Ah! But do YOU have any idea what I'm talking about?5ky wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about.ben4847 wrote:
I think crimes are torts. Assault is a tort, even though it is also a crime. We had a plaintiff's lawyer who sues corporations in M & A deals tell us he was practicing torts, in class today.
And you will have a hard time imagining that a contract implied in law is an implied promise in any sense except that some judges thought you ought to pay.
Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract" Forum
- ben4847
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
- 5ky
- Posts: 10835
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
not what you specifically are talking about, no.ben4847 wrote:Ah! But do YOU have any idea what I'm talking about?5ky wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about.ben4847 wrote:
I think crimes are torts. Assault is a tort, even though it is also a crime. We had a plaintiff's lawyer who sues corporations in M & A deals tell us he was practicing torts, in class today.
And you will have a hard time imagining that a contract implied in law is an implied promise in any sense except that some judges thought you ought to pay.
edit: are we getting trolled here?
-
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
I can't tell. I just looked at his post history; they're all pretty dumb, but they seem genuine.5ky wrote:not what you specifically are talking about, no.ben4847 wrote:
Ah! But do YOU have any idea what I'm talking about?
edit: are we getting trolled here?
- ben4847
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
I am not a troll. I am pretty dumb, but genuine usually.Renzo wrote:I can't tell. I just looked at his post history; they're all pretty dumb, but they seem genuine.5ky wrote:not what you specifically are talking about, no.ben4847 wrote:
Ah! But do YOU have any idea what I'm talking about?
edit: are we getting trolled here?
Here, I started off with what I thought was a clever definition, and then decided to defend it. I had fun; I hope you did as well.
-
- Posts: 695
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
Have fun with exams.ben4847 wrote:I am not a troll. I am pretty dumb, but genuine usually.Renzo wrote:I can't tell. I just looked at his post history; they're all pretty dumb, but they seem genuine.5ky wrote:not what you specifically are talking about, no.ben4847 wrote:
Ah! But do YOU have any idea what I'm talking about?
edit: are we getting trolled here?
Here, I started off with what I thought was a clever definition, and then decided to defend it. I had fun; I hope you did as well.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- shepdawg
- Posts: 477
- Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:00 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
Please cite a contract not based upon a promise.ben4847 wrote:
That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.
- ben4847
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
I did above. Any contract implied in law. See Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos, 380 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (Or at least, that is what my contracts textbook thought you should see)shepdawg wrote:Please cite a contract not based upon a promise.ben4847 wrote:
That is not a good definition, because there are contracts which are not based on any promise; that is when they are implied in law.
That is why my definition is superior, since it encompasses any liability imposed which is not based on tort theories.
- shepdawg
- Posts: 477
- Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:00 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
This is how I see it. An implied in law K is a "quasi contract," where a "recipient of services knows the services are being rendered with an expectation of compensation, and by a word could prevent the mistake, he is held to acceptance if he doesn't speak. R2d §69. In these cases the "promise" is proffered by the laborer.ben4847 wrote:I did above. Any contract implied in law. See Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos, 380 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (Or at least, that is what my contracts textbook thought you should see)shepdawg wrote: Please cite a contract not based upon a promise.
Here are some of my own examples. Editors of Glannon's or Emmanuels may use them if I am given credit.
Example 1: D is in line at a traffic stop and sees a bum ask the car in front of him if he'd like his windows washed, the driver says "yes" and gives the bum money after the service is complete. The bum then comes to D's car looks at him with his head nodded forward at an angle and one eyebrow raised. D sits in his car as the bum washes the window. Here, the promise was to provide window washing in return for money. Everyone knows that you yell at bums once they start washing your window if you don't want to pay them. Because D let the bum wash his window, the bum is entitled to quantum meriut.
Example 2: D sees his neighbors lawn looks immaculate and asks him who his gardener is. The neighbor says his gardener is Paul and he only charges $15 a week. Neighbor then says he'll send P over to D's house. The next day D sees P mowing his lawn while he is enjoying his coffee. He doesn't say a thing to P. In fact, he lets P mow his law every week for 2 months. Again, the promise was made by P to mow D's lawn for money. D accepted by allowing P to complete the services, and owes P quantum meriut.
The case you cited is a great example. Hospital promised D to render services and D who was "mentally alert during her at-home recuperation period" accepted the services by not telling the nurses to stop caring for her. No expects a health care provider to go uncompensated, so D knew P would be expecting payment. If she was not on welfare, she'd have to pay.
Last edited by shepdawg on Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
First off, eat shit you smug fuck.shepdawg wrote:I admit that many students have trouble with this concept, so I am going to help you out here.ben4847 wrote:I did above. Any contract implied in law. See Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos, 380 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (Or at least, that is what my contracts textbook thought you should see)shepdawg wrote: Please cite a contract not based upon a promise.
