I'm standing in Party Barn (yes, a drive-through beer place), picking up a few cases of beer and a mini-keg for my law journal's after-exams/final edit party with the editor-in-chief of the journal and another staff editor that is a friend of mine.
I look up and they've got a calender on the wall with the date on it, but the year is 1983. Oh, it's one of those "you've got to be this old" signs. But--and this next bit I said out loud before I realized I was speaking--"huh... that calender acts as a cheet sheet for undergrads that can't hack it in math."
This leads to someone pointing out the "The clerk may be an undercover officer" sign. I turn to my two friends and say, "Wait, you know the urban legend that if you ask an undercover cop if he's a cop, he has to say yes, right? The one that's bullshit."
"Yeah, it's crap. Why?"
"Well, let's say that happens. Then the cop (1) [yes, I enumerated while talking] made a material representation (2) upon which you reasonably (3) relied, (4) to your detriment when you get fined."
"Wait... you're going after a promissory estoppel claim?"
"Yeah. Why not."
And it was another half an hour before I suddenly said "Oh. Sole proximate cause. You can't make the claim because, while you reasonably relied, the misrepresentation didn't proximately cause your fine. Your interceeding wrongful act did."
To which, from my two passengers comes a chorus of "Darn!"
Oh, and that whole thing about learning to think like a lawyer and not learning the elements of the actual substantive theories... it's horseshit. First year exams are all about spotting the issues and then walking through the elements.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Thinking like a lawyer:
Date: 2004-12-19 12:30 am (UTC)I look up and they've got a calender on the wall with the date on it, but the year is 1983. Oh, it's one of those "you've got to be this old" signs. But--and this next bit I said out loud before I realized I was speaking--"huh... that calender acts as a cheet sheet for undergrads that can't hack it in math."
This leads to someone pointing out the "The clerk may be an undercover officer" sign. I turn to my two friends and say, "Wait, you know the urban legend that if you ask an undercover cop if he's a cop, he has to say yes, right? The one that's bullshit."
"Yeah, it's crap. Why?"
"Well, let's say that happens. Then the cop (1) [yes, I enumerated while talking] made a material representation (2) upon which you reasonably (3) relied, (4) to your detriment when you get fined."
"Wait... you're going after a promissory estoppel claim?"
"Yeah. Why not."
And it was another half an hour before I suddenly said "Oh. Sole proximate cause. You can't make the claim because, while you reasonably relied, the misrepresentation didn't proximately cause your fine. Your interceeding wrongful act did."
To which, from my two passengers comes a chorus of "Darn!"
Oh, and that whole thing about learning to think like a lawyer and not learning the elements of the actual substantive theories... it's horseshit. First year exams are all about spotting the issues and then walking through the elements.