Are Restatements Worth Buying for 1L? Forum

[BEAST_mode]

Planet Law School basically told me that I will fail at all aspects of life if I don't buy, memorize, and worship them for Contracts and Torts. The price isn't terrible, and I can imagine the material being quite helpful, but are they truly necessary?

[itsirtou]

My torts book had the relevant passages of the Restatements reprinted in the book. My Contracts class required that we buy it. I'd wait and see what your professor wants you to do. If he or she doesn't ask you to buy the restatement, I wouldn't.

[starchinkilt]

Planet Law School basically told me that I will fail at all aspects of life if I don't buy, memorize, and worship them for Contracts and Torts. The price isn't terrible, and I can imagine the material being quite helpful, but are they truly necessary?

They're on lexis.

[Kilpatrick]

Restatements are free. But wait until you see how your professor teaches the course before you go memorizing the restatements. My Contracts professor referenced them only a few times and I don't think my Torts professor did at all.

[Glock]

Wait and see what your professor says. Since your only goal should be a good grade outcome you should:

1) Buy a supplement that follows YOUR casebook
2) Listen to the professor's advice on what is helpful
3) Obtain copies of past exams from that professor to learn style
4) Ask 2Ls for outlines and advice. Find the winner and listen to them.

[Bronte]

Planet Law School basically told me that I will fail at all aspects of life if I don't buy, memorize, and worship them for Contracts and Torts. The price isn't terrible, and I can imagine the material being quite helpful, but are they truly necessary?

PLS is fucking retarded.

Seriously. I bought the Restatement of Contracts / UCC book that was a required purchase for contracts and of course the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that was a required purchase for Civ Pro. My criminal law book came with the Model Penal Code. In these classes, I "worshiped" (but did not "memorize") the relevant provisions of these codes. In fact, I didn't even use supplements for these courses, but instead relied heavily on the codes. I was very successful.

In classes where the restatement, etc., was not a required or even recommended purchase, I ignored the codes to the extent that they were not quoted in opinions. In these classes, I used supplements a little bit. The Planet Law School approach and other iconoclastic systems are designed for people who strongly believe that there's some way to hack law school. I advocate for the opposite. I think the recipe for success is very basic: work hard and smart and use traditional methods. Understand the material in a manner that's guided by your professors methodology.

[morris248]

Understand the material in a manner that's guided by your professors methodology.

That depends entirely on the professor. You will be making a big mistake if you rely only on what you are spoon fed by your professor. However, I agree with not buying the restatements until you actually need them, if ever.

[Cupidity]

No. Its a stupid idea. /thread

--ImageRemoved--

[SeymourShowz]

Print out or copy into your outline the relevant sections (the ones your prof covers) from Westlaw or Lexis.. If you absolutely positively have to look at the books, the library will have them. There is no reason to purchase them.

[Bronte]

Understand the material in a manner that's guided by your professors methodology.

That depends entirely on the professor. You will be making a big mistake if you rely only on what you are spoon fed by your professor. However, I agree with not buying the restatements until you actually need them, if ever.

Okay but I'm not recommending that you rely only on what you are spoon fed by your professor. I'm recommending that you "understand the material in a manner that's guided by your professor's methodology." For example, my contracts professor didn't really teach anything. He conducted rambling, class long cold calls that rarely touched on blackletter law. However, I knew his test was heavily multiple choice. Thus, I primarily studied from the textbook (which he'd coauthored) and the Restatement. Again, this was quite a successful technique.

To say that it "depends entirely on your professor" is to say exactly what I'm saying. And it does not lead to the conclusion that buying Restatements is an "if ever"-type proposition. Of course, the issue isn't really buying the Restatements, but using them. They're free on Westlaw and Lexis, but I prefer a hard copy.

[goodolgil]

Understand the material in a manner that's guided by your professors methodology.

That depends entirely on the professor. You will be making a big mistake if you rely only on what you are spoon fed by your professor. However, I agree with not buying the restatements until you actually need them, if ever.

Okay but I'm not recommending that you rely only on what you are spoon fed by your professor. I'm recommending that you "understand the material in a manner that's guided by your professor's methodology." For example, my contracts professor didn't really teach anything. He conducted rambling, class long cold calls that rarely touched on blackletter law. However, I knew his test was heavily multiple choice. Thus, I primarily studied from the textbook (which he'd coauthored) and the Restatement. Again, this was quite a successful technique.

You must have had Frier? I did too, and since I had no idea what was going on in that class I took the opposite approach. I probably used more supps in that class than all my other classes combined. I relied very little on either the casebook or the Restatement/UCC supplement. I got an A. There really is no one way to skin a cat in law school.

But as to the topic, you'll likely be assigned the Restatement in Contracts. For torts it is by far the most important when it comes to products liability (chiefly the 2nd restatement, but you might also have to know the third_. I don't think it's very important for property. You will likely only spend 1-2 weeks on this subject. There isn't one for crim, but Model Penal Code is essentially the same thing, and the importance of that varies widely according to the professor. There is no need to worry about any of this until class starts

[Bronte]

You must have had Frier? I did too, and since I had no idea what was going on in that class I took the opposite approach. I probably used more supps in that class than all my other classes combined. I relied very little on either the casebook or the Restatement/UCC supplement. I got an A. There really is no one way to skin a cat in law school.

