Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=168814
I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!
All I can tell you is that if you really want to know about consideration and estoppel, then use the E and Es and learn it on your own. Neither are overly complicated concepts but I wouldn't call them unimportant.agathos wrote:I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!
Dude...I just looked at your post history, where the fuck do you go to law school?agathos wrote:My K professor said he will only use very little time to teach consideration-like half hour...He said consideration is an unimportant. He also will use little time to teach estoppel. It seems like very bizarre. He is a new professor who never teach before....
Who cares? Nothing you learn in law school really makes a difference.agathos wrote:I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!
Yes, I already did that. However, I want something deep than that. I really like K...I think it is very interesting. That is why I care this so much...So I just read the hornbook by myself?...law4vus wrote:All I can tell you is that if you really want to know about consideration and estoppel, then use the E and Es and learn it on your own. Neither are overly complicated concepts but I wouldn't call them unimportant.agathos wrote:I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!
Yes, I know that~romothesavior wrote:Who cares? Nothing you learn in law school really makes a difference.agathos wrote:I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!
Same here, we spent considerable time just on 2-207.bartleby wrote:I think it depends on the professor. It's so crazy, my friend at Emory said UCC is useless in K's but my professor has the biggest boner for UCC.
We didn't even get to 2-207. Our professor had it scheduled for the last day, but we got behind and didn't even cover it.thedive wrote:Same here, we spent considerable time just on 2-207.bartleby wrote:I think it depends on the professor. It's so crazy, my friend at Emory said UCC is useless in K's but my professor has the biggest boner for UCC.
romothesavior wrote:Who cares? Nothing you learn in law school really makes a difference.agathos wrote:I know I should only care what he teach. However, I hate that. It looks like I pay money learn nothing... He only read case book for me ..law4vus wrote:We spent like a month on consideration lol. Whatever, just learn what the professor feels like teaching because he's the one writing the exam!
It's really not that important. It's one of those old rules that's easy to test because it makes for good problems. However, many commentators think it's a useless rule in practice. Further, in real business transactions, it very rarely comes up. It's not surprising that a young professor would choose not to spend much time on it.BarbellDreams wrote:Umm...yes, consideration is important.
lol...SilverE2 wrote:Dude...I just looked at your post history, where the fuck do you go to law school?agathos wrote:My K professor said he will only use very little time to teach consideration-like half hour...He said consideration is an unimportant. He also will use little time to teach estoppel. It seems like very bizarre. He is a new professor who never teach before....
It doesn't come up in real life because every lawyer knows about it and knows that you need it for a valid contract. In the case that you get a lawyer like OP who had a prof that didn't teach consideration, yes, it would become important rather quickly.Bronte wrote:It's really not that important. It's one of those old rules that's easy to test because it makes for good problems. However, many commentators think it's a useless rule in practice. Further, in real business transactions, it very rarely comes up. It's not surprising that a young professor would choose not to spend much time on it.BarbellDreams wrote:Umm...yes, consideration is important.
Edit: Wow, in doing a quick Westlaw search to inflate my ego, I came across what has to be the weirdest law review article ever written: 75 Cornell L. Rev. 987. The first footnote is just... amazing.
That's not the only or even the primary reason it doesn't come up in real life. It's also because the doctrine of consideration has been whittled down to a stub by courts and legislatures over the years. It's also because in the vast majority of commercial contexts, parties are naturally going to make mutually beneficial promises based on the forces of self-interest.BarbellDreams wrote:It doesn't come up in real life because every lawyer knows about it and knows that you need it for a valid contract. In the case that you get a lawyer like OP who had a prof that didn't teach consideration, yes, it would become important rather quickly.
Yes, in a commercial context there will certainly be consideration 99.99999% of the time and thus you won't need to use it. To say that this is a valid reason for not learning an essential element to a contract is pretty bad.Bronte wrote:That's not the only or even the primary reason it doesn't come up in real life. It's also because the doctrine of consideration has been whittled down to a stub by courts and legislatures over the years. It's also because in the vast majority of commercial contexts, parties are naturally going to make mutually beneficial promises based on the forces of self-interest.BarbellDreams wrote:It doesn't come up in real life because every lawyer knows about it and knows that you need it for a valid contract. In the case that you get a lawyer like OP who had a prof that didn't teach consideration, yes, it would become important rather quickly.
As to lawyers like OP not learning consideration, it would be just one in an infinite array of critical doctrines that you don't learn in law school. How do lawyers get by without learning these doctrines? They research them, or they're taught to them by more senior lawyers. For example, if OP were told to structure a contract, he would look up "requirements of a contract" in, say, American Jurisprudence. He would then learn that there's this archaic doctrine called consideration that he should keep an eye on. It's really not that important.
It's only an "essential element of a contract" in name. There's probably more exceptions to the doctrine then there are circumstances where it applies. Further, to call something that's only relevant 0.00% percent of the time (rounding to the hundredth) "essential" is oxymoronic.BarbellDreams wrote:Yes, in a commercial context there will certainly be consideration 99.99999% of the time and thus you won't need to use it. To say that this is a valid reason for not learning an essential element to a contract is pretty bad.
Essentially you're second paragraph says that because he can research the requirements to a contract later his prof has an excuse to not teach him consideration now. I doubt I need to explain why this is problematic.
The 0.00% of the time thing was mostly a joke. The rest of my argument is right there, waiting to be addressed in even a vaguely coherent manner.Nightrunner wrote:Man, I'm going to go through life with breathing problems 0.00% of the time (rounding to the nearest hundredth), but that shit's still essential. Same for my truck's drive train. Just because something is infrequently encountered doesn't mean it stops being an essential element of the system.
Although I agree that it seems that the vast, vast majority of commercial contract situations will have almost zero time dedicated to consideration, you overstate your case.
Yeah I'll concede that the 0.00% argument was frivolous. As to the non-big law argument, I think there's dozens of more important reasons that a fresh JD should not attempt to practice without supervision than that he didn't thoroughly learn consideration in law school, which is something that one can easily learn.Nightrunner wrote:Like I said, I largely agree with you; from my limited experience and perspective, it seems that consideration is irrelevant (or borderline irrelevant) in almost all commercial contracts. You just overstated it.
Although if we leave "big time lawyer$" aside for a moment, I imagine there are plenty of situations in non-merchant contracts (e.g., contracts between family members) where ignoring consideration would be mind-numbingly poor lawyering.