Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here Forum

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

Contracts:

*begin class*

case 1: there was no value to the note so the contract won't be enforced because there is no consideration. "oh ok got it!"

case 2: there was probably no value. But courts ruled that there was consideration anyways. "lolwut?"

*end class*

[Baylan]

Contracts:

*begin class*

case 1: there was no value to the note so the contract won't be enforced because there is no consideration. "oh ok got it!"

case 2: there was probably no value. But courts ruled that there was consideration anyways. "lolwut?"

*end class*

My prof explained like this:



Sometimes there are ducks, and sometimes there are rabbits. And sometimes there are things that look like both. Sometimes the law calls things ducks, even when they look like rabbits, because they're ducks, even though they look like rabbits. They're ducks though, because the law says so.

My look at the end of class:

--ImageRemoved--

[dakatz]

Its a duck...no wait. Its a rabbit! Now its a duck again!!!

[Baylan]

Its a duck...no wait. Its a rabbit! Now its a duck again!!!

This whole class was done with phenomenal drawings and us trying to figure out the Kirksey v. Kirksey case for about 45 minutes without any help from him. He wasn't even asking questions, just asking us to resolve the differences.

F'in pain in my ass. We all sounded like fools.

[stocksly33]

so here's my new study strategy... trying it out in 2 classes, and it's working well so far.

- take 2 past student's outline (both got As) and copy/paste it into my outline
- read their outline, put it in my own words, organize/label so it makes sense in my head, mark things i don't understand
- skim the assigned reading: go fast over the parts i recognize from the outline, fill in gaps when i see something not in the outline
- lots of time left at this point, so i read supplements and do hypos
- then in class, make changes in my outline based on what my prof says

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

I'm skeptical of the idea (as I put it in my outline) that the learned hand formula is going to actually be utilized or even mentioned on my test . . .

[kalvano]

Felony murder is freaking awesome. I've never seen something so designed to give the upper hand to the prosecutors and keep the boot on the throat of the proles.

I love it.

[Oban]

the formula isn't really used by judges, more by risk management departments

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

the formula isn't really used by judges, more by risk management departments

neither of which will really matter. "Will this earn me points on test day?" is the question.

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

Outlining torts using a commercial supplement. I took notes on 4 cases about it, and i'm just learning for the first time exactly what "negligence per se" is.

Major fail? Or has this happened to other people.

[Grizz]

Outlining torts using a commercial supplement. I took notes on 4 cases about it, and i'm just learning for the first time exactly what "negligence per se" is.

Major fail? Or has this happened to other people.

lol wut? Negligence per se is easy.

[stratocophic]

Outlining torts using a commercial supplement. I took notes on 4 cases about it, and i'm just learning for the first time exactly what "negligence per se" is.

Major fail? Or has this happened to other people.

lol wut? Negligence per seTorts is easy.

FTFY

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

Outlining torts using a commercial supplement. I took notes on 4 cases about it, and i'm just learning for the first time exactly what "negligence per se" is.

Major fail? Or has this happened to other people.

lol wut? Negligence per se is easy.

NOW it is, thanks to "mastering tort law." Needless confusion ftl.

[snowpeach06]

Can someone explain the difference between negligence per se and it meeting the prima facia case? Is it just that in one way it can go to trial and in the other you assume negligence exists? Yet, somehow that is different from strict liability? My question doesn't even make sense that's how confused I am. haha.

[GeePee]

Can someone explain the difference between negligence per se and it meeting the prima facia case? Is it just that in one way it can go to trial and in the other you assume negligence exists? Yet, somehow that is different from strict liability? My question doesn't even make sense that's how confused I am. haha.

Negligence per se comes as the result of the breach of a statute designed for the purpose of preventing the type of harm done to the plaintiff (public safety). In these cases, if the action of the defendant is not an issue of material fact, the plaintiff need only prove that the statute broken was designed to further a public safety policy and prevent this injury. If he does so, the defendant is has breached a duty -- no ifs, ands, or buts.

Negligence per se is about as close as you can come to strict liability while still being negligence. However, they describe slightly different things. Strict liability generally describes a relationship between two parties that is either inherently dangerous or extremely risky, and therefore enables an action without consideration of fault. Negligence per se, on the other hand, is still a case of negligence, and rules regarding damages for negligence still apply. Contributory negligence by the plaintiff is still a valid affirmative defense, and comparative negligence will reduce liability, in the proper circumstances.

The plaintiff still must show a prima facie case for negligence per se, except that statute helps out. Normally, you'll recall that negligence requires duty, breach, causation, proximate causation (when appropriate), and harm/injury. Here, the duty and breach are satisfied by the existence of a statute designed to prevent this type of negligent act to the plaintiff. The plaintiff still must show causation and injury.

