anonymcoffee wrote:@tekisui I went with the dumbest, simplest response, I took it back 1L style and picked the ...duty answer haha. i was too dumbfounded that people could sue for that so...I picked A and moved on
Agree with duty
Agree, I think they were testing Cardozo in Palsgraf, no duty owed to the mother because she was not a foreseeable plaintiff.
I was kind of pissed about the diary criminal procedure question, on practice questions I would select the 5th amendment answer, Themis would always tell me that the right to not self-incriminate didn't apply to diaries unless he was being asked to turn over any diaries he might have kept (as opposed to a specific diary), because the requirement to admit to having a diary that the prosecution didn't know that he kept would be self-incrimination....
How about the question with the sister who promised to pay her brother for the car he gave her years ago? Were we supposed to go with the pre-existing duty approach, or with the modern approach (pay the value of what was given, not what was promised)?
And what about the modification question regarding the unforeseen rise in price for whatever material the contractor needed for the contract?