1L Substantive Law Questions (c/o 2017) Forum

[CardozoLaw09]

Crim Law

Can someone explain mistake of fact. TYIA.

Mistake of fact serves as a defense that's used to negate the mens rea of a criminal offense. If you buy a drink for someone who you actually believe is to be of age, but it turns out that they are under age, you've made a "mistake of fact" about the person's age but you are not criminally responsible since you legitimately believed they were of legal age. Basically it's when you don't have any intent to commit a crime, but a material fact in the circumstances, independent of your intent, actually makes it a crime, yet you are not criminally responsible because you were ignorant of that "fact"

In other words, it's when a factual inquiry into the circumstances reveals that a material fact that would normally hold you criminally liable doesn't in this instance because you had reason to believe that that fact was of a different character ie) your ignorance of the true, actual fact eliminates the mens rea element necessary for criminal liability

[BVest]

Crim Law

Can someone explain mistake of fact. TYIA.

Mistake of fact serves as a defense that's used to negate the mens rea of a criminal offense. If you buy a drink for someone who you actually believe is to be of age, but it turns out that they are under age, you've made a "mistake of fact" about the person's age but you are not criminally responsible since you legitimately believed they were of legal age. Basically it's when you don't have any intent to commit a crime, but a material fact in the circumstances, independent of your intent, actually makes it a crime, yet you are not criminally responsible because you were ignorant of that "fact"

In other words, it's when a factual inquiry into the circumstances reveals that a material fact that would normally hold you criminally liable doesn't in this instance because you had reason to believe that that fact was of a different character ie) your ignorance of the true, actual fact eliminates the mens rea element necessary for criminal liability

Cardozo said this, but it bears repeating: Mistake of fact negates the mens rea. So if the crime in question does not require mens rea, mistake of fact will not help. (e.g. Statutory Rape in most jurisdictions: "But she told me she was 18" may negate mens rea, but mens rea is not an element to the crime.)

[californiauser]

Contract Question:

A wants B to loan him $100k with a 5% interest rate for his business. B tells A to send him an offer letter with $5k to serve as consideration for the contract. A sends the letter with the $5k. B accepts. The next day, A notifies B that he found a lender who will lend him $100k with a 2.5% interest rate and asks for the $5k back. B refuses to return the $5k.

B can sue A for unjust enrichment to recover the $5k, right?

[CardozoLaw09]

Lost Volume Seller Remedy for breach of contract

If X agrees to buy a custom tailored suit from Y for $2000 and it cost $1000 to make the suit, and X later breaches the contract, and then Y sells the suit to someone else for $2100, under the lost volume seller remedy for damages, how much is Y entitled to?

[swampman]

Lost Volume Seller Remedy for breach of contract

If X agrees to buy a custom tailored suit from Y for $2000 and it cost $1000 to make the suit, and X later breaches the contract, and then Y sells the suit to someone else for $2100, under the lost volume seller remedy for damages, how much is Y entitled to?

Assuming Y is a lost volume seller the second sale would have happened anyway, so we can ignore it for the purpose of damages. Y gets the profit that they would have made from the first sale: $1000.

[blackacre10]

Lost Volume Seller Remedy for breach of contract

If X agrees to buy a custom tailored suit from Y for $2000 and it cost $1000 to make the suit, and X later breaches the contract, and then Y sells the suit to someone else for $2100, under the lost volume seller remedy for damages, how much is Y entitled to?

Assuming Y is a lost volume seller the second sale would have happened anyway, so we can ignore it for the purpose of damages. Y gets the profit that they would have made from the first sale: $1000.

i think this is correct if Y were a true lost volume seller. (so i agree you with the caveat that you included.) but one of the factors in determining whether a person is a lost volume seller is how replaceable/unique the product that he's selling is. i don't think custom suits would qualify. in reality, this would probably just go under normal contract damages.

[cannibal ox]

Civ Pro

2 plaintiffs in federal court in the same suit against 1 D, diversity jurisdiction, P1's amount in controversy is $100,000, but P2's amount is $10,000. Is P2's claim cool to get in even though it's under $75,000?

I remember my prof briefly going over this but I have a hole in my notes and Google is being untrustworthy.

[Traynor Brah]

Civ Pro

2 plaintiffs in federal court in the same suit against 1 D, diversity jurisdiction, P1's amount in controversy is $100,000, but P2's amount is $10,000. Is P2's claim cool to get in even though it's under $75,000?

I remember my prof briefly going over this but I have a hole in my notes and Google is being untrustworthy.

Multiple plaintiffs generally cannot aggregate their claims to reach the threshold. But I'm pretty sure when one of them meets it by himself, it doesn't matter if his buddy does not.

