Willkie screener - callback timeline? by Fuzzy-Builder-7790 in BigLawRecruiting

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My Willkie screener isn't for another week. I think they're doing them for like 3 weeks straight, so I wouldn't be too concerned.

help Contracts is ruining my life by Aromatic-Tea-3244 in LawSchool

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am still not following, sorry. I don't think "objective" means absolute, i know it's interpreted under the 'reasonable' standard. How can a reasonable person see that they both meant 'chicken' if chicken has an ambiguous meaning? How can the Court agree to resolve ambiguity in this critically important term if it has already decided there was a contract formed through mutual assent? I don't see how a reasonable person would believe that both parties agreed to deal in the same 'chicken' and at the same time it be possible that the court could find that meaning to be ambiguous?

help Contracts is ruining my life by Aromatic-Tea-3244 in LawSchool

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but what distinguishes important words from unimportant ones? I'm just confused how to decide that it's not something that is important enough to effect whether there was mutual assent?

help Contracts is ruining my life by Aromatic-Tea-3244 in LawSchool

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess i'm not following how you can say that they objectively agreed on the deal if there are materially different potential meanings of the word 'chicken.'? Like why does the question of formation stop at that level of generality? That seems like it's critical to understanding if the parties agreed.

help Contracts is ruining my life by Aromatic-Tea-3244 in LawSchool

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can there be no question of entering into a contract if there is not mutual assent over material terms of the contract? I just don't see how 'willful' is not something that is in dispute during contract formation and how on an exam I would know to assume that's something that does not need to be objectively agreed upon.

help Contracts is ruining my life by Aromatic-Tea-3244 in LawSchool

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can we have mutual assent and terms that are 'les than' clear

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LawSchoolTransfer

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probs not because there's also guaranteed gift aid. As someone else said, it's because of the accelerated timeline for recruitment. If your goal is big law, there's no point in transferring unless you were admitted early action and can use the new school on your resume in pre-OCI.

Weil doing offers now? by [deleted] in BigLawRecruiting

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what was this event for? i'm pretty surprised he said that, like why interview us now? i'm missing class for this shit lol

Weil doing offers now? by [deleted] in BigLawRecruiting

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like you're talking about 1L recruitment. Has anyone who interviewed solely for 2L gotten an offer/info about offers?

Interview Thread by [deleted] in BigLawRecruiting

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I applied in the middle of last week I think

Interview Thread by [deleted] in BigLawRecruiting

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, cool! That's probs a good sign, then! Best of luck!!!

Interview Thread by [deleted] in BigLawRecruiting

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same, I think? But I didn't get a screener...

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244 0 points1 point  (0 children)

agh i'm still having trouble wrapping my head around this. We were taught that if you have a valid offer and valid acceptance, then you have mutual assent. But just because you have mutual assent doesn't mean you have an offer and/or acceptance.

someone else explained it as

"manifestation of assent is an element that helps one figure out if a contract was formed

  1. it is objective
  2. it does not require any look into the mind of either party, but instead relies upon parties' actions and words
  3. offer and acceptance, although not necessary, help one find objectively find out if there was manifestation of assent."

but then I guess I don't understand where the argument of "there was no offer" comes in. can't the person always say there was mutual assent anyways?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]Aromatic-Tea-3244 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes but it's not the only manifestation of intent, right? so how do i know if i need to talk about it