xtitsx: (Default)
( 20 Feb 2017 12:57 pm)
Tuesday:
in Property on Tuesday we continued talking about all the ways people can own property together; joint tenancy, tenants in common and tenancy-by-the-entireties.
in a joint tenancy and tenancy-by-the-entireties, the parties are considered to be one unit [with tenancy-by-the-entireties being solely for married people.]
as opposed to tenants in common, which is where the law recognizes the property holders as being two distinct units.
to have a joint tenancy or a tenancy-by-the-entireties, you must have Four Unities, unity of time, unity of title, unity of interest and unity of possession.
which sounds like the plot of a Japanese cartoon series, or some Maoist propaganda, but apparently it's a real thing.
in sure, all people who poses property together must do so or the same time, under the same title, in equal proportions and all parties actively living on the land.
if any one of the Four Unities ceases, a joint-tenancy or a tenancy-by-the-entireties devolves into tenants in common.

after class, i walked from my regular seat in Property to my regular seat in Legal Writing II which happens in the same room.
en route, a girl looked at the TITS sticker on my laptop -or the TITS patch on my pants, or maybe my bag that has TITS stitched all over the lining, or maybe she's seen my car the TITSwagon, or the two tattoos i have that say TITS, or the PSE's lip or the Monster's collar- and she asked “okay, man, what the fuck, already?”
i don't think she used those exact words, but that was her sentiment.
“what's up with TITS? is it the word? is it what it represents?”
how the fuck do i answer that?
it's kind of a shitty thing asking somebody to justify themselves.
the girl wasn't trying to be a dick, i know her and i like her, and, sure, i get it, a grown-ass man in Law School writing “TITS” all over their stuff is kinda weird, but nobody ever sounds cool explaining themselves.
you're putting me in a position, here.
finally i told the girl “you've just got to go with it...”
she tried to re-frame her question a few more times, “no, really, man, what the fuck is your problem...” but i just kept stonewalling her with the same unsatisfying answer i've been giving every asshole who's asked since the sixth grade.
if i was being honest i would say it's one part a desperate attempt to be interesting, one part being an overweight preteen and three parts inertia, but i didn't feel like being honest
“i'll figure you out one of these days...” the girl said.
i told her to keep me in the loop.

in Legal Writing II we talked about client letters and demand letters.
this was the first time in either Legal Writing I or II, and maybe only the fourth or fifth time in my entire Law School career that we've done anything interesting.
demand letters are, like, forty percent of the reason i came to Law School.
when i imagine my future as a practicing attorney, i imagine myself sending off letters to every corporation in the phone book demanding a few hundred dollars for some imagined grievance or another.
“fuck you, pay me or i'll sue you!”
i'm pretty good at demand letters already, i've been writing them since i was a teenager.
you might ask “then why the fuck go to Law School then?” and i guess the answer is 'for the letterhead.'
to make my petty extortion all that much more official-looking.

after Legal Writing it was time for Academic Support.
only instead of having our regular small-group hang-out-for-an-hour-while-some-Second-Years-talk-at-us-about-nothing sessions, this time the entire First Year class met in the assembly hall for a group meeting.
the head of the Academic Support department talked to us first about how to pick classes for next year, [Second Years are not all required to take the same classes like First Years are] then, about a change in how Academic Support would be run going forward.
instead of meeting in our small groups once a week, the Second Year T.A.s were now going to start giving talks on different subjects and we can pick and choose which ones to go to.
i am thinking of not going to any.
the only thing i like about Academic Support [and there isn't much] is the opportunity to hang out with my small group-mates.
if we're all gonna be scattered in different classrooms doing different things with different people, i might as well use the hour to do homework or write LiveJournals or have lunch with the PSE.
last semester they gave us the impression that Academic Support was mandatory but, this semester i don't think it is.
as is the custom at large-group meetings, there was food.
i grabbed myself two slices of Pappa John's sausage pizza at the beginning of the meeting and then another three at the end.
i ended up taking one slice home for the PSE, because it was Valentine's Day.

in Contracts we talked about the Uniform Commercial Code for a while.
specifically, about how, when you're talking about contracts for the sale of goods, which is where the UCC controls, there is a significant change from the Common Law.
under the Common Law, you have what's called the mirror-image rule.
an offer must be accepted exactly as it was offered.
the UCC changes that for reasons that don't make a lot of sense to where an offer and an acceptance can now differ on certain things, so long as the main issues are in agreement.
this leads to The Battle Of The Forms, which is a huge deal in contract law where both parties to a deal try to screw each other over by inserting all linds of clauses in fine print on the back of shipping orders or whatever that say “if anything goes wrong, it's entirely your fault!”
then the other party will send another form hidden in the bottom of a box somewhere that reads “no, cunt, it's entirely your fault, and we take your lack of response to this notice as an acknowledgment and agreement therein.”
this will go on back and forth and if and when the parties do ever appear before a court, a Judge then has to figure out what parts of the deal are still in effect and what is just, in essence, babble, that the parties were engaging in.
things that are not in dispute get to stay in and are considered additions to the contract.
things where the parties have both issued differing directives knock each other out and it's up to the Judge to cobble together a contract out of what remains.
that's fucking dumb.
then i zoned out for a while.
when i came back to it, my classmates were arguing with the Professor about all the ways a coffee table is different from a truck and all the ways that it is similar.
i checked back out until the end of the day.

//[ab irato ad astra]
.

July 2017

S M T W T F S
       1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26272829
3031