[dailygrind]

I'm skeptical of the idea (as I put it in my outline) that the learned hand formula is going to actually be utilized or even mentioned on my test . . .

i used it a bit on my midterm, although it wasn't required. i think it's an analytically useful tool - it allows you to look at a situation that might be negligence and determine what variables moving in what ways would make it so. probably matters less in fact patterns where you can prove negligence through another method, like per se or res ipsa, but in other cases i think it's pretty nice.

[bmontminy]

Con-Law has this amazing ability to make me feel like i truly understand what is going on one day, and then completely duck-fucked the next...

I can't figure out the organization/structure of the class, or where it is really going...y-day was one of those 'hey i'm getting this' days, but i know it is only temporary so still stay pessimistic.

[BarbellDreams]

Haha, yeah I agree Torts is the likely the easiest class of 1L. negligence per se will take you like 30 seconds to understand, if that.

I am freaking out cause there seems to be too much to do in too little time. This open memo is not moving because all of my free time (barely any) is spent with supplements or outlines. Just did a practice exam and there were like 14 issues that I found in a 3 paragraph problem. I honestly could have even gone further but ran out of time. I am never sure just how broken down the answers need to be. In a contracts exam do I REALLY need to list all the elements of a contract i.e. exchange relationship, between at least 2 parties, involving at least 1 promise, etc.? That seems like a time waster and is common sense in most problems (If its a sale of goods of course all the elements are there and consideration is present.

[beach_terror]

Haha, yeah I agree Torts is the likely the easiest class of 1L. negligence per se will take you like 30 seconds to understand, if that.

I am freaking out cause there seems to be too much to do in too little time. This open memo is not moving because all of my free time (barely any) is spent with supplements or outlines. Just did a practice exam and there were like 14 issues that I found in a 3 paragraph problem. I honestly could have even gone further but ran out of time. I am never sure just how broken down the answers need to be. In a contracts exam do I REALLY need to list all the elements of a contract i.e. exchange relationship, between at least 2 parties, involving at least 1 promise, etc.? That seems like a time waster and is common sense in most problems (If its a sale of goods of course all the elements are there and consideration is present.

Not taking contracts, but everything I've ever heard/read leads me to say always state that the elements are all present and met, and why.

[traehekat]

Definitely disagree about negligence per se being a cake walk. Type of harm/class of persons can get messy, especially when you get into legislative intent. Whether or not a private right of action is really meant to be created is something you have to look at to.

Torts is slowly getting harder while contracts is slowly getting easier.

[JOThompson]

Torts is slowly getting harder while contracts is slowly getting easier.

Same. I thought I had a strong grasp on torts until we delved so deeply into the economic underpinnings of negligence and strict liability. Property's difficulty has been pretty stable for me, except for the future interests material.

[dailygrind]

Definitely disagree about negligence per se being a cake walk. Type of harm/class of persons can get messy, especially when you get into legislative intent. Whether or not a private right of action is really meant to be created is something you have to look at to.

Torts is slowly getting harder while contracts is slowly getting easier.

both of them are slowly getting harder for me. shit. civ pro is getting easier though.

[keg411]

Torts has gotten somewhat harder, but not impossibly so.

CivPro had gotten easier but now we're doing all of the Erie crap which is awful and annoying. Same for Contracts and the Parol Evidence Rule. I was liking all of the voidable contract stuff and then we get to something that I'm WTF? on.

[romothesavior]

I definitely find Torts to be the easiest, in large part because of the subject matter, but probably also because our prof is awesome. Property is probably the hardest for me. I like the prof, but everything in prop seems so ambiguous and uncertain and the courts are constantly changing their minds. In Torts, everything seems to be connected by common principles and the elements are pretty straightforward, whereas in Property everything seems so disconnected.

And then Ks... Oh Ks... The concepts are all pretty straightforward, but reading through the cases is tough for me since I don't have any background in the business world. I have to really break down all these agreements and really figure out what the parties were trying to do in each particular case. Meh...

[LAWYER2]

Haha, yeah I agree Torts is the likely the easiest class of 1L. negligence per se will take you like 30 seconds to understand, if that.

I am freaking out cause there seems to be too much to do in too little time. This open memo is not moving because all of my free time (barely any) is spent with supplements or outlines. Just did a practice exam and there were like 14 issues that I found in a 3 paragraph problem. I honestly could have even gone further but ran out of time. I am never sure just how broken down the answers need to be. In a contracts exam do I REALLY need to list all the elements of a contract i.e. exchange relationship, between at least 2 parties, involving at least 1 promise, etc.? That seems like a time waster and is common sense in most problems (If its a sale of goods of course all the elements are there and consideration is present.

Not taking contracts, but everything I've ever heard/read leads me to say always state that the elements are all present and met, and why.

you are right on the money! Throw everything in and the Kitchen sink too, they want to see that you know the law. If the fact pattern obviously stated that a contract existed there probably is no need to go into the formation of a contract..........etc.