Pigs and Acorns

This is how we spend a chunk of class time everyday:

Professor’s provide hypothetical situations (hypos) and then ask questions about them. But they ask a specific student to answer the question. There’s only one possibility of this going well. The student has to be

1. Well prepared – read and studied all class material AND


2. Intelligent – or at least thoughtful enough to apply the material to a new set of circumstances AND

The professor must also decide not to stick with the person too long.

There are about twenty ways that this can go wrong. Simply, you can have a brilliant student, who just doesn’t know the material well enough to contort it and apply it to the hypo. Or maybe the guy has studied his ass off, but he just can’t walk up the spiral staircase without a light on. I only wish these were the most common ways that it goes wrong. More likely, the guy is surfing the internet and doesn’t even hear the hypo and has to guess. Even more likely, he will guess wrong and then the professor will allow him to go down the wrong path for five or ten minutes until it is so painfully obvious that the class is laughing at the outrageous far reaching implications of the student’s original answer. Sometimes, the professor will just keep going and going until it is clear that there is no right answer. I’m not sure what you’re supposed to say in that situation, but this week one student said, “That’s a good question” which seemed like a reasonable response to me, but the professor shot back, “Thank you. Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.” This of course brought on a bought of laughter. So I guess we laugh a lot in law school, especially in contracts, but I’m not sure that we aren’t laughing at ourselves and each other.

Really I just wrote this whole blog so that I could share the “Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then” statement. But I think I worked it in quite well. Picture above is of my contracts class. I am going to try to recommit myself to daily blogging even if it’s short.

A week ago Saturday, a headache started to develop. It has been getting steadily worse, with increased snottiness and puffy eyes today. I don't understand why I am sick, since I am no longer a teacher. My head feels like it is going to explode.

Above, Molly scratched through the wires on her cage to the window sill and wall beyond. What was she thinking?
A. If I scratch through the wall, the wires on the cage will miraculously disappear?
B. I'm going to get to that squirrel outside. I'm going to get to that squirrel outside.
C. This will show mom not to put my cage by the window, the wall, or anything else.
D. I know I'm in here because I chewed a lot of stuff up, but I'll show mom I can be just as destructive inside the cage.

There's a New Blog in Town

Last week, on the way to Quinton's, Patrick didn't even know what a blog was and when we tried to explain it to him, he said, "Oh, so they've taken something as impersonal as e-mail and made it even more impersonal?" It made me think, but not that hard.

This week, Patrick, acting as unofficial social chair for section 2, let us all know that section 1 has begun a blog for all the 1L's. So, if you are really bored and you want to go check it out, click here. Then if you are still bored, you can look in the comments section and check out some of the other blogs from other MU Law students. To be honest, I don't know who many of those people are, as they seem to be in section 1, and I am in section 2. But I was working hard enough on avoiding reading my contracts that I checked a few of them out.

I can't believe that FRD is at Bradford Woods. I think it was in the fall of 1999 that I went to Bradford Woods while I was doing my student teaching with Rise. And now FRD is there with her. I can't believe I am missing his sixth grade year. I feel so disconnected. Right now I am sitting in a big lecture hall, waiting for class to begin, again avoiding my contracts readings and he is in the woods, maybe learning how to make a shelter. And many of the rest of you are in your classrooms. If I was there, we would be walking down to the art room right now. (Does everybody really walk on the right side of the hallway now?) Some kid would say something to make me smile or take my hand. I miss spending my days with kids, and sometimes I wonder if that loss is at the heart of a lingering sadness that has been stalking me these past few weeks.

Contracts Beware

Warning to the reader – although this starts as a reasoned and sensible diatribe about my perceived differences between torts and contacts, it quickly digresses into a rant of ridiculous proportions that should be taken with the large grain of salt that rubs my open wounds from hours and hours of reading, studying, living and breathing law school.

In torts we have focused on the intentional torts. These are things like assault, battery, trespass to chattels, trespass to land, and false imprisonment. There is a pretty clear cut rule that lets you know whether something is or is not one of these torts. For example, in most false imprisonment the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant intended to confine him, (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged. Now, there are some slippery things in there. Like what does it mean to INTEND to confine someone? But there is a nice little rule for that too. Intent to confine just means that (1) the defendant acted with the purpose of confining him or (2) the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the confinement would result. If it comes down to trying to determine whether the plaintiff “knew with substantial certainty,” there are two tests that you can do: (1) the subjective test – did this person know with substantial certainty or (2) the objective test – would a reasonable person in the defendant’s position know with substantial certainty. Boom. It’s just like this little tree of logic that you follow out on different branches. It makes sense. Then you are thrown these hypos and you just climb the tree in the direction that is necessary.