[cannibal ox]

This is why I don't ask you things.

[Effingham]

Civ Pro

2 plaintiffs in federal court in the same suit against 1 D, diversity jurisdiction, P1's amount in controversy is $100,000, but P2's amount is $10,000. Is P2's claim cool to get in even though it's under $75,000?

I remember my prof briefly going over this but I have a hole in my notes and Google is being untrustworthy.

Traynor's response is right, but I'll add some clarity.

Once a claim meets the diversity and amount in controversy requirement and the court has original jurisdiction, the court also has jurisdiction over all other claims that are part of the same case or controversy under 1367(a). Then you just look to 1367(b) and there is nothing in 1367(b) barring supplemental jurisdiction over claims by multiple plaintiffs against a single defendant.

[cannibal ox]

Supplemental, got it. Thanks, Effingham.

Nice edit, Cartman Traynor Brah.

[Manteca]

Extremely dumb question. Can a liquidated damages provision be so small as to be unconscionable? i.e. K is for $100k; provision says if contracting party breaches, nonbreaching party paid $1000

[052220152]

Extremely dumb question. Can a liquidated damages provision be so small as to be unconscionable? i.e. K is for $100k; provision says if contracting party breaches, nonbreaching party paid $1000

it would just be an unenforceable penalty. the liquidated damages clause has to be proportionate to the actual damage suffered and foreseeable at the time of the K. basically, if its a flat number that doesnt really see to be related to antyhing, its a penalty and the clause is a no go.

[Traynor Brah]

Happy to help, good sir

[EzraFitz]

Crim Pro

If there is a container in a car, and there is probable cause to search the container as holding contraband, the car and container can be searched under Acevedo. If the passenger removes the container from the car, does it become a Chadwick container, and needs a warrant? Or does Johns apply and it can still be searched because there was an allowed warrantless search before? Is the result different if the officer removes the container himself?

Thanks!

[Manteca]

Property. (Notice jurisdiction)

Say A recieves title through purchase from X to several houses in one tract in 2011 and records properly. Prior to closing, sees B baking cookies in house 1, strikes up convo with him but pays him no mind as he's friend of X. In 2014, A visits the property and finds B baking brownies in the kitchen of house 1. When A asked him why he was trespassing in her kitchen, B produced a deed dated Sept. 1, 2007, purporting to convey house 1 and the ½ acre of land on which it sits from X to B in exchange for his help with constructing the other five houses. When A asked B whether the deed was recorded, B says no.

Would A lose b/c she could have inquiry notice?

[EzraFitz]

Property. (Notice jurisdiction)

Say A recieves title through purchase from X to several houses in one tract in 2011 and records properly. Prior to closing, sees B baking cookies in house 1, strikes up convo with him but pays him no mind as he's friend of X. In 2014, A visits the property and finds B baking brownies in the kitchen of house 1. When A asked him why he was trespassing in her kitchen, B produced a deed dated Sept. 1, 2007, purporting to convey house 1 and the ½ acre of land on which it sits from X to B in exchange for his help with constructing the other five houses. When A asked B whether the deed was recorded, B says no.

Would A lose b/c she could have inquiry notice?

This is a close call (but of course, the mushy areas around the rules are fodder for questions, so it isn't surprising).

For inquiry notice, we must look to what a reasonable person would do to figure out if there were any conflicting claims. In this case, A did see B in the house. While A acknowledges that B is a friend of X, there is a decent chance that a court would find baking cookies something of a more intimate use of the land, more so than say, sitting and chatting with X in the living room. In such case, it may very well be reasonable that A would ask about B being on the property. This is based on A's knowledge that B "uses" the land, at the very least to bake cookies.

On the other hand, this use contrasts a lot of the common inquiry notice situations that crop up, such as multi-unit dwellings, railroad tracks, power lines, and neighborhoods with a common scheme of development. Furthermore, baking cookies is not the most possessory action one could take, so it is easy also to argue that this is not a very intimate use, and thus there was no inquiry requirement.

As noted, it is a close call. I would probably say inquiry notice will make A lose, but that is partly based on the fact that I personally would find the baking odd and inquire. Whether or not I'm a "reasonable person" is yet to be determined...

[Germaine]

Crim Law

MPC and strict liability. I know that 2.05 says strict liability offenses can only be violations (no incarceration). But I cannot make sense of 2.03(4), which is the section on causation. It says: "When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, the element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor's conduct." So that seems to leave room for strict liability (via probable consequence), which I thought the MPC was against. What am I missing?

