The legal issue that I am working on feels straight out of 1L Contracts. (Have I mentioned that Contracts was my worst class. There is a reason that I am a products liability lawyer, and its because I rocked torts--and my procedure classes, which are very handy for a litigator. The UCC--eh, not so much.)
I'm back to what constitutes an offer and an acceptance. And this fact scenario feels like something specifically drafted to make law students ferret out all the issues. The problem is that I am supposed to be drafting an opinion letter to the client. And clients don't want to see all of the potential issues. They want an opinion on whether they are going to get their money or not. But I can't seem to form an opinion because all I can see are the issues.
If the Court sees A as an offer and acceptance, you win. Oh, but you did B two days later which changed the terms. So if the court sees that as a counter-offer, you lose-because there was no acceptance. But wait, they agreed to your counter-offer via email--so you win. But then you added more terms--so you lose. But they aren't material--so you win. Unless the court thinks they are material--then you lose.
Arghhhh!!!
1 comment:
I hated torts because people were always hurting each other and I thought it was depressing. (And took the advanced torts class because I thought something must have been wrong with me for not liking it the first time - I obviously was missing something because everyone else loved it.) I was a complete B torts student. And now, all I do are torts! It is so weird how it works out.
Post a Comment