But as to the topic, you'll likely be assigned the Restatement in Contracts. For torts it is by far the most important when it comes to products liability (chiefly the 2nd restatement, but you might also have to know the third_. I don't think it's very important for property. You will likely only spend 1-2 weeks on this subject. There isn't one for crim, but Model Penal Code is essentially the same thing, and the importance of that varies widely according to the professor. There is no need to worry about any of this until class starts

I did have Frier (and also got an A), and I'm definitely not saying my approach is the only way. Some people go the supplement route, others don't. I think the ultimate conclusion is that there can be a great reason to buy a Restatement, and that reason is usually that it's assigned.

[nymario]

I found the Contracts Restatement/UCC to be indispensable. I didn't buy (and rarely referenced online) the Torts restatements (and got an A+ and am now RA for my Torts prof). It would be foolish to take CivPro without the FRCP (and Title 28 for that matter) at hand. If you're allowed to use it for the exam, you should certainly own it...

It really depends on the course/prof.

[NotMyRealName09]

That's like asking whether you should buy a bound set of the United States Reports.

If you need it at all, its available for free online through lexis / westlaw. There will NEVER be a need for "general" knowledge of the entire restatement - you will need to know certain topics or fields. I don't ever want to meet the boring-ass person who "read" the restatement.

The limited portions of any restatement / code / rules you will need to be familiar with will be designated by your professor. Don't over complicate things. I printed all the sections cited by my professor at any time in the course, and that was far less than the entire restatement - and, again, it was FREE.

(And the FRCP are not comparable, as they are nowhere near as voluminous as a restatement.)

Short answer, just, no.

[jkay]

We had a contracts supplement required. It had the restatement and UCC article 2 and a bunch of other stuff that I never looked at. But I used the shit out of the restatements and the UCC section. It's nice to be able to look at a restatement or UCC provision in context.

Sure, you can do it on Westlaw or Lexis, but it's different and you will be looking at the most recent revision which may not comport with the version your professor cares about.

[ndirish2010]

My K's prof used the restatement all the time... we referred to it a decent amount in torts but not nearly as much.

[Helmholtz]

You must have had Frier? I did too, and since I had no idea what was going on in that class I took the opposite approach. I probably used more supps in that class than all my other classes combined. I relied very little on either the casebook or the Restatement/UCC supplement. I got an A. There really is no one way to skin a cat in law school.

But as to the topic, you'll likely be assigned the Restatement in Contracts. For torts it is by far the most important when it comes to products liability (chiefly the 2nd restatement, but you might also have to know the third_. I don't think it's very important for property. You will likely only spend 1-2 weeks on this subject. There isn't one for crim, but Model Penal Code is essentially the same thing, and the importance of that varies widely according to the professor. There is no need to worry about any of this until class starts

I did have Frier (and also got an A), and I'm definitely not saying my approach is the only way. Some people go the supplement route, others don't. I think the ultimate conclusion is that there can be a great reason to buy a Restatement, and that reason is usually that it's assigned.

I also had Frier and got an A. I forget exactly what I did other than (1) completely ignore what was going on in class or just not go to class at all and (2) quote the Wu-Tang Clan on my exam. Will try to replicate this path to success in the fall, and recommend all rising 1Ls do the same thing.

[missinglink]

No.

Our professor assigned a rule book that included restatement sections, and citing to the restatements served me well on the final.

So, the short answer is no, unless your professor assigns it. Then yes, buy that.

[Pizon]

In my exhaustion, I read thread title as "Are Restaurants Worth Buying for 1L?"

I was anticipating replies such as, "Well, if you can get a good deal then go for it, but in my experience purchasing a dining establishment entails many time-consuming tasks such as hiring a wait staff and interviewing maître d's. Between studying, outlining, and looking for a job it might be best to put off until summer."

[traydeuce]

Many (most?) books quote relevant portions of the Restatements. It's been a long time since first-year contracts, but there are certain key sections of the Restatement. Those, the ones your professor actually talks about, are the ones you need to know. If for some reason they are not reprinted in your book, they are on Westlaw. Of course, the Restatement, if you've never seen it, is a series of cryptic little Confucian-esque sayings about the law. The Restatement does contain comments on what these sayings mean, but you're not responsible, usually, for the comments... and then of course there are states that don't follow certain parts of the Restatement, which is often a little too ahead of its time on this or that issue. If your professor cares about that sort of thing and isn't just interested in teaching you some imaginary version of American contract law, he'll tell you when that's the case.

As for Torts, the Restatement (Second) of Torts often isn't really in line with what tort law is. Much of your torts class will consist of "the time the new Restatement said some crazy thing and then all the conservative state courts pushed back" stories.

