Top Law Schools

My contracts professor disagrees with the majority on nearly all of the cases we read. How do I study for the exam?

Learn why the opinion author decided the case the way they did, and learn why your professor disagrees with it. Then, be prepared to talk about the two views and what each view achieves, and what values they embody, which is better and who does it favor, etc.

Then, make sure at the end of the day you understand what the black letter law is, regardless of who might or might not agree with it as a matter of policy or economic values.

I'd begin with reading the cases and deciding whether you agree with them or not and why. Renzo is exactly right in his response. The test will be you: 1. Knowing the black letter law (note this may not be directly congruent with whatever case you're reading, as the case may be a minority view), 2. Knowing what your professor/class wants you to take away from the case that isn't in the text, 3. Reconciling or comparing both views. The final point is the most important, but can only occur if you know which factors are behind 1 and 2.

Final note which applies to reading pretty much any case in 1L but definitely contracts:

Think about efficiency in setting up systematic rules that apply to the big picture and not just the facts of the case. The judge may have made a decision that seems good or fair from the facts given, but may create large problems when applied as a default rule.

Agree with the prof on the exam.

Do what you should be doing on every test: Explain as many reasonable perspectives as you know and then conclude which is the best and why it is most logical.

Get a new prof. Seriously, what kind of idiot teaches from a casebook that he/she hate and disagrees with?

VA Politco wrote:Get a new prof. Seriously, what kind of idiot teaches from a casebook that he/she hate and disagrees with?

Can't tell if serious.

Renzo wrote:Learn why the opinion author decided the case the way they did, and learn why your professor disagrees with it. Then, be prepared to talk about the two views and what each view achieves, and what values they embody, which is better and who does it favor, etc.

Then, make sure at the end of the day you understand what the black letter law is, regardless of who might or might not agree with it as a matter of policy or economic values.

/thread

chimp wrote:

VA Politco wrote:Get a new prof. Seriously, what kind of idiot teaches from a casebook that he/she hate and disagrees with?

Can't tell if serious.

Obviously the first sentence is tongue in cheek. But dude's got a point about the second sentence.

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

chimp wrote:

VA Politco wrote:Get a new prof. Seriously, what kind of idiot teaches from a casebook that he/she hate and disagrees with?

Can't tell if serious.

Obviously the first sentence is tongue in cheek. But dude's got a point about the second sentence.

Not really. Lots of cases are in case books solely to show the limits of a certain doctrine or to illustrate an antiquated/minority rule that doesn't necessarily apply today, but was important in the development of an area of law.

If OP's prof actually disagrees with "the majority" of the cases in the case book then that is a bit weird, but I feel like most profs, especially in contracts, would disagree with the rule/reasoning in quite a few cases.

chimp wrote:

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

chimp wrote:

VA Politco wrote:Get a new prof. Seriously, what kind of idiot teaches from a casebook that he/she hate and disagrees with?

Can't tell if serious.

Obviously the first sentence is tongue in cheek. But dude's got a point about the second sentence.

Not really. Lots of cases are in case books solely to show the limits of a certain doctrine or to illustrate an antiquated/minority rule that doesn't necessarily apply today, but was important in the development of an area of law.

If OP's prof actually disagrees with "the majority" of the cases in the case book then that is a bit weird, but I feel like most profs, especially in contracts, would disagree with the rule/reasoning in quite a few cases.

That kind of sounds like an atheism class being taught using the bible.

Not really. Lots of cases are in case books solely to show the limits of a certain doctrine or to illustrate an antiquated/minority rule that doesn't necessarily apply today, but was important in the development of an area of law.

If OP's prof actually disagrees with "the majority" of the cases in the case book then that is a bit weird, but I feel like most profs, especially in contracts, would disagree with the rule/reasoning in quite a few cases.

That kind of sounds like an atheism class being taught using the bible.

Uh, that would make a lot of sense to me. One of the best ways to support your views are to find the untenable weaknesses in those of others. I would think some bible study (along with any other religious text) would be at the core of an atheism class. /tangential rant.

Even if your prof disagrees, I think on the test you need to recognize that if the case creates binding precedent, that's how a court is going to decide the issue. Still mention the arguments, but you should probably end up siding with the case if it's good law.

Your professor may be attempting to teach your class to "think like a lawyer." By disagreeing with the outcome of a case, the prof might be trying to force you guys to think about both sides of an issue. In every case, there is someone trying to make an argument for the plaintiff and the defendant...blah, blah, blah.

Professors disagree with cases all the time, but teach them because they are important. Hell, if you don't disagree with a case or 3 during law school, something is amiss, as there is a lot of bullshit jurisprudence in the history of American law.

It is rare for a professor to disagree with all of the law, especially with K, the majority of which was settled in 18the century England with common sense.

Lean the BBL, and be prepared for a policy question and if you get one spit back your professors opinion + a country argument.

Oban wrote:Professors disagree with cases all the time, but teach them because they are important. Hell, if you don't disagree with a case or 3 during law school, something is amiss, as there is a lot of bullshit jurisprudence in the history of American law.

It is rare for a professor to disagree with all of the law, especially with K, the majority of which was settled in 18the century England with common sense.

Lean the BBL, and be prepared for a policy question and if you get one spit back your professors opinion + a country argument.

Best not use a city argument