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

[Frothingslosh]

The necessary elements of assault are the act, intent, and imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. Is harmful/offensive contact limited to a battery, or can it be extended to other harms such as false imprisonment, trespass to chattels, etc.? When I read through hypos, my brain keeps trying to manipulate the law until something works (thanks, Ks), but I haven't figured out when to stop myself.

[Easy-E]

Ugh, Gunner Force 5 has locked down professor, looks like you guys are getting all my questions today. Can anyone give some examples of the two exceptions for "illusory contract" under Restatement section 77?

A  promise  or  apparent  promise  is  not  consideration  if  by  its terms the promisor or  purported promisor 
reserves a choice of alternative performances unless 

(a)  each of the alternative performances would have been consideration if it alone had been bargained for; 

or
 
(b)  one of the alternative performances would have been consideration and there is or appears to the parties 
to be a substantial possibility that before the promisor exercises his choice events may eliminate the alternatives 
which would not have been consideration. 

[Mr.Throwback]

To one of the previous posters regarding UCC and the SOF.

2-201 says that a contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more must be in writing.

[arklaw13]

Ugh, Gunner Force 5 has locked down professor, looks like you guys are getting all my questions today. Can anyone give some examples of the two exceptions for "illusory contract" under Restatement section 77?

A  promise  or  apparent  promise  is  not  consideration  if  by  its terms the promisor or  purported promisor 
reserves a choice of alternative performances unless 

(a)  each of the alternative performances would have been consideration if it alone had been bargained for; 

or
 
(b)  one of the alternative performances would have been consideration and there is or appears to the parties 
to be a substantial possibility that before the promisor exercises his choice events may eliminate the alternatives 
which would not have been consideration. 

Did your professor even go over that? I know we didn't.

[Mr.Throwback]

Ugh, Gunner Force 5 has locked down professor, looks like you guys are getting all my questions today. Can anyone give some examples of the two exceptions for "illusory contract" under Restatement section 77?

A  promise  or  apparent  promise  is  not  consideration  if  by  its terms the promisor or  purported promisor 
reserves a choice of alternative performances unless 

(a)  each of the alternative performances would have been consideration if it alone had been bargained for; 

or
 
(b)  one of the alternative performances would have been consideration and there is or appears to the parties 
to be a substantial possibility that before the promisor exercises his choice events may eliminate the alternatives 
which would not have been consideration. 

Exceptions? Do you mean under the UCC? Because under the UCC, a K that may seem illusory, has a good faith requirement. See Wood v Lady Duff Gordon and Standard and output requirement contracts (I forget which provision these are under)

[Mr.Throwback]

I will say that recognizing illusory promises are quite annoying.

[Swimp]

The necessary elements of assault are the act, intent, and imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. Is harmful/offensive contact limited to a battery, or can it be extended to other harms such as false imprisonment, trespass to chattels, etc.? When I read through hypos, my brain keeps trying to manipulate the law until something works (thanks, Ks), but I haven't figured out when to stop myself.

This would be really fact dependent, but if, in the course of perpetrating false imprisonment or a trespass to a chattel, the ∆ reasonably caused an imminent apprehension of harmful contact, you'd want to raise an assault claim along with whatever else you were alleging--that apprehension wouldn't somehow bleed into the other claim. Ditto with battery if there was actual contact. You'd just have to tell a convincing story about intent and make sure you were checking all the requisite boxes.

[Presidentjlh]

I will say that recognizing illusory promises are quite annoying.

I'd say you should just try to look for weasel words, lack of real obligation. Good ones to look out for are "We'll consider compensating you" or something like that, look for firm, definite terms, a lack thereof suggests illusory promise.

[Easy-E]

I will say that recognizing illusory promises are quite annoying.

I'd say you should just try to look for weasel words, lack of real obligation. Good ones to look out for are "We'll consider compensating you" or something like that, look for firm, definite terms, a lack thereof suggests illusory promise.

Yeah I think I'm just gonna stick to this rather than trying to interpret the Restatement.

