Posts Tagged ‘Well Mannered Frivolity’
Fantastic
“Finally, if the language of the contract is to be construed as broadly as defendant urges to encompass the presence of poltergeists in the house, it cannot be said that she has delivered the premises “vacant” in accordance with her obligation under the provisions of the contract rider.”
169 A.D.2d 254, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672
Screaming Obscenities
So, over the past 2 days, I’ve been attempting to keep my mouth shut in class about the parol evidence rule. The idea behind it is that you don’t allow outside evidence regarding the terms of a contract when the contract has been written in clear, precise terms. You do allow it in some situations such as if there are ambiguities in the contractual terms, etc. This is largely to protect the enforceability of the contract – outside evidence alters the view of the contract from the cut and dry plain meaning of the words to interpretation based on testimony, etc.
At some point, we began discussing the evolution of the law, and how more and more parol evidence is eventually making it into cases through the liberalization of the interpretation process. Some legal scholars are thinking that all evidence should be allowed in, and then let the jury sift through it.
That was first brought up yesterday, I was tired, cranky, and just – unhappy. I managed to abstain from saying anything stupid.
Today, the professor brought it up again, and I was unable to refrain from a sneer and an eye-roll. As fate would have it, my professor saw my reaction, and asked for my thoughts.
This is how it happened:
“Mr. O’Hara, you seem to have an opinion of dismissing the parol evidence rule”
*I put my hands up in the air in a concilliatory manner*
“Ma’am, I don’t want to say anything inflammatory”
“Oh, come on, Mr. O’Hara, law school is the time to have strong, outrageous beliefs!” – At this point in the semester, she knows she can count on me for something entertaining, because I rarely tow the new age-liberal interpretations of the law.
*I sigh in defeat*
“Alright, well, I just don’t think that giving the jury too much to work with is smart. It took me 5 weeks to figure out the difference of ‘meeting of the minds’ versus ‘manifestation of intent’, and how to apply it. Do you really think the juries going to be able to? They’re going to sympathize with a sob story, and the fact that every term and condition was spelled out with precision in the contract will have no weight. Why even have a contract in the first place then, when there can be no reliance that the terms will be upheld in court??”
*Class kind of goes silent for a little while, as they mull over the fact that I just called juries stupid/incompetent
*Professor looks at me with an amused expression, says I have a good point, and moves on to the next person.
What’s funny is that once I broke the dam, all of a sudden a bunch of people thought it would make sense to have stricter rules as to what was admissible, and I think one person actually explicitly said that juries were stupid. Law school ain’t so bad!
Well Mannered Frivolity
From my casebook, describing a plaintiff who brought a really complicated, international suit in a rural Texas court in an attempt to pull one over on the defendants. My favorite part is the end, where the judge describes his reading skills :
In the second case, Republic of Bolivia v. Phillip Morris Co (1999), Bolivia had filed suit in Brazoria Country, Texas (a county with a reputaion as being pro-plaintiff) against a group of US tobacco companies. The case was removed to federal court and the court granted the defendants’ motion for 1404(a) transfer to the District of Columbia.
The Court can hardly imagine why the Republic of Bolivia elected to file suit in the veritable hinterlnds of Brazoria County, Texas. The Court seriously doubts whether Brazoria County has ever seen a live Bolivian even on the Discovery Channel. Though only here by removal, this humble Court by the sea is certainly flattered by what must be the worldwide renown of rural Texas courts for dispensing justice with unparralleled fairness and alacrity, apparently in common discussion even on the mountain peaks of Bolivia! Still, the Court would be remiss in accepting an obligation for which it truly does not have the necessary resources. And, while Galveston is indeed and international seaport, the capacity of this Court to address the complex and sophisticated issues of internation and foreign relations presented by this case is dwarfed by that of its esteemed colleages in the District of Columbia who deftly address such awesome tasks as a matter of course. Such a Bench, well-populated with genuinely renowned intellects, can certainly better bear and share the burden of multi-district litigation than this single judge division, where the judge moves his lips when he reads.
Hunt me some grey wolf with a side of grizzley
Veto – In response to our Endangered Species Act Memo:
“Man, all this reading about the Endangered Species Act makes me want to go out and hunt me some endangered grey wolf with a side of grizzley.”
I’m starting to think the overall liberal flair of law school is making some people see the stupidity of it.