Second, you actually seem to be having trouble with this. There is no promise in a quasi-contract--that's why you have to imply one as an operation of the law. If there was a promise, you wouldn't have a quasi-contract; you'd just have a regular plain old boring contract, with no legal fiction needed.
- Bildungsroman
- Posts: 5529
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
Lord did I lol.ben4847 wrote:No, because my tort professor defined tort as a non-contract liability. So I guess those are all torts.Bronte wrote:That seems too broad. This would include criminal liability and other liability deriving from statute, like an antitrust action.ben4847 wrote:A non-tort liability.
- ben4847
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
Also, I got an A in contracts at a T14, thank you very much.Renzo wrote:First off, eat s--- you smug f---.shepdawg wrote:I admit that many students have trouble with this concept, so I am going to help you out here.ben4847 wrote:I did above. Any contract implied in law. See Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos, 380 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (Or at least, that is what my contracts textbook thought you should see)shepdawg wrote: Please cite a contract not based upon a promise.
Second, you actually seem to be having trouble with this. There is no promise in a quasi-contract--that's why you have to imply one as an operation of the law. If there was a promise, you wouldn't have a quasi-contract; you'd just have a regular plain old boring contract, with no legal fiction needed.
edit: removed bad words.
Last edited by ben4847 on Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:40 am
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
But Shepdawg went to Cal Western, so...ben4847 wrote: Also, I got an A in contracts at a T14, thank you very much.
- johansantana21
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
Offer + Acceptance = Contract
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Bronte
- Posts: 2125
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
You bumped the thread to give this definition? It's too broad in that it includes agreements that are unenforceable for lack of consideration, capacity, or legality. It's too narrow in that it fails to include promises enforceable on reliance theory.johansantana21 wrote:Offer + Acceptance = Contract
-
- Posts: 695
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
In fairness, I was taught that simple equation. The others were taught to me as exceptions to the general rule.Bronte wrote:You bumped the thread to give this definition? It's too broad in that it includes agreements that are unenforceable for lack of consideration, capacity, or legality. It's too narrow in that it fails to include promises enforceable on reliance theory.johansantana21 wrote:Offer + Acceptance = Contract
- shepdawg
- Posts: 477
- Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:00 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
Proof?ben4847 wrote:
Also, I got an A in contracts at a T14, thank you very much.
edit: removed bad words.
Should I hide behind a screen name and toss around a possibly fabricated grade from an unnamed school in order to make up for my lack of knowledge in a simple subject?Transferthrowaway wrote:
But Shepdawg went to Cal Western, so...
- Extension_Cord
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
The tort definitions of Assault and Battery are not even the same as criminal definitions, lol.Bronte wrote:Crimes are not torts. Some crimes and torts share the same name. And some actions give rise to both criminal and tort liability, but crimes are not torts. Contracts "implied in law" are a legal fiction either way. It's no harder to "imagine" them as contracts than it is to imagine them as implied contracts.ben4847 wrote:I think crimes are torts. Assault is a tort, even though it is also a crime. We had a plaintiff's lawyer who sues corporations in M & A deals tell us he was practicing torts, in class today.
And you will have a hard time imagining that a contract implied in law is an implied promise in any sense except that some judges thought you ought to pay.
I think Ben is trolling you guys.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- Extension_Cord
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
I lol'd.MrPapagiorgio wrote:Full disclosure: prof faps to the restatement.
- johansantana21
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
Do you have brain damage? It's the equation given by our professor, verbatim. Stop stroking your e-dick with your awesome knowledge of contracts.Bronte wrote:You bumped the thread to give this definition? It's too broad in that it includes agreements that are unenforceable for lack of consideration, capacity, or legality. It's too narrow in that it fails to include promises enforceable on reliance theory.johansantana21 wrote:Offer + Acceptance = Contract
Did it take you a law school education to realize that submitting the word contract to a short succinct definition might be a little overbroad?
Oh God, PLEASE teach me more!
- Bronte
- Posts: 2125
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm
Re: Post your contracts Profs preferred definition of "contract"
I shouldn't have been so snide. I'm sorry. As to your substantive point, there is a succinct definition that's neither overbroad nor overnarrow: a promise the breach of which has a remedy at law. This doesn't get you very far in terms of blackletter law, but it does accurately define the term.johansantana21 wrote:Do you have brain damage? It's the equation given by our professor, verbatim. Stop stroking your e-dick with your awesome knowledge of contracts.
Did it take you a law school education to realize that submitting the word contract to a short succinct definition might be a little overbroad?
Oh God, PLEASE teach me more!
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login