I apologize if this question is a bit elementary (as I know it is), but I’ve run into something I’m unsure of when going over cases (just finished only my 2nd day of law school).
What should I be writing down for the issues? Is it more very simple what is the actual basic layman definition, or should it attempt to relate to other legal scenarios.
Example of what I keep running into:
I just read over the case Izadi v. Machado (Gus) Ford, Inc. (I have no clue if that’s a popular law school case or not).
I have my issues as:
1. Does offer go by what party making it intended it to mean?
2. Can a binding offer be implied during misleading “bait and switch” tactics?
My rules are then:
The test of true interpretation of an offer / acceptance is what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought it meant.
Also had a secondary rule in case of:
Binding may be implied from the very fact that deliberately misleading advertisisng intentionally leads the reader to the conclusion that exists.
My classmates seem to have such responses to issues as:
“Was it a contract?”
Which is more correct? Should I be focusing my issues in the manner I have it in which it relates to the case, but can be applied to others.. or is something like “Was there a contract here?” sufficient / more appropriate?
Thanks for any help
A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 3842
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm
You can write it a million different ways. Figure out how broad your professor expects it to be. One of mine would prefer yours, but another just wants to hear your classmate's and then dive right into it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Malarkey and 6 guests