Most difficult 1L topic Forum

[bostonlawchick]

I think though that the difference between something like that and RAP/parol evidence rule is that even though personal jx makes no sense and would be hard to figure out if you were asked to provide a yes/no answer, its not that bad on a law school exam. You just go run the balancing test and do the on the one had on the other style analysis and then say it could go either way. The problem with RAP is that there usually IS a right answer, the contingent interest is either valid or it isn't. Parol evidence is the same way, sometimes its ok, sometimes its not and the situations where that is the case are hard to remember, but its not a could go one way could go the other sort of thing.

I dunno. Maybe it's because I don't have a liberal arts background like a lot of law students, but I find the stuff that has a definite yes or no answer much easier. We didn't do RAP in depth, but I had no real problem with it. Complex, yes, but not hard.

I feel like things like PJ are harder. I had a hell of a time with it on my exam and I'm hoping that doesn't kill me. The concept is easy to understand... the part I found difficult was bringing it all together into a coherent answer because there's the balancing test and then all the different stream of commerce theories, none of which have a majority, and trying to fit them all back together into a framework of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Ugh... I swore to myself I would never type that phrase again, haha.

LOL. Pretentious much?

I was actually saying that because I feel like I have a much harder time with things that are subjective and open ended than most people that took a lot of english/philosophy/poli sci classes. Thanks though.

[AnonymousGunner]

RAP seemed easy to me - create, kill, count. You're done.

For me, I never really got the battle of forms. I just kind of resigned myself to saying "this is the relevant law. Sometimes we use the knockout rule. sometimes the changes become part of the K. sometimes not." Part of it may be that my property prof was better than my K prof.

[Lawof_theLand]

My torts prof. was a law and economics guy, so I'd have to say the Coase theorem. I hated every second of it.

[jarofsoup]

RAP seemed easy to me - create, kill, count. You're done.

For me, I never really got the battle of forms. I just kind of resigned myself to saying "this is the relevant law. Sometimes we use the knockout rule. sometimes the changes become part of the K. sometimes not." Part of it may be that my property prof was better than my K prof.

RAP was just a matter of practice...and a lot of the times it is more important to understand the estates in land analysis.......

[FlanSolo]

I know the thread is referring to topics within courses, but I'll just say that the entire "topic" of Property is the most difficult class of 1L. Obviously, what's "difficult" depends almost entirely on your professor, but all things being equal, virtually every topic covered in Property is a tangled mess of common law based on weird historical artifact. Even Adverse Possession - probably one of the easier topics in Property - has like 17 elements which are all the same thing.

I also just remember starting out by reading Pierson v. Post and the cases that go along with it and being all "ZOMG WTF IS THE EFFING RULE!?" It took me a while to just realize that a lot of Property law is the way it is, because that's the way it is, and you just have to let go.