[arklaw13]

I will say that recognizing illusory promises are quite annoying.

I'd say you should just try to look for weasel words, lack of real obligation. Good ones to look out for are "We'll consider compensating you" or something like that, look for firm, definite terms, a lack thereof suggests illusory promise.

Yeah I think I'm just gonna stick to this rather than trying to interpret the Restatement.

I think most of the time you'll do best just relying on your common sense and thinking about how the contract would play out in real life. Are both parties actually obligated to do something? If it isn't clear, then remember the implied duty of good faith and think about it again. If there doesn't seem to even be a good faith obligation to do something, then you should think hard about whether it is illusory.

[samcro_op]

I'm not exactly sure if this belongs here but can someone help me with the Coase theorem? I am confusing myself. If you can link me to anything that would be cool too. Thanks!

[Mr.Throwback]

So in Property we learned about equitable estoppel and part performance. I'm having difficulty understanding the difference between the two. Both are under the heading of "exceptions to the statute of frauds". From what I have equitable estoppel is similar to promissory estoppel and part performance involves three elements (1) Payment, (2) possession, (3) improvements. To me, they both seem to accomplish the same task, that is, enforcing a contract that fails to comply with the SOF. What am I missing?

[Presidentjlh]

So in Property we learned about equitable estoppel and part performance. I'm having difficulty understanding the difference between the two. Both are under the heading of "exceptions to the statute of frauds". From what I have equitable estoppel is similar to promissory estoppel and part performance involves three elements (1) Payment, (2) possession, (3) improvements. To me, they both seem to accomplish the same task, that is, enforcing a contract that fails to comply with the SOF. What am I missing?

If I recall correctly, equitable estoppel deals with reliance on a fact, whereas promissory estoppel deals with reliance on a promise.

So you can't rely on a future event because it's a fact-based thing, but you can rely on a promise of a future action or something like that.

Of course, I would argue if I'm a lawyer in a normally equitable estoppel situation that if one says a fact will happen in the future, the court should consider it a promise that the fact will happen in the future. May be a bad argument, but, I dunno.

[Presidentjlh]

Speaking of equitable estoppel, Prescott v. Jones was a shitty decision by the court.

[sublime]

..

[Presidentjlh]

Speaking of equitable estoppel, Prescott v. Jones was a shitty decision by the court.

It was just a 19th century case to show how shit went before the development of promissory estoppel. I think the point was that it was a shitty situation/decision.

Yeah, that's true.

[arklaw13]

Speaking of equitable estoppel, Prescott v. Jones was a shitty decision by the court.

It was just a 19th century case to show how shit went before the development of promissory estoppel. I think the point was that it was a shitty situation/decision.

Yeah, that's true.

Which case is that? Not sure if we covered it.

[Presidentjlh]

Speaking of equitable estoppel, Prescott v. Jones was a shitty decision by the court.

It was just a 19th century case to show how shit went before the development of promissory estoppel. I think the point was that it was a shitty situation/decision.

Yeah, that's true.

Which case is that? Not sure if we covered it.

Basically, an insurance agency this guy had had a policy with said "Hey, if you don't respond to this letter, we'll just assume you want to renew your insurance for another year," the guy never responded, later that next year, his property burned down, insurance agency told the guy to f off, and the court agreed, saying that you can't rely on future promises.

Basically, absolutely obsolete law, just particularly noteworthy in how the plaintiff got dicked over.

[arklaw13]

Basically, an insurance agency this guy had had a policy with said "Hey, if you don't respond to this letter, we'll just assume you want to renew your insurance for another year," the guy never responded, later that next year, his property burned down, insurance agency told the guy to f off, and the court agreed, saying that you can't rely on future promises.

Basically, absolutely obsolete law, just particularly noteworthy in how the plaintiff got dicked over.

I still think Peeveyhouse takes the cake for worst contracts case. Can't really blame that one on the times.

