatar
sam91
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:03 pm

Re: "Attacking" Contracts

Postby sam91 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:36 pm

flawschoolkid wrote:
Kratos wrote:
sam91 wrote:
flawschoolkid wrote:Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Breach, Justifications for nonperformance, Damages. Huge categories, but they break into fairly logical trees.


Yeah, rack up quick points for saying "Offer because [x obvious facts], acceptance because [y obvious facts], but consideration is more difficult becasue [z conflicting facts & possible interpretations.]." DOn't leave points on the table for obvious answers, but obv. spend time on the complicated issues. If the outcome is ambiguous, don't forget to discuss the possible implications of each finding....answer trees you know.


Sounds good. Thanks guys




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Justtrying2help, LgownaCav, Ramrezyeh, wg6524 and 12 guests