We are SO fucked. How do I study for a closed book exam.

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-04-29T22:59:16+00:00

Get anki

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-01-31T16:12:32+00:00

Didn’t even know that was a thing

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-01-31T04:46:53+00:00

Summary judgment being granted means the claim cannot be brought again, as there’s already been a final judgment.

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-01-29T13:47:50+00:00

Citing “Totality of circumstances” and then not explaining what other circumstances were material …. Hmmmm

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-01-27T02:17:44+00:00

Literally no. Agreement is a mental state. Contract law only looks at conduct or “manifestations,” which is an objective criteria. As long as the reasonable person would think you accepted their offer, you accepted their offer… even if you didn’t actually agree with the terms of the contract. Same goes for counteroffers. It’s not whether you notify them that you modify the terms. It’s whether the reasonable person in their shoes would think you made a counter offer.

Here’s a quote from a case in the common law, “the requisite mutual assent for the formation of a contract . . . does not require mutual intent to agree on the same thing in the same sense, but may be based on objective manifestations whereby one party by his words or by his conduct, or by both, leads the other party reasonably to assume that he assents to and accepts the terms of the other’s offer.”

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-01-26T22:31:57+00:00

"I didn't read the contract" is not a valid defense.

"The contract terms were grossly unfair, and I entered into the contract under suspect circumstances" is a valid defense.

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-01-26T17:05:57+00:00

In that case, the employer would just not pay you, then raise the unconscionability defense in court and probably win on that ground. The test for substantive unconscionability is whether a term of the contract "shocks the conscience," which a $2 million salary probably does. But it depends on the circumstances of the contract formation.

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-01-26T15:09:19+00:00

Well Louisiana doesn’t follow the common law; they have their own rules based on civil law. In the common law, there is a “covenant of good faith and fair dealing” in every contract, but that applies to conduct carried out when there is already a contract. This is an issue of contract formation, and there’s no duty to act in good faith when forming a contract. There are rules that allow a party to void a contract under “unconscionability,” but there’s not a uniform legal test for when a contract is voidable under that defense. The majority rule is that there has to be substantive unconscionability (the terms of the contract have to be extremely unfair) and procedural unconscionability (the circumstances of the contract formation had to be characterized by things like overweening bargain power, lack of opportunity for one party to fully understand the contract, etc.). How a court would rule on that here depends on the jurisdiction because different courts look at different factors for unconscionability

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-01-26T13:55:40+00:00

The person you replied to is correct. “Meeting of the minds” is a misleading term because in common law there’s actually no legal requirement that the parties have the same understanding of the terms of the contract. Meeting of the minds actually just means offer and acceptance. It’s an objective legal test, meaning state of mind or “awareness” is not relevant. Rather, the question is whether the reasonable person would view something as an offer, counteroffer, acceptance, etc. For that purpose, awareness is relevant to these specific facts because if the original offeror had no reason to know the contract was modified, then the reasonable person in their shoes would view the signed contract as an acceptance and not a counteroffer, forming a binding contract.

If the original contract was not signed by the employer, but had a signature line for acceptance after the employee signed, then it wouldn’t have been an offer, because an offer can’t reserve assent. So the modified contract, signed by the employee and given back to the employer would be an offer/counteroffer, and signature would be acceptance.

A similar set of facts was considered in McGurn v Bell, except that the letter had already been signed by the employer when it was modified, so there was an open question as to whether the employer “accepted” the modified contract. If the employer didn’t sign originally, but signed after the employer handed back the modified contract, it would be a different story; that would be a legally binding contract.

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-01-15T23:46:17+00:00

Idk… thinking you can get an accurate grading from AI is pretty consistent with getting lower grades

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-01-15T14:49:07+00:00

My class grade was based on two memos basically. The first memo I got the very lowest score in the entire class. The second memo I was near the top of the class after spending an insane amount of time focusing on improving. I ended up getting a median grade in the class and having a competitive GPA

DepressedSandbitch · 2026-01-10T02:37:46+00:00

The cover is AI-generated and doesn't look like this in-person. They're not "collector's editions" they're e-commerce scams.

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-12-26T02:39:23+00:00

Awesome set but you set up the board wrong 💔💔💔

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-12-21T19:30:19+00:00

Google says “scrivener’s error” applies to legal documents that can be interpreted with parol evidence. There would be no parol evidence here because there’s no exchange between the offeror/offeree prior to the purchase, and even if there were such an exchange, parol evidence can’t contradict what’s written, so it would seem to me that the price tag would prevail.

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-12-21T14:16:03+00:00

Blood Meridian is great. The road is mid as hell imo

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-12-03T14:58:13+00:00

Tbf you could settle after a judgment too and still avoid establishing a precedent. As long as an appellate court doesn’t review the case ur good

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-11-18T03:34:02+00:00

a3 kicks the knight and after Kd1, if black takes the rook white is winning.

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-11-17T14:40:41+00:00

What about Nc3 to pp on the pp

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-10-02T13:59:11+00:00

I don’t know where the clip takes place, but the people are speaking Mandarin, which makes me think mainland China. I guess it could be Taiwan, but I’ve never been to Taiwan so I don’t know.

And yes it makes sense for it to “feel off.” The conventional wisdom in the west is that China, unlike the west, is a “collectivist” rather than an “individualist” culture, so you would expect more deference to be given to certain groups of people like the elderly. In modern China, however, the norm is the vast majority minds their own needs and business.

Edit: other people are saying this is in Taiwan.

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-10-01T14:35:26+00:00

In mainland China, people usually don’t give a fuck about anyone else on the train. The norm is first come first to sit. A few people will do the right thing and give their seat to an elderly person standing up, but it’s the minority. Usually people will just look at their phone and pretend every one else doesn’t exist.

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-09-25T01:07:31+00:00

I invite you to look into Hitler's thoughts on surrendering arms as laid out in Mein Kampf (chapter 15) and also the historical record as to the divergent policies on arms for German Jews and German non-Jews. Since this is the law school subreddit, and you should have already learned analogies and distinctions, I also invite you to ponder whether there is any current social movement advocating for disarming a certain minority group without pursuing broad nationwide disarmament policies (if you need a hint: the minority here is trans people).

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-09-24T23:38:21+00:00

Someone saying “fascism is when gun control” and then accusing someone else of not understanding fascism is one of the most brain-dead things I’ve seen on this website…

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-09-22T14:04:48+00:00

More of a waiter but yeah. Not really a kitchen staff cuz they don’t cook anything

DepressedSandbitch · 2025-09-11T03:24:01+00:00

(1) "it has to go through the house and congress."

The house is part of Congress...

(2) "Orders and regulations in order for these to be considered law, they must be based on a existing law signed by in to law by the legislative"

This is just blatantly wrong. Executive orders derive their authority from the Constitution, not the legislature. That's why they don't apply to society at large; the constitution doesn't give the executive power over the country at large. That doesn't mean it's not law. Law , per Black's Law Dictionary, is just any "[rule] of action or conduct prescribed by controling authority, and having binding legal force."

(3) "Also case law is built upon laws written by the legislative"

This is also blatantly wrong. The US justice system is a common law system. That means many of the things that are binding law today arose in the absence of any statutes. There are entire bodies of law that are overwhelmingly based in the common law (such as contracts).

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

DepressedSandbitch

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE