Top Law Schools

Br3v wrote:Made for 1L Exam prep, though 2L and 3L students welcome to share your knowledge.

This question was answered in another thread but to get the ball rolling:
For battery, does defendant need to intend the contact and for it to be harmful or offensive, or just to intend the contact?

North wrote:Checking in.

No shame ITT.

emarxnj wrote:Subbed so I can pester everyone as I get more into my outlines and realize I know nothing. Good idea br3v

Br3v wrote:Made for 1L Exam prep, though 2L and 3L students welcome to share your knowledge.

This question was answered in another thread but to get the ball rolling:
For battery, does defendant need to intend the contact and for it to be harmful or offensive, or just to intend the contact?

Dolphine wrote:checking in....wtf is property law?

lhanvt13 wrote:

Br3v wrote:Made for 1L Exam prep, though 2L and 3L students welcome to share your knowledge.

This question was answered in another thread but to get the ball rolling:
For battery, does defendant need to intend the contact and for it to be harmful or offensive, or just to intend the contact?

First of all, thanks for making this thread Br3v. This is a great idea.

Anyway, the way I learned it was: Battery is 1) a volitional act with 2) intent to touch and 3) intent to harm or offend which 4) results in harmful or offensive contact.

Single intent jurisdictions, which is the minority view, only require the 1), 2), and 4). However, Dual intent jurisdictions require all 4 elements. Intent can be either desire or knowledge; the actor can simply know that a reasonable person or would be harmed or offended by his act.

I have a follow-up question though: if somebody was hypersensitive and tapped them on the shoulder and they either freak out immensely or has a heart attack, would that still be battery in dual intent jurisdictions or only in single intent jurisdictions?

BigZuck wrote:Said this in the other thread and don't want to be annoying, but...

Peeps keep saying "intend" but as I understand it that doesn't neccessarily mean that you have the purpose of causing the touch, it could also mean that you know (or should know) that the touch is likely to occur with a high degree of probability.

Ex.: You shoot a gun into a crowd of people but are not actually trying to hit anyone. However, if you do hit someone the intent element is satisfied because you should know that by firing a gun into a crowd, that bullet is likely to hit (and harm) someone.

Anyway, checking in!

BigZuck wrote:Said this in the other thread and don't want to be annoying, but...

Peeps keep saying "intend" but as I understand it that doesn't neccessarily mean that you have the purpose of causing the touch, it could also mean that you know (or should know) that the touch is likely to occur with a high degree of probability.

Ex.: You shoot a gun into a crowd of people but are not actually trying to hit anyone. However, if you do hit someone the intent element is satisfied because you should know that by firing a gun into a crowd, that bullet is likely to hit (and harm) someone.

Anyway, checking in!

desiballa21 wrote:

BigZuck wrote:Said this in the other thread and don't want to be annoying, but...

Peeps keep saying "intend" but as I understand it that doesn't neccessarily mean that you have the purpose of causing the touch, it could also mean that you know (or should know) that the touch is likely to occur with a high degree of probability.

Ex.: You shoot a gun into a crowd of people but are not actually trying to hit anyone. However, if you do hit someone the intent element is satisfied because you should know that by firing a gun into a crowd, that bullet is likely to hit (and harm) someone.

Anyway, checking in!

That's Garrett v. Daily principle, right? Intent is either you intended to or substantially certain that your action could lead to a chain of events where it happens.

North wrote:Contracts. Independent and Dependent Promises. Why is this distinction important? Intuitively, I figure it matters for when you're determining whether there was breach. But it seems lumped together with Conditions syllabus/hornbook wise. What's the deal with these things?

So, so close to finishing this outline. This is holding me up.

I have a follow-up question though: if somebody was hypersensitive and tapped them on the shoulder and they either freak out immensely or has a heart attack, would that still be battery in dual intent jurisdictions or only in single intent jurisdictions?

BigZuck wrote:Said this in the other thread and don't want to be annoying, but...

Peeps keep saying "intend" but as I understand it that doesn't neccessarily mean that you have the purpose of causing the touch, it could also mean that you know (or should know) that the touch is likely to occur with a high degree of probability.

Ex.: You shoot a gun into a crowd of people but are not actually trying to hit anyone. However, if you do hit someone the intent element is satisfied because you should know that by firing a gun into a crowd, that bullet is likely to hit (and harm) someone.

Anyway, checking in!

North wrote:Contracts. Independent and Dependent Promises. Why is this distinction important?

North wrote:Contracts. Independent and Dependent Promises. Why is this distinction important? Intuitively, I figure it matters for when you're determining whether there was breach. But it seems lumped together with Conditions syllabus/hornbook wise. What's the deal with these things?

So, so close to finishing this outline. This is holding me up.

Swimp wrote:

North wrote:Contracts. Independent and Dependent Promises. Why is this distinction important? Intuitively, I figure it matters for when you're determining whether there was breach. But it seems lumped together with Conditions syllabus/hornbook wise. What's the deal with these things?

So, so close to finishing this outline. This is holding me up.

One reason why the distinction might be important is in articulating a rationale for enforcing or not enforcing a particular promise.

If π's promise A is dependent on ∆'s promise 1, and ∆ didn't fulfill his side of the bargain, π isn't bound to deliver on his side either.

If, however, π's promise and ∆'s promise are actually independent, π might still be bound.

E.g. Kent v. Jacob & Youngs: Kent contracts with a builder to buy a house. Kent makes a number of stipulations about the way the house should be built, including that all the pipe used in the house must be made by the Reading Co. The builder uses a bunch of different kinds of pipe of equal quality. The court does not exempt Kent from upholding his side of the bargain, because his promise to pay for the builder's work and the builder's promise to use ONLY Reading pipe were independent. The builder's promise to substantially perform (i.e. build the house to reasonably satisfy the specs) and Kent's promise were dependent.