Flips88 wrote:bostonlawchick wrote:chasgoose wrote:I think though that the difference between something like that and RAP/parol evidence rule is that even though personal jx makes no sense and would be hard to figure out if you were asked to provide a yes/no answer, its not that bad on a law school exam. You just go run the balancing test and do the on the one had on the other style analysis and then say it could go either way. The problem with RAP is that there usually IS a right answer, the contingent interest is either valid or it isn't. Parol evidence is the same way, sometimes its ok, sometimes its not and the situations where that is the case are hard to remember, but its not a could go one way could go the other sort of thing.
I dunno. Maybe it's because I don't have a liberal arts background like a lot of law students, but I find the stuff that has a definite yes or no answer much easier. We didn't do RAP in depth, but I had no real problem with it. Complex, yes, but not hard.
I feel like things like PJ are harder. I had a hell of a time with it on my exam and I'm hoping that doesn't kill me. The concept is easy to understand... the part I found difficult was bringing it all together into a coherent answer because there's the balancing test and then all the different stream of commerce theories, none of which have a majority, and trying to fit them all back together into a framework of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Ugh... I swore to myself I would never type that phrase again, haha.
LOL. Pretentious much?
I was actually saying that because I feel like I have a much harder time with things that are subjective and open ended than most people that took a lot of english/philosophy/poli sci classes. Thanks though.