![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojWoo-hoo!! I'm DONE CONTRACTS!!!
I have no idea how I did. Wrote frantically and disorganizedly for three hours, then walked out. I wish I could've had lunch with Val and Virve - well, with Val, anyway - but they're both compulsive post-exam worriers. "What did you say for question 3a? Did you say Plummer could use estoppel? Because he couldn't get the statements admitted under the Parol Evidence Rule..."
I will never understand this need. One of the real perks to finishing a final exam is never having to worry about the nitpicky parts of the subject again. Why deprive yourself of that one glory?
The only thing I care about after an exam is how well I did. I definitely picked up a whole lot of legal issues from the facts, and explicitly tied them to the facts. The prof had said that my biggest problem on the Christmas exam was that I obviously knew the law, but I didn't tie it in. "Don't just tell me he can get punitive but not aggravated damages; tell me he can't get aggravated because he has no medical evidence of distress."
So on this one, I tied in every single legal point to a fact. "There was mistake as to terms because Jen thought window treatments meant the curtains, and Isabelle thought they meant the curtains and window seat coverings." "The penalty clause was disproportionate in that the contract was worth $1M and the penalty clause was $2.5M." I may have gone a liiittle overboard on this, actually.
The only thing I didn't much like was that I was utterly disorganized. It's hard to squish complex fact situations into a clear, linear analysis in Contracts. At least, it is for me. In other classes I'm able to clearly go through steps 1 through 10 or whatever. In Contracts? Step 1, and then step 3 because step 2 isn't relevant to this situation and I don't have time but then step 1 again because based on the result of step 3 something else becomes important in 1 and then 4 but no wait, 2 is suddenly relevant and... where was I?
Whatever. Hopefully that won't cost me too many marks. And, most importantly: for good or bad, it's done. Done, done, done.
Oh, and small funny: two of our clients were a young couple named Ben and Jen Afflo. Not as funny as last year's exam, which featured business problems between the Ottawa Parliamentarians and the Toronto Maple Buds, over the Sorel Centre and Sky Dominion stadiums.
You probably have to be an Ontarian to get that ;)
And now I'm off to eat my veggie lasagna, and then back to the grind. My Legislation paper is due on Monday and all of a sudden I feel like writing some subtle snark about corporate liability ;)
I have no idea how I did. Wrote frantically and disorganizedly for three hours, then walked out. I wish I could've had lunch with Val and Virve - well, with Val, anyway - but they're both compulsive post-exam worriers. "What did you say for question 3a? Did you say Plummer could use estoppel? Because he couldn't get the statements admitted under the Parol Evidence Rule..."
I will never understand this need. One of the real perks to finishing a final exam is never having to worry about the nitpicky parts of the subject again. Why deprive yourself of that one glory?
The only thing I care about after an exam is how well I did. I definitely picked up a whole lot of legal issues from the facts, and explicitly tied them to the facts. The prof had said that my biggest problem on the Christmas exam was that I obviously knew the law, but I didn't tie it in. "Don't just tell me he can get punitive but not aggravated damages; tell me he can't get aggravated because he has no medical evidence of distress."
So on this one, I tied in every single legal point to a fact. "There was mistake as to terms because Jen thought window treatments meant the curtains, and Isabelle thought they meant the curtains and window seat coverings." "The penalty clause was disproportionate in that the contract was worth $1M and the penalty clause was $2.5M." I may have gone a liiittle overboard on this, actually.
The only thing I didn't much like was that I was utterly disorganized. It's hard to squish complex fact situations into a clear, linear analysis in Contracts. At least, it is for me. In other classes I'm able to clearly go through steps 1 through 10 or whatever. In Contracts? Step 1, and then step 3 because step 2 isn't relevant to this situation and I don't have time but then step 1 again because based on the result of step 3 something else becomes important in 1 and then 4 but no wait, 2 is suddenly relevant and... where was I?
Whatever. Hopefully that won't cost me too many marks. And, most importantly: for good or bad, it's done. Done, done, done.
Oh, and small funny: two of our clients were a young couple named Ben and Jen Afflo. Not as funny as last year's exam, which featured business problems between the Ottawa Parliamentarians and the Toronto Maple Buds, over the Sorel Centre and Sky Dominion stadiums.
You probably have to be an Ontarian to get that ;)
And now I'm off to eat my veggie lasagna, and then back to the grind. My Legislation paper is due on Monday and all of a sudden I feel like writing some subtle snark about corporate liability ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-15 10:59 am (UTC)I came back to ask another question about the parking lot thingy and what makes an implied contract (key exchange or money exchange or both?) - but it may fall into that nitpicky part so please feel free to ignore!
no subject
Date: 2004-04-15 11:07 am (UTC)Nah, see, this has more to do with Property than Contracts, so I'm not averse to doing nitpicks ;)
To have a bailment, you have to have possession of an object (car) transferred from one person (bailor, Heffron) to another (bailee, parking lot).
There can be all sorts of reasons for a bailment. They can be for the benefit of the bailor (eg I leave my backpack with you while I go to the WC, so I won't have to carry it), or the benefit of the bailee (I lend you my cell phone so you can call someone), or both (Heffron gets to leave his car someplace and the parking lot gets money).
The important thing to prove there's bailment is that control of the object has been transferred. For the backpack and cell phone, it's enough that the bailee is physically holding them. For the car, the bailee has to have the means to control the object: the keys.
Money exchanged doesn't much matter when determining if there is a bailment. It only matters if there's a problem and you're assessing damages.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-15 11:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-15 11:17 am (UTC)Now, on to the serious stuff! Fic!
er - uh - I don't think I said that out loud, did I?
no subject
Date: 2004-04-15 11:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-15 01:32 pm (UTC)::happy dance::
Can you come out and play now?
;-)
Yay!
Date: 2004-04-15 08:09 pm (UTC)I'll never forget getting the contracts question in the bar exam and getting halfway through my answer before I remembered Statute of Frauds needed to be addressed...sigh.
My Contracts in law school? Great teacher, and he used Lord of the Rings characters for our exam question :-)
Snark away on corporate liability!