Contracts, on the other hand, purports to have the little rules, and the little explanations, and the little branching, but it is really not like that. But instead, some of the rules and explanations just don’t make sense in terms of actual people interacting. Just to make a contract we have to have consideration, offer, and acceptance. And then there are all these weird oddities. Like, was that really an offer? Did both parties assent? For example, one guy made an offer to sell his house as a joke, and told his wife that he was joking. But the other guy believed him, so he was held to have made that offer. Even though he didn’t mentally assent to it, he didn’t make it clear. In another case, the company sent an offer, saying that the agreement would become a contract upon approval by their management. The other company signed their agreement. They were not notified, so they assumed that there was no contract. Oh but wait, the first company did not have to notify them because even though it seemed like they had made the offer, it was really the second company that made the offer, because there was still something the first company had to do (approval of manager) before it became a contract. Therefore, the second company somehow made an “offer” that had the terms in it that the first company did NOT have to notify them, because it clearly stated that it would become a contract upon the approval of the manager – not the approval of the manager and the notification to the second company. Watch it when you sign some company’s forms, you may think you are accepting an offer, but you may really be making an offer with their terms. Or here’s a great one. Person a telegrams person owner of bumper hall: “”Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price – answer paid.” The owner of Bumper Hall Pen sends by telegram the following reply “Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900.” Seems like an offer eh? Nope. Because the owner only answered the second question – “lowest price” and not the first question “will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen?” Just one more – a man offers to sell his land in a letter. At the end of the letter he writes, “This offer to be kept open until Friday.” Then he sells the land to somebody else before Friday. That little promise at the end of the letter is what we call a nudum pactum – that is a NAKED promise, a promise that is not legally enforceable. It is not enforceable because he received nothing in consideration for his promise. Thus, if the guy had given him five bucks to keep the offer open, it would have been a fine and dandy and legally enforceable contract. I could go on and on. I don’t do well when something flies in the face of what seems to be right and just. Maybe I just don’t understand the rules well enough, but it seems like there is a lot of trickiness involved and when non-lawyer types are making their contracts they wouldn’t seem to be aware of all these rules and sub rules and so on and so forth. So – be careful what you sign. If it looks legal it probably is.

Signing off from the land of law---

It's Anne. . . again.

Speaker's Circle

Out the back door of the law school, positioned directly on the walk to the Hitt Street Garage, is an amazing circle. It’s called “Speaker’s Circle” and because of its design, when you speak in the center, your voice can be heard quite clearly for some distance. Since the beginning of school, though, the only voices that have been heard are those of some cultish right wing religious group. (Although my friend the Mormon argues that they are not right wing conservative, I will continue identifying them in this way until I feel otherwise – it being my blog and all). Their preaching reaches far beyond what I consider to be appropriate in normal society. They preach the gospel of hate and intolerance. Sadly, they arrive each day, children in tow, to criticize, ridicule and in other ways demonstrate their intolerance. I find it repulsive. They monopolize an open forum and invade my sense of space and tranquility. On Wednesday I participated in a fabulous mindful mediation group (this law school is truly like no other) and try as I might to concentrate on my breathing, I found the screaming and yelling from the speaker’s circle both distracting and blood boiling.

A few days ago a 2L sent around an e-mail suggesting that perhaps the group’s time of domination should come to an end. Because it was a public space, we could just use it to speak of what was on our mind. I immediately predicted that it would turn into a counter protest and e-mailed my concerns to the 2L. I suggested making sure that we had a focus and clarity to our time in the speaker’s circle to use it in a meaningful but non-responsive way to the preachers. I thought that reading critical literacy books might be such an approach. The 2L invited me to do so.

I arrived shortly after CivPro, Freedom Summer packed snugly into my backpack. I walked out into chaos. I took pictures with my cell phone, but they have not arrived in my inbox yet. The “separate” demonstration had in fact become a counter demonstration. The law students and others stood with their signs, blocking the preacher as he screamed red face beyond them. The religious right reveled in the increased attention, and the law students protested that this is not what they wanted, nor intended. I was disappointed and didn’t even move to join, but stood on the sidelines and watched as an attempt to promote something different turned into just more attention for the same. Slowly, small groups led different discussions, trying to focus on healthcare or education, but the power came from the response to the religious right, not the new speakers.

A friend uncovered that the fanatical group is actually paid to be there by, some sort of wacko conservative group. They travel from campus to campus, inciting the standard brand of intolerance. Although we will be left with out resident preacher, the group will be traveling on next week, coming to a campus near you. My apologies.

I was happy to end this long four day week with a happy hour beer with new friends and good conversation.

Bits and Pieces

Am I the only one apprehensive about W appointing two Supreme Court Justices?

Mike was here for the second weekend in a row, and now we begin another three week hiatus.

My Uncle Jim and Aunt Janice arrived today for a short visit.

I wonder about and miss the kids that were in my classroom last year.

I see the footage from New Orleans and wonder if there is a penny chart, marking off collected money in the hallways of Templeton.

Life peeks it's head between Pennoyer v. Neff, the subjective test for Intent in an intentional tort, the assent of an offer, and the ALWD Legal Citation Manual. I find that I am too busy to nuture this peek at life and it recedes, undernourished, into the recesses of my law school existance.

I ponder the next several days of reading and notetaking, cases and tests of law, and wonder if my law school life is worthy of even unlimited blogging space.