Artistic Renditions
One night at Quigley’s a few of us got bored and started drawing famous judges. Below is Brennan, smoking weed, and stomping on the Constitution (Framers Intent)
This is Justice Scalia, or Peter Griffen depending on the lighting.
The coup de grace of the night was Judge Learned Hand (best name ever).
Note to self:
Don’t suck at law.
Robert E. RANDAZZO v. EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.
“Plaintiff’s counsel, apparently laboring under the impression that I am not dealing with a full deck and that my knowledge of diversity requirements is about equal to that of a low-grade moron, chose to disregard the directional signals posted in my memorandum. Counsel brazenly, discourteously, defiantly, arrogantly, insultingly and under the circumstances rather obtusely threw back into my face the very allegations I had held insufficient by reiterating and incorporating those same crippled paragraphs. The so-called “amended complaint” itself cheekily informs me that these paragraphs allege the states of incorporation or (emphasis added) principal places of business of the defendant corporations. Of course, any law school student knows that both the state of incorporation and principal place of business must be diverse, but I suppose I can hardly expect any more from counsel whose familiarity with Title 28 U.S.C. 1332 could be no more than a friendly wave from a distance visible only through a powerful telescope.”
More Proof Justice Scalia is a God.
This is worth the read – Scalia writes the dissenting opinion arguing that Casey Martin (handicap golfer) shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the PGA. His dissent was basically based on his belief that the Supreme Court shouldn’t even be hearing the case (he maintains there were tons of procedural reasons it never should have gone this far, and says so in the opinion). The best part, is when he says
“The answer, we learn, is yes.” – as if the other Justices are letting him in on a big secret.
Either way, I couldn’t help from laughing out load in the basement of the Pentagon when I read this case. I LOVE SCALIA!!!!!!!
PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001)
If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf – and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point – then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this August Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf.
Contracts and P. Diddy
Most ridiculous mnemonic I’ve run into so far in law school:
DSQQWPP – “ducks say quack quack when passing people.”
I believe that this stands for “duration, subject matter, quality, quantity, work to be done, price and payment.”
I also believe that these are supposed to be requisite in order to have mutual assent between parties in a contractual agreement. But then again class is such a haze that I might imagined all of that, including the part about the ducks. Honestly, that almost seems more likely.
From the Blum “Examples and Explanations”, page 78. I think this was an attempt at humor.
“Instead of authorizing acceptance in the form of words, the offeror could demand a nonverbal signification of acceptance. The offer could state, for example ‘I offer to sell you Bleakacre for $2 Million. If you wish to accept this offer, you must stand in your underwear at the corner of Main and Broadway at 2 P.M. today. This is the only way that you may accept this offer.’ By performing the act, the offeree signifies assent and impliedly promises to perform the consideration (payment of $2 Million) demanded in the offer.”
In other news, P. Diddy is complaining about gas prices on his Youtube blog. Apparently, he is beginning to find it cost ineffective to fly his private jet everywhere, and is now reverting back to commercial airlines. And I quote:
“I want to give a shout out to all my Saudi Arabian brothers and sisters and all my brothers and sisters from all the countries that have oil, if you could all please send me some oil for my jet I would truly appreciate it.”
Excerpts from Google Chat
Adding to the Divorce Rate
Shamelessly ganked from ATL.
And another
Heh. Heh. Heh.
Class Notes:
A lot of times we have individuals in the class who like to flex their mental muscles out loud by proposing outrageous hypotheticals using the principles that we’re learning. This is a highly annoying action that holds up the class and causes a significant amounts of eye rolling from offended classmates. However, occasionally someone will rise to the challenge and end a hypo with a succinct statement that causes clear finality.
EXAMPLE:
Gunner: But why did they only sue Pittston? Clearly both entities were at fault. Buffalo Creek Mining Co had some of the fault, and so did the parent company Pittston.
Student 1: Because Pittston has all the money
Gunner: But why didn’t they sue Buffalo Creek Mining Co too? It’s a matter of…. (about to launch on long hypothetical argument that has nothing to do with where we’re going in the class)
Veto (girl who sits behind me): Because PITTSTON, has all the MONEY. *glare*
Gunner: Oh.
Well done Veto!
As of right now, Veto is really the only one who’s stepped up (though mostly through Tourette Syndrome apparently) and put these offending individuals in their place.
I, for one, recommit myself to do my part in stopping this epidemic.