[Bronte]

Many (most?) books quote relevant portions of the Restatements. It's been a long time since first-year contracts, but there are certain key sections of the Restatement. Those, the ones your professor actually talks about, are the ones you need to know. If for some reason they are not reprinted in your book, they are on Westlaw. Of course, the Restatement, if you've never seen it, is a series of cryptic little Confucian-esque sayings about the law. The Restatement does contain comments on what these sayings mean, but you're not responsible, usually, for the comments... and then of course there are states that don't follow certain parts of the Restatement, which is often a little too ahead of its time on this or that issue. If your professor cares about that sort of thing and isn't just interested in teaching you some imaginary version of American contract law, he'll tell you when that's the case.

As for Torts, the Restatement (Second) of Torts often isn't really in line with what tort law is. Much of your torts class will consist of "the time the new Restatement said some crazy thing and then all the conservative state courts pushed back" stories.

Generally good advice, but there are exceptions. I studied heavily from the Restatement of Contracts, including the comments and illustrations. This can be invaluable in a class that's under taught. I obviously only read sections that were relevant to the topics we discussed in class, but I read well outside what was specifically cited in class or in the book (which the professor wrote).

I think the Restatement of Contracts is actually relatively easy to understand, and it outlines contract law in a manner that's largely consistent with the law in major jurisdictions. Where it's contentious, it should usually be obvious. For example, the Restatement of Contracts properly sets forth the parol evidence rule. It's the more modern definition of the doctrine, but it will be obvious from the cases you read that some courts still wrongly understand the PER to literally be an evidence rule. Understanding this will be helpful, since PER questions can make up a huge portion of the exam.

[traydeuce]

Many (most?) books quote relevant portions of the Restatements. It's been a long time since first-year contracts, but there are certain key sections of the Restatement. Those, the ones your professor actually talks about, are the ones you need to know. If for some reason they are not reprinted in your book, they are on Westlaw. Of course, the Restatement, if you've never seen it, is a series of cryptic little Confucian-esque sayings about the law. The Restatement does contain comments on what these sayings mean, but you're not responsible, usually, for the comments... and then of course there are states that don't follow certain parts of the Restatement, which is often a little too ahead of its time on this or that issue. If your professor cares about that sort of thing and isn't just interested in teaching you some imaginary version of American contract law, he'll tell you when that's the case.

As for Torts, the Restatement (Second) of Torts often isn't really in line with what tort law is. Much of your torts class will consist of "the time the new Restatement said some crazy thing and then all the conservative state courts pushed back" stories.

Generally good advice, but there are exceptions. I studied heavily from the Restatement of Contracts, including the comments and illustrations. This can be invaluable in a class that's under taught. I obviously only read sections that were relevant to the topics we discussed in class, but I read well outside what was specifically cited in class or in the book (which the professor wrote).

I think the Restatement of Contracts is actually relatively easy to understand, and it outlines contract law in a manner that's largely consistent with the law in major jurisdictions. Where it's contentious, it should usually be obvious. For example, the Restatement of Contracts properly sets forth the parol evidence rule. It's the more modern definition of the doctrine, but it will be obvious from the cases you read that some courts still wrongly understand the PER to literally be an evidence rule. Understanding this will be helpful, since PER questions can make up a huge portion of the exam.

No, you're right, the illustrations are very helpful. I guess I had the luxury of a decidedly non-undertaught contracts class, one where the professor scrupulously covered the illustrations that our very good book reprinted, so it's hard for me to speak to what the undertaught class would dictate in terms of studying. Really, the only truly undertaught class I've had was crim, and there I did just rely wholly on Dressler

[buckilaw]

No. Relevant portions will likely be in your casebooks. And you can also access them for free on westlaw/lexis.

[TatteredDignity]

F*** this thread. It's exactly this kind of bickering between people who have actually been through 1L that makes the way forward seem so impossible for 0L lemmings like me. How could there ever be consensus on 0L prep if we can't even get a firm answer on this triviality?

There really is no one way to skin a cat in law school.

^^^This is the only thing I'm taking from this thread.^^^ I'll see you all in May with my pile of (arbitrary/logical) grades that were the result of my (reading every E&E before school/chilling on my butt all summer) and (religiously reading only the casebook/utilizing the best supplements).

So, yeah.

[Bronte]

F*** this thread. It's exactly this kind of bickering between people who have actually been through 1L that makes the way forward seem so impossible for 0L lemmings like me. How could there ever be consensus on 0L prep if we can't even get a firm answer on this triviality?

There really is no one way to skin a cat in law school.

^^^This is the only thing I'm taking from this thread.^^^ I'll see you all in May with my pile of (arbitrary/logical) grades that were the result of my (reading every E&E before school/chilling on my butt all summer) and (religiously reading only the casebook/utilizing the best supplements).

So, yeah.

Lol, a little entitled, don't you think? We're not "bickering," we're discussing various approaches, and it's to your benefit. And there is a consensus that's easily gleaned from this thread: You should use (whether or not you buy is really irrelevant) the Restatements to the extent that it makes sense in the class. In some classes, it will make sense to rely heavily on the Restatement, but in most classes it will make more sense to only learn those provisions quoted in opinions you've been assigned or discussed by your professor.

You're right, a number of us ITT have actually been through 1L and did quite well using different methods. The practice of the law is like that in general: there are few yes or no answers, and you have to extract the truth from a conflicting sources.