Comments on: Carving Up Contracts

By: Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:08:45 +0000

Bruce: Rest assured. Dancing and peerless are still in the course. And I believe that Arthur Miller, who taught me civ pro in the year long format, does an excellent tango. Kidding. But he sure could teach!

Nate: I’m with you. Which is why PE is down to two days. The highlight is Hoffman v. Red Owl, for obvious reasons.

Anderson: I wonder if keeping the longer subjects is a feature of state-sponsored law schools, who (might) feel some responsibility for teaching state-specific common law in the first-year.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:18:18 +0000

Ole Miss still does con law, torts and contracts in a full year. Civ Pro is a year but for some reason is split between 1L and 2L.

Of course, the provinces are slowest to catch up …

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:10:53 +0000

The section 90 obsession is SOOOO 1978. Contract is not dead — it is devouring torts and other fields.

By: Bruce Boyden

Bruce Boyden — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:56:43 +0000

Errrm, I meant Arthur *Murray* Dance Studios. Although Arthur Miller Dance Studios would be an interesting idea…

By: Bruce Boyden

Bruce Boyden — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:54:52 +0000

Wow, that’s quite a list. The single most interesting thing I recall learning about in my 1-semester contracts class was what we called “Section 90 reliance,” a/k/a promissory estoppel. That and the two ships Peerless, which was great just for the humor value. And the Arthur Miller Dance Studios case. OK, I remember a lot of different things, but promissory estoppel was right up there.

Also I believe third-party beneficiaries came up my year on the bar exam, but I guess that’s what bar review is for.