I just don’t know if I can take much more of this. His and I are spending upwards of 16 hours a day studying. We wake up and study. We eat and study. Even when we take shower we’re studying. And the little time we have that we’re not actively studying, we are talking about what we are studying. Our conversation consist of us grilling each other on questions in some sort of sick 1L-upmanship. A typical conversation will go something like this:
Hers: Some inane hypo about adverse possession
His: Some even more obscure reference to the tolling of the statute of limitations.
Hers: Pulling out the trump card relates it all back to UCC 2-403 and a bona fide purchaser for value.
His: licks his wounds and comes back with an even more inane hypo about unjust enrichment.
Hers: throws in a comment or two about there being three kinds of reasonable standards
His: counters with an in-depth analysis of UCC 2-207 subsection 3.
And this is the ritual we go through until we decide to toll the competition and return to our outlines, books, and notes in hopes of coming up with an even more obscure and challenging hypo. This really is as fun as it sounds; don’t all line up at once to hang out with us!
4 comments:
But 2-207(3) only applies when there is no contract by the writings of the parties and I will continue to assert that to my last.
That and the fact that 2-207 may be the most poorly drafted statute in the entire Uniform Commercial Code.
Similiar to UCC 2-403, the logic of 2-207 can be applied to common law, thus creating a "knock out rule". Voidable title trumps!
i just wantd to coment on the good use of a semi-colon in the last line fo your blog. regards, pm
ha ha anonymous! You almost gave me a heart attack for real! But in case this really is not anonymous. My lawyering teacher ROCKS!
Post a Comment