in Property on Tuesday morning, 8:30 to 10:20am, we talked about a book the Professor had us read called The Mystery of Capital by some Peruvian Economist.
i ended up having to write a book report on it, so i'll just go ahead and post that on Thursday, i guess.
stay tuned.

in Legal Writing II on Tuesday morning from 10:30 to 11:45 we had an exam.
the MPT, the Multistate Performance Test, which is a timed writing activity that will be on the Bar Exam two and a half [or, for me, three and a half] years from now.
but, the Law School wants us to do well on that so they get us practicing for it now, in our second semester.
and, to make sure we take it seriously, the practice MPT is worth ten percent of our Legal Writing II grade.
i shat in my pants.

we spent the week previous in Legal Writing talking about strategies for how to approach the MPT.
our Professor gave us a practice one to do, which i did, then put up four or five more on the class website to practice with over the weekend.
i only did one, because i am a seemingly-fatal combination of cocky and lazy. more lazy then cocky. 80/20 at this point.
mostly, Law School is just so overwhelming that i just don't have the time for any work that isn't mandatory.
so, late Monday night i did one MPT practice and i guess i did alright.
then, Tuesday morning rolls around, we pile into class and spread out across the room.
we set up our laptop computers, open up Electronic Blue Book and the Professor passes out envelopes with our assignments.
he hits the Start button on the countdown clock at the front of the room, 75 minutes start ticking away, and we all tear into our assigning memos.
a fact pattern we are presented with is about copyright law, about a lady who draws a cartoon mascot for a company and whether or not she owns the right to it or she does.
it comes down to whether she was doing work-for-hire [she was] and, then, what rights she can assign to the company and what she keeps for herself.
to deal with this problem, we were given a state statute, two precedent cases, and different depositions from the hypothetical client an the hypothetical company she is suing.
maybe sixteen pages worth of documents in total.
then we had to address two separate issues, -whether the make-pretend client owned the copyright and what rights she can assign- and write a CREAC for each, Conclusion, Rule, Explanation of the rule, Application of the rule and Conclusion again.
if i'm lucky, i got through seventy-five percent of the assignment for the first section and twenty-five percent of the second.
that's assuming i was even on the right track with either section. it's entirely possible i missed one or both points entirely.

this was not a power-test, this was not an impossible mission where the job was for us to get as much as we could.
we were supposed to have been able to complete the entire assignment, both sections, and had time to polish it up and make it look pretty.
i failed.
one of the reasons for my profound, stinking failure is that Electronic Blue Book does not allow for Copy and Paste.
copying and pasting is a huge part of my writing technique.
if you can't move sections around to where they make more sense, then you've got to devote a whole lot more of your time to the way things are supposed to look before you even write them.
i do not work that way.
i ended up spending way too much of my precious time writing out rules and then having to write them out again, and again because i couldn't just copy them from the first time i wrote them.
don't get me wrong, a lot of my problem is that i'm just a shitty law student, but, Electronic Blue Book's limitations didn't help me any.

the clock ran out on our MPTs a little after 11:45am.
at noon, i was supposed to meet the Dean for lunch, but that did not happen.
a few weeks ago, out of nowhere, the Dean passed around some sign-up sheets for anybody who wanted to join him for lunch.
he likes to get to know his students, i guess.
i figured, sure, i like talking to people, so i wrote my name down in one of the four slots available for Tuesday afternoon.
i had no idea what me and the Dean and three of my peers would have to say to each other for an hour, i sure-as-shit did not want to talk about property, but i was fairly confident i would be able to carry the appointment with my usual charm.
i was more curious about whether or not lunch would be provided or if this would be more about us just eating our own lunches near each other.
anyways, the point was moot [i think] when, Monday afternoon one of the other kids who signed up for my lunch slot e-mailed the Dean's secretary, CCing me, saying “so, three of us can't make lunch. i don't know about TITS...”
the Dean's secretary said they could go ahead and reschedule for sometime later in the month.
nothing was said about what i was supposed to do.
do i just turn up at the Dean's office and make him have lunch with me just the two of us?
the other kids' appointment was for a Wednesday. i'm not on campus on Wednesdays and i'll be goddamned if i'm gonna make a special trip.
i figured the Dean would say something in class about how to proceed, but he didn't.
i ended up just going down to the library to do some work and eat a peanut butter and jelly and banana sandwich the PSE packed for me in my lunch sack just in case.
i hope i didn't stand the Dean up. i hope he didn't have to eat his lunch alone. that would be sad.
thanks a lot for putting me in this unnecessarily-complicated situation, classmates.
i don't know what the fuck else you had to do Tuesday lunchtime, but you really fucked me over.

in Contracts from 1:30 to 3:20 on Tuesday afternoon we talked about assent-based defenses to contracts; fraud and misrepresentation, duress, undue influence and mistake.
we talked about a Misrepresentation case where a guy wanted to ship $15,000 from Delaware to London via DHL, but DHL doesn't let you ship money so he said they were “documents pertaining to school bills...”
of course, the package went missing and the guy tried to collect the maximum $10,000 in insurance he bought for the package, but DHL wouldn't pay up.
DHL got summary judgment from the lower courts but the high court of Deleware overturned, saying that whether or not DHL was actually duped by the misrepresentation is a matter for the jury.
it's not enough for one party to misrepresent something in a contract, the other party has to believe it and act on it or that contract to be void.
with Duress, we talked about a case where a lady's husband abused her verbally and physically to get her to co-sign on a mortgage.
when they defaulted, the lady tried to get out of the contract because she was coerced into signing it but the Court holds duress very narrowly and because it wasn't the mortgage company beating the woman into signing her note, because she had an opportunity to let the Loan Officer that she was being forced to sign it against her will, she was still on the hook.
her abusive husband, of course, had already declared bankruptcy so it wasn't his problem.
then we had two cases about Mistake.
in the first, a lady sold a rock to a jeweler that turned out to be worth 700 times what she paid for it.
the court decided that because neither she nor the jeweler knew the true value of the rock at the time of the transaction, it was a fair deal.
in another, a guy tried to buy a cow from somebody for meat but, when it came time to turn the cow over, it turned out she was pregnant.
it was assumed by both parties that the cow was barren so it was sold for much less.
the Court decided that, a cow that can breed is a substantively different thing from a cow that is baron, so, both parties were mistaken and the contract was invalid.
in the first case, a rock is a rock is a rock.
this is what we do in Law School all day long, parse rocks from rocks, pregnant cows from barren cows.
presumably this will be very useful to us one day when we are in practice, but i can't imagine how.

//[ab irato ad astra]

July 2017

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