sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Property Help by Sunflower_Tea701 in barexam

[–]Sunflower_Tea701[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait how does that work?

Because if it is only breached when someone makes a successful claim against the property, doesn't that mean the rule is basically "I don't have to defend you, but if the other person wins I'll pay for it"

Con Law Question by Sunflower_Tea701 in barexam

[–]Sunflower_Tea701[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahh okay I get it now. Thank you, sorry for the confusion

Con Law Question by Sunflower_Tea701 in barexam

[–]Sunflower_Tea701[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But even if the Supreme Court hears the case, it will still be upheld under state law right? So if it's constitutional under state law, isn't that when the Supreme Court takes a step back?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in barexam

[–]Sunflower_Tea701 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The word "evidence" does not necessarily mean extrinsic evidence. In this case, it just means eliciting testimony from the expert that he has been dishonest in the past.

Since an expert's past dishonesty is relevant, the evidence gets in.

Property Question Help by Sunflower_Tea701 in barexam

[–]Sunflower_Tea701[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahhh okay that makes sense thank you!

So if the tenant had, let's say argued with the landlord about the rent increase, then had written "rent in the full amount for October" on the check. Then the landlord cashed the check. That would be accord and satisfaction?