1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[ph14]

Can anyone explain horizontal/vertical privity, and privity of contract and privity of estate, in a simple, clear way? I know the definitions, or thought I understood them until I tried to argue about it while discussing a practice exam. Thanks.

Privity just means that the person succeeded to that interest directly and through a contract usually (don't really know how to explain it exactly, might try google). So like, selling someone my house = privity. Someone adversely possessing my land = no privity.

Privity (of estate/of contract is the same thing I think) is basically accomplished 2 ways: mutual privity and instantaneous privity. The original idea was something along the lines of you sharing the interest or something. So mutual privity is when you both own an interest in the land (ie, a leasehold or something). And instantaneous privity is kind of a legal fiction that says the moment you convey someone a deed to your land, that fleeting moment it changed hands, you both had a mutual interest in it and were thus in privity.

So basically horizontal parties are between the original parties (usually neighbors or something, say neighbor A and B). And then vertical is the successors to each's interest. So A sells to Y. That's vertical privity between A and Y. B sells to Z, that's vertical privity between B and Z.

Kind of looks like this:

A-----horizontal privity------B
l
l
l
vertical privity
l
l
Y

[lifestooquick]

First exam (torts) tomorrow morning! I did light review today, but mostly just watched football.

[ilovesf]

I've been listening to classical music while studying lately. Chopin's funeral march just came on.. now I feel like this exam will be the death of me.

[Gecko of Doom]

First exam (closed-book Civ Pro) tomorrow. FML.

[crossarmant]

First exam (closed-book Civ Pro) tomorrow. FML.

My Torts was closed book, I kinda preferred closed-book for that subject, but goddamn, CivPro's gotta hurt closed-book.

[NYC Law]

Can anyone explain horizontal/vertical privity, and privity of contract and privity of estate, in a simple, clear way? I know the definitions, or thought I understood them until I tried to argue about it while discussing a practice exam. Thanks.

I don't really understand the other one's answer, so I'll give it a shot.

Privity of Contract ("PC") just means that you have some sort of contractual relationship with the other party (so both parties have to actually be involved), and have responsibilities. So a Landlord will always have PC with the original tenant, and that tenant will always be held to his leasehold obligations unless the Landlord signs a release for that Tenant. Likewise, a Landlord will never have privity with a sublessee, since that is a contractual relationship between the Tenant and the Sublessee. The Sublessee will not be held to any obligations, even to the Tenant unless there is an express promise, because he is not being assigned the Tenant's entire interest. I won't go on to describe all the other relationships for PC, but the basic gist is there has to be some form of contract between the two parties to expressly state what obligations exist, and on the flipside there must be an express release from the obligations to no longer be held to them.

Privity of Estate ("PE") just means that one party creates an estate, and the other party currently holds that estate that was created. So there would be no PE between a LL and T when there is an assignment, since the T doesn't hold that estate anymore. There would be PE between the LL and Assignee, since the Assignee holds the same estate that the LL originally created. There would not be PE between the T and Assignee since the T did not create a new estate, he just gave the assignee the one the LL created.

And for a sublease, there is privity between the sublessee and the original Tenant, since the Tenant created that new estate and the sublessee holds that same estate. There is no privity between the landlord and the sublessee, since the landlord created one estate and the sublessee holds an entirely different one. There is privity between the LL and original T because T still holds the primary estate that the LL created, the sublease was just carved out of that larger estate.

Sorry if this has nothing to do with what you're asking, this is just what was covered for our class.

[brickman]

for contributory negligence, am i confused as fuck or do we still have to do a proximate cause/ cause in fact analysis?

[NYC Law]

for contributory negligence, am i confused as fuck or do we still have to do a proximate cause/ cause in fact analysis?

Yes. You mean analyzing P's negligence? If so yes, you'd have to prove as the defendant that P was actually negligent, and you can't be negligent without causing the act yourself. Pretty much all the negligence concepts flip over and apply to comparative fault/contributory negligence as well.

[booboo]

for contributory negligence, am i confused as fuck or do we still have to do a proximate cause/ cause in fact analysis?

I may be rewording what NYCLAW said but remember that contributory negligence is an affirmative defense. So usually the plaintiff will have to prove negligence on the part of defendant (duty/breach/causation/damages) and defendant will rebut by claiming P was contributorily negligent.

Hope that helps?

[johansantana21]

for contributory negligence, am i confused as fuck or do we still have to do a proximate cause/ cause in fact analysis?

I may be rewording what NYCLAW said but remember that contributory negligence is an affirmative defense. So usually the plaintiff will have to prove negligence on the part of defendant (duty/breach/causation/damages) and defendant will rebut by claiming P was contributorily negligent.

Hope that helps?

Don't think this helps.

But I thought you need to prove prxoimate/but for cont negligence...

You are alleging that the opponent is negligent. So why wouldn't you have to prove causation?

[thegrayman]

Did Twombly overrule Conley for pleadings in general or just pleadings for antitrust actions?

[ph14]

Did Twombly overrule Conley for pleadings in general or just pleadings for antitrust actions?

It's not entirely clear. Law isn't completely settled yet.

[ilovesf]

Did Twombly overrule Conley for pleadings in general or just pleadings for antitrust actions?

twombly applied to anti trust, iqbal extended it to everything

[Eugenie Danglars]

[thegrayman]

EDIT: nevermind I noticed Iqbal is mentioned in the casenotes, but we just didn't cover the full case

[ph14]

[Eugenie Danglars]

There's a whole tumblr of them!

gingerloblawslaw.tumblr.com

[thesteelers]

Can anyone explain horizontal/vertical privity, and privity of contract and privity of estate, in a simple, clear way? I know the definitions, or thought I understood them until I tried to argue about it while discussing a practice exam. Thanks.

Privity just means that the person succeeded to that interest directly and through a contract usually (don't really know how to explain it exactly, might try google). So like, selling someone my house = privity. Someone adversely possessing my land = no privity.

Privity (of estate/of contract is the same thing I think) is basically accomplished 2 ways: mutual privity and instantaneous privity. The original idea was something along the lines of you sharing the interest or something. So mutual privity is when you both own an interest in the land (ie, a leasehold or something). And instantaneous privity is kind of a legal fiction that says the moment you convey someone a deed to your land, that fleeting moment it changed hands, you both had a mutual interest in it and were thus in privity.

So basically horizontal parties are between the original parties (usually neighbors or something, say neighbor A and B). And then vertical is the successors to each's interest. So A sells to Y. That's vertical privity between A and Y. B sells to Z, that's vertical privity between B and Z.

Kind of looks like this:

A-----horizontal privity------B
l
l
l
vertical privity
l
l
Y

got it, thanks!

[ph14]

There's a whole tumblr of them!

gingerloblawslaw.tumblr.com

Sooooo good. What a great idea.

[ilovesf]

gingerloblawslaw.tumblr.com

Thank you for this!

[Dany]

EDIT: nevermind I noticed Iqbal is mentioned in the casenotes, but we just didn't cover the full case

You covered Twombly without Iqbal? I thought they were like a pair. Twiqbal.

[FeelTheHeat]

gingerloblawslaw.tumblr.com

Thank you for this!

[FeelTheHeat]

--ImageRemoved--

[booboo]

for contributory negligence, am i confused as fuck or do we still have to do a proximate cause/ cause in fact analysis?

I may be rewording what NYCLAW said but remember that contributory negligence is an affirmative defense. So usually the plaintiff will have to prove negligence on the part of defendant (duty/breach/causation/damages) and defendant will rebut by claiming P was contributorily negligent.

Hope that helps?

Don't think this helps.

But I thought you need to prove prxoimate/but for cont negligence...

You are alleging that the opponent is negligent. So why wouldn't you have to prove causation?

Now I understand your question. If you think about the circumstances that a contributory negligence defense would be used, it would appear implicit that the causation was within the argument of contributory negligence. To say that a plaintiff caused their own injury would imply that they were the but-for cause for their injury, but even if not, the defendant could easily say this by saying whatever action the defendant believes the plaintiff committed was the but-for cause. When it comes to proximate cause, the defendant does also have to prove this. I think an example of this is Gyerman v. United States Lines.

[Hannibal]

There's a whole tumblr of them!

gingerloblawslaw.tumblr.com

Hell yes.