. Forum

[DJM]

Can someone please explain adequate assurances for contracts? When to get them? Why not just wait and sue when they breach? And whatever else I should know about them?

adequate assurances is a required step for anticipatory repudiation aka anticipatory breach. You don't want to wait and sue because litigation is expensive and drawn out. If I promise to buy a box of apples from you but I'm shady as hell and the check for my down payment of the apples bounced, do you still want to hand me over your box of apples so you can wait and see, or would you rather try for anticipatory repudiation - get out of having to give me the box, and then still have the opportunity to sell that box to someone else?

You also need a reason to request them - In this example the check bounced, but you can't just randomly request them IIRC. The other party HAS to be acting shady.

perfect thanks pancakes and gray!

[03282016]

[unsweetened]

building my torts outline completely from scratch might have been a bad idea. I will be that guy that finishes the night before the exam

[pancakes3]

building my torts outline completely from scratch might have been a bad idea. I will be that guy that finishes the night before the exam

Not just you bro. We are legion.

[rnoodles]

building my torts outline completely from scratch might have been a bad idea. I will be that guy that finishes the night before the exam

you're not alone, trust me

[NoBladesNoBows]

[Hikikomorist]

.

[Big Red]

i kinda have my own outline, but also i kinda don't have my own outline because it's gotten some cosmetic transplants from the more organizationally endowed

[03282016]

[Hand]

Yeah I reworked old outlines, drawing on my class notes. Would not call them "mega," at least as far as length in concerned, as they range from 15 to 25 pp a piece, although they are mega-awesome, just like me

[Minnietron]

Yeah I reworked old outlines, drawing on my class notes. Would not call them "mega," at least as far as length in concerned, as they range from 15 to 25 pp a piece, although they are mega-awesome, just like me

Express warranty or puffery? Regarding you or the outline. Your choice, which will significantly expand upon character development.

[radio1nowhere]

It's not the size of the outline, it's the motion of the ocean. Right guys

[Gray]

.

[DJM]

Yeah I reworked old outlines, drawing on my class notes. Would not call them "mega," at least as far as length in concerned, as they range from 15 to 25 pp a piece, although they are mega-awesome, just like me

Express warranty or puffery? Regarding you or the outline. Your choice, which will significantly expand upon character development.

Mega awesome sounds like puffing but I'm headed for an F- in contracts so IDK.

Gray if you're getting an F- in contracts I might remove your assurances from my outline

... Jk thanks

[Gray]

.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

the prima facie case for battery is act, intent, causation, injury.
for the causation part, you have to prove both actual and proximate cause right? are there any causation rules governing IT specifically like there are for negligence?

[Big Red]

the prima facie case for battery is act, intent, causation, injury.
for the causation part, you have to prove both actual and proximate cause right? are there any causation rules governing IT specifically like there are for negligence?

proximate cause is less of an issue in intentional tort, you are usually liable for all of the harms, even those that are unforeseeable, that result from the battery

there's obviously a limit though, D is not liable for burn damages to P that occurred after a punch to the dome put him in the hospital, which then burned down

[buckiguy_sucks]

the prima facie case for battery is act, intent, causation, injury.
for the causation part, you have to prove both actual and proximate cause right? are there any causation rules governing IT specifically like there are for negligence?

????
The elements of battery are 1) intent 2) harmful or offensive contact

I have no idea what you're talking about

[Big Red]

re: actual cause, I'm having trouble thinking of a battery that isn't also an actual cause, since touching, even of the 'extended personality' is a necessary element?

[Big Red]

the prima facie case for battery is act, intent, causation, injury.
for the causation part, you have to prove both actual and proximate cause right? are there any causation rules governing IT specifically like there are for negligence?

????
The elements of battery are 1) intent 2) harmful or offensive contact

I have no idea what you're talking about

my understanding was that you can recover nominal damages for battery in a case in which the PF elements are met (1+2 of above), even if you can't prove a harm

[buckiguy_sucks]

my understanding was that you can recover nominal damages for battery in a case in which the PF elements are met (1+2 of above), even if you can't prove a harm

Yeah that's why it's harmful OR offensive

So that the dude holding the plate can still recover against the racist hotel worker

[NoBladesNoBows]

[Joscellin]

the prima facie case for battery is act, intent, causation, injury.
for the causation part, you have to prove both actual and proximate cause right? are there any causation rules governing IT specifically like there are for negligence?

????
The elements of battery are 1) intent 2) harmful or offensive contact

I have no idea what you're talking about

Uhhhh you need causation and damages to make a prima facie case for any tort, which definitely includes battery. Intent does come before action though. Intent, action, causation, damages. But yea as Big Red said, the bar for establishing causation with an intentional tort is much lower than with negligence, but unlike what Big Red said I believe that actually the batterer would be liable for damages due to the hypothetical hospital fire, unless the fire was started due to someone else's gross negligence or wanton recklessness, providing the defendant with a defense of superseding cause. My last post goes into a little more detail. But yea otherwise I'm pretty sure batterer is liable, cause someone has to be, and it's certainly more his fault than anyone else's (again assuming fire didn't burn down due to anyone else's gross negligence). See "eggshell skull" rule, Vosburg v. Putney, White v. University of Idaho, etc.

ETA: causation would be highly unlikely to be found for negligence in the hospital fire case, but again with intentional torts it's different.

Second ETA: I think the misunderstanding here is in the difference between the definition of battery and the elements of a prima facie case for. The strict definition of battery (as per Restatement) is just intent and action, but to bring a case obviously you have to be seeking damages caused by the tort you're alleging.

No element for injury, you're entitled to nominal damages in the event of any battery. I mean, it would be dumb to sue for the $1 or whatever you might get as nominal, but it's possible.

[NoBladesNoBows]

[NoBladesNoBows]