Top Law Schools

All we've been discussing in the first week of contracts is remedies... WTF? Would it not make sense to begin with what a contract is, how and why it's formed, its elements, what laws govern different kinds?

I happened to know some of it from my undergrad, but is everyone expected to come into law school with that knowledge or is the class goddamned ass backward as fuck?

Sorry, anxious 1L ranting ITT.

Some casebooks do that. Learn the endgame first and all that. If you can really understand remedies and all the interests involved, formation, interpretation, defenses will all be a cakewalk. Now stop bitching on tls and go back to your carrel.

DeSimone wrote:All we've been discussing in the first week of contracts is remedies... WTF? Would it not make sense to begin with what a contract is, how and why it's formed, its elements, what laws govern different kinds?

I happened to know some of it from my undergrad, but is everyone expected to come into law school with that knowledge or is the class goddamned ass backward as fuck?

Sorry, anxious 1L ranting ITT.

My 1L class was the same way. Have faith, it'll make sense soon.

solidsnake wrote:Some casebooks do that. Learn the endgame first and all that. If you can really understand remedies and all the interests involved, formation, interpretation, defenses will all be a cakewalk. Now stop bitching on tls and go back to your carrel.

I am in my carrel.

My casebook actually explained why we're starting remedies, and to me it totally made sense.

Last year I began with remedies. Unfortunately, it just made me confused. I ended up reading through the K formation issues in supplements, which in turn gave me the foundation so that I could understand the material about remedies in class. I also found the law in a flash cards helpful.

Silly 1L, still questioning the logic of things. It'll go much easier for you once you accept that it doesn't matter why the course is organized that way - that's the way it's organized, and your job is to suck it up run with it.

got it. stfu'ing.

I sympathize. My Civ Pro professor has us doing joinder right now.

TTH wrote:I sympathize. My Civ Pro professor has us doing joinder right now.

That's permitted, but not compulsory.

rynabrius wrote:

TTH wrote:I sympathize. My Civ Pro professor has us doing joinder right now.

That's permitted, but not compulsory.

O snap.

In chess, you should learn the endgame before you learn the opening so you know what you're getting yourself into once you start studying openings.

Same applies to contracts.

Chirelstein does the same thing. The idea is that it is important to know what exactly you are litigating for in the first place.

FWIW, reasoning back to the facts from the desired remedy (or different possible remedies) is often what lawyers actually do. Not that most law profs want to hear that.

My class also started this way, and this was the order of the textbook, it's not as if the prof took it out of order.

This is the class I would say I am "least" in tune with right now, so I'm hoping some dots start connecting soon.