[dj_roomba]

Basically, an insurance agency this guy had had a policy with said "Hey, if you don't respond to this letter, we'll just assume you want to renew your insurance for another year," the guy never responded, later that next year, his property burned down, insurance agency told the guy to f off, and the court agreed, saying that you can't rely on future promises.

Basically, absolutely obsolete law, just particularly noteworthy in how the plaintiff got dicked over.

I still think Peeveyhouse takes the cake for worst contracts case. Can't really blame that one on the times.

Well if the contract went through, he would have lost that much anyway. Considering the fact that he went into the contract solely for economic reasons, it doesn't seem that bad.

I mean it was willful, but at a certain point, you're going to have to say "im going to save us both the trouble and not spend 30k to improve your land by 300"

[Cellar-door]

Basically, an insurance agency this guy had had a policy with said "Hey, if you don't respond to this letter, we'll just assume you want to renew your insurance for another year," the guy never responded, later that next year, his property burned down, insurance agency told the guy to f off, and the court agreed, saying that you can't rely on future promises.

Basically, absolutely obsolete law, just particularly noteworthy in how the plaintiff got dicked over.

I still think Peeveyhouse takes the cake for worst contracts case. Can't really blame that one on the times.

Well if the contract went through, he would have lost that much anyway. Considering the fact that he went into the contract solely for economic reasons, it doesn't seem that bad.

I mean it was willful, but at a certain point, you're going to have to say "im going to save us both the trouble and not spend 30k to improve your land by 300"

The restoration of the land was specifically negotiated into the contract, and there was substantial evidence that without a specific clause for restoration of the property they refused to agree, turning down the customary upfront payment (3K) to ensure that the restoration clause would be included. They got screwed about as thoroughly as possible, though much of that was because their lawyer appears to have been an idiot.

[onionz]

Personal Jurisdiction:
Can the plaintiff himself ever be the intermediary to create a stream of commerce relationship between the defendant and forum state? Imagine Adam lives in X, Bob lives in Y. If Adam buys the good from Bob, and, as a re-seller, sells it in Z, and then sues Bob in Z for some defect, doesn't that make the relationship between Bob and Z one of stream of commerce?

[FKASunny]

Can the plaintiff himself ever be the intermediary to create a stream of commerce relationship between the defendant and forum state? Imagine Adam lives in X, Bob lives in Y. If Adam buys the good from Bob, and, as a re-seller, sells it in Z, doesn't that make the relationship between Bob and Z one of stream of commerce?

So, in this scenario is Adam the plaintiff?

[onionz]

Can the plaintiff himself ever be the intermediary to create a stream of commerce relationship between the defendant and forum state? Imagine Adam lives in X, Bob lives in Y. If Adam buys the good from Bob, and, as a re-seller, sells it in Z, doesn't that make the relationship between Bob and Z one of stream of commerce?

So, in this scenario is Adam the plaintiff?

Yes, I'll make that clearer.

[FKASunny]

Personal Jurisdiction:
Can the plaintiff himself ever be the intermediary to create a stream of commerce relationship between the defendant and forum state? Imagine Adam lives in X, Bob lives in Y. If Adam buys the good from Bob, and, as a re-seller, sells it in Z, and then sues Bob in Z for some defect, doesn't that make the relationship between Bob and Z one of stream of commerce?

I feel like stream of commerce is kind of off topic with this one. If Adam is suing Bob because the defect is some sort of breach of contract then, if Bob shipped the goods to Adam in Z, you could probably get specific jurisdiction using the International Shoe analysis.

If you're talking about if Adam were to implead Bob because Adam is liable for a tort involving one of his customers, then you'd have to analyze it under Volkswagen, Asahi, and McIntyre. Stream of commerce here would probably be pretty clear, especially if Bob is a supplier that consistently ships products to Adam for sale in Z. But in this case Adam isn't the plaintiff, he's a third party plaintiff, so I don't think this is getting at your question. Basically, if Adam is the plaintiff of a claim, I don't really think stream of commerce needs to be brought up since it's not that the claim comes from Bob placing his product into the stream of commerce, it came from the direct relationship between Adam and Bob.