[Traynor Brah]

Civ Pro

1) Is it right that the notice pleading standard is effectively irrelevant post-Twiqbal?

2) W/r/t Twiqbal and pleading standards, wtf is the "form 11" exception? It's in some outlines I have but it's not in my notes, and googling it/reading it in the outlines is not helping me understand where it fits in.

[swampman]

Crim Law

MPC and strict liability. I know that 2.05 says strict liability offenses can only be violations (no incarceration). But I cannot make sense of 2.03(4), which is the section on causation. It says: "When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, the element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor's conduct." So that seems to leave room for strict liability (via probable consequence), which I thought the MPC was against. What am I missing?

I think this is just a further limit on strict liability. It could be rephrased: for any strict liability crime, the result must have been the probable consequence of the actor's conduct.

So say setting a fire in public is a strict liability offense, not punishable by incarceration. If you are walking down the street and the rubber on your sneakers has a freak chemical reaction with a piece of trash on the ground, starting a fire, you can't be held liable because setting a fire was not a probable consequence of walking down the street.

[cannibal ox]

Civ Pro

1) Is it right that the notice pleading standard is effectively irrelevant post-Twiqbal?

2) W/r/t Twiqbal and pleading standards, wtf is the "form 11" exception? It's in some outlines I have but it's not in my notes, and googling it/reading it in the outlines is not helping me understand where it fits in.

1. It still serves notice, but it's also a screening tool now.

2. Check this out. It's basically just an example of a proper pleading from the FRCP.

[Germaine]

Crim Law

MPC and strict liability. I know that 2.05 says strict liability offenses can only be violations (no incarceration). But I cannot make sense of 2.03(4), which is the section on causation. It says: "When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, the element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor's conduct." So that seems to leave room for strict liability (via probable consequence), which I thought the MPC was against. What am I missing?

I think this is just a further limit on strict liability. It could be rephrased: for any strict liability crime, the result must have been the probable consequence of the actor's conduct.

So say setting a fire in public is a strict liability offense, not punishable by incarceration. If you are walking down the street and the rubber on your sneakers has a freak chemical reaction with a piece of trash on the ground, starting a fire, you can't be held liable because setting a fire was not a probable consequence of walking down the street.

Thanks. But on the flipside of that, what about the strict liability DWI manslaughter laws in some states -- where if you kill someone while driving drunk, you are liable for manslaughter even if there is no proven causal connection between you being drunk and the fatality (like they darted out in front of you)? Under MPC, that could only be a violation not a crime?

[swampman]

Crim Law

MPC and strict liability. I know that 2.05 says strict liability offenses can only be violations (no incarceration). But I cannot make sense of 2.03(4), which is the section on causation. It says: "When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, the element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor's conduct." So that seems to leave room for strict liability (via probable consequence), which I thought the MPC was against. What am I missing?

I think this is just a further limit on strict liability. It could be rephrased: for any strict liability crime, the result must have been the probable consequence of the actor's conduct.

So say setting a fire in public is a strict liability offense, not punishable by incarceration. If you are walking down the street and the rubber on your sneakers has a freak chemical reaction with a piece of trash on the ground, starting a fire, you can't be held liable because setting a fire was not a probable consequence of walking down the street.

Thanks. But on the flipside of that, what about the strict liability DWI manslaughter laws in some states -- where if you kill someone while driving drunk, you are liable for manslaughter even if there is no proven causal connection between you being drunk and the fatality (like they darted out in front of you)? Under MPC, that could only be a violation not a crime?

Yes, under the MPC if the statute is strict liability then it must only be a violation. 2.03(4) probably wouldn't raise a problem here, it doesn't say "actual consequence" (that would get rid of strict liability) but "probable consequence," and hitting somebody is certainly a probable consequence of driving drunk. But this provision is not an exception to the rule that strict liability offenses can only be violations, it's a further limit.

[Avian]

Civ Pro
2) W/r/t Twiqbal and pleading standards, wtf is the "form 11" exception? It's in some outlines I have but it's not in my notes, and googling it/reading it in the outlines is not helping me understand where it fits in.

Just to elaborate a little on Form 11. The issue with Form 11 is that it is ostensibly a proper pleading based on the FRCP, but to many commentators it seems like it is conclusory. "On <Date>, at <Place>, the defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against the plaintiff." The Court found that it was not conclusory because it had enough specificity (date and place) to allow a defendant to prepare an answer. It's not so much an "exception" in the sense that you don't have to meet the requirements of Twombly/Iqbal, which still apply, but rather that a complaint can be as barebones as Form 11 and still not be conclusory.

[Traynor Brah]

ahh that makes sense, thanks, bird