Court Records
https://forums.court-records.net/

The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player
https://forums.court-records.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=16299
Page 2 of 5

Author:  Starbuck [ Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

ApollaJustice wrote:

Also... I'm not a very good test taker. I freeze and blank out, and tank, or barely pass with disappointing scores. What should I do? I'll be taking some big-time college entrance exams as practice before I graduate high school to get used to them, but I'm not sure how much they'll improve my test-taking abilities.


You're in high school now, you have at least five years to go...don't worry.

Author:  Starbuck [ Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Mr. Bear wrote:
I know how bitchly tuition can be but HOLY MOTHER OF JUSTICE $200,000? That's like...over nine thousand! Makes UC tuition look like a grocery budget by comparison.


George Washington is on the high side. Assuming "UC" is University of California:

Berkeley in-state is $30,944 [1]
UCLA in-state is $35,328 [2]
UC Davis in-state is $33,948.70 [3]

But that's much higher than average. In-state at University of Georgia, which I believe is the least expensive, is $14,448 [4].

~~~~
[1]http://www.law.berkeley.edu/47.htm#Q5
[2]http://www.law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=1712
[3]http://budget.ucdavis.edu/studentfees/documents/preliminary/law_fees.pdf
[4]http://www.law.uga.edu/admissions/jd/financial/index.html

Author:  Starbuck [ Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

This is the last major post before I start in a bit under 17 hours.

I visited the National Archives last Sunday evening. The U.S. is a nation of laws. Everyone in the civil service and the military from the President on down takes an oath to protect the Constitution. I thought I would reflect a bit on our foundations.

Spoiler: 640 x 480 pictures ahead.
Image

The north front, viewed from the Metro stop.

Spoiler:
Image

The Capitol from Pennsylvania Avenue.

Spoiler:
Image

Detail of the architecture. The architect must have tried to emphasize the connections between the American government and the ancient Greek democracy and Roman Republic. It's very much a shrine.

Spoiler:
Image

Inside the rotunda. It's much darker than it looks in the picture.

Spoiler:
Image

Proof that it's me taking these pictures, and not recycled stock footage I found on the Internet. This also gives you an idea of the actual lighting levels. Flash photography will get you tossed out.

Spoiler:
Image

Allegorical murals of the Declaration of Independence...

Spoiler:
Image

...and the Constitution.

And the documents themselves. I assure you there is likely not a secret map written in invisible ink on the back.

Spoiler:
Image

The Declaration.

Spoiler:
Image

The Constitution.

Spoiler:
Image

The Bill of Rights.

Over 200 years ago, a group of men, in view of mounting tyranny, said "enough" and built a government built on protecting our rights given by God. May it remain that way.


This will be my last post before I officially start. If you're interested in a little more thorough explanation of what you're going to be spending a lot of time doing your first year, namely, briefing cases, please read this. It's a recent decision from a federal court in California. It's pretty straightforward, and very interesting for the nature of the lawsuit. Be prepared to discuss on Saturday evening.

Author:  Lunaria42 [ Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

I just read the briefing. I thought I understood it well enough even without all the knowledge of legal jargon. I just can't believe someone would have the audacity to sue a company over something so stupid. People really need to learn to read labels.

Author:  Mr. Bear Jew [ Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Starbuck wrote:
Mr. Bear wrote:
I know how bitchly tuition can be but HOLY MOTHER OF JUSTICE $200,000? That's like...over nine thousand! Makes UC tuition look like a grocery budget by comparison.


George Washington is on the high side. Assuming "UC" is University of California:

Berkeley in-state is $30,944 [1]
UCLA in-state is $35,328 [2]
UC Davis in-state is $33,948.70 [3]


You nailed it. But I agree. The bottom line: law school is expensive.

Author:  JasmineJustice [ Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Someone really sued the company over that?! >.> Did it occur to them to check the INGREDIENT list?!

Anyway, this is very educative, as well as entertaining.

Author:  Starbuck [ Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

This is the post you've been waiting for. I picked up the last one at the FedEx office this morning.

Everybody say it all together:

Spoiler: Difficult-looking legal books stand in a formidable row. They mock me.
Image

Image


:nick-sweat:

Author:  Lunaria42 [ Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Starbuck wrote:
This is the post you've been waiting for. I picked up the last one at the FedEx office this morning.

Everybody say it all together:

Spoiler: Difficult-looking legal books stand in a formidable row. They mock me.
Image

Image


:nick-sweat:


Ha ha. I see a couple of that shelf that don't look like difficult reads at all.

Author:  FlameInferno [ Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Starbuck wrote:
This is the post you've been waiting for. I picked up the last one at the FedEx office this morning.

Everybody say it all together:

Spoiler: Difficult-looking legal books stand in a formidable row. They mock me.
Image

Image


:nick-sweat:


Man...somehow, I could imagine me looking at them then backing away...Dang, no Grisham books?

Author:  Yaragorm [ Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

All of this talk about colleges and tests is making my head spin... :meekins: It's just plain madness...

:maya: : No it's Sparta!

I find this article very interesting, yet I'm trying to avoid it because I try to avoid discussion about college...Mainly because whenever someone brings it up, I can't decide which college I want to go to or want career I want to have...

Now I'm even more confused... :meekins:

Author:  Starbuck [ Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Just a small update: I bought a "fixer-upper" condo this week and started class, so I've been pretty busy. I'll discuss Sugawara tonight.

Until then, enjoy this! "Blood in the Water" by Manfred von Karma

Author:  Starbvck [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Ok, now that I'm able to log in again, here we go.

Previously, I posted the opinion for Sugawara v. Pepsico, and mentioned a case brief for this.

Sugawara v. Pepsico

Janine Sugawara, Plaintiff, v. Pepsico, Inc., Defendant.
2:08-cv-01335-MCE-JFM (E.D. Cal. 21 May 2009)

Facts
Plaintiff Sugawara regularly purchases and consumes a breakfast cereal, “Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries” manufactured by Quaker Oats, a division of Defendant Pepsico. The cereal box prominently displays the word “berries” and features an image of the “crunchberries”, which are pieces of cereal dyed and shaped to resemble berries. Additionally, marketing for the “Crunchberries” cereal discusses the presence of “colorful red, purple, teal and green berries”. Considering this, Plaintiff believes the cereal to contain a significant content of berry fruit. However, the cereal only contains a trace amount of “strawberry fruit concentrate”, listed twelfth in order in the ingredients list. Plaintiff insists that she purchased the cereal due to alleged high amounts of wholesome and nutritious fruit content, and states she would have not purchased it if she had known that the fruit content is virtually non-existent. Plaintiff also states that the packaging and marketing, which emphasizes the missing berry content, “is deceptive and likely to mislead and deceive a reasonable consumer”. Plaintiff filed a class-action suit for “Intentional Misrepresentation”, “Breach of Express Warranty”, and “Breach of Implied Warranty” under California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. , and 17500, et seq., and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Action, California Civil Code § 1770.

Procedural History
Plaintiff initiated a class-action lawsuit and initiated a complaint. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

Issues
  1. Would a reasonable consumer believe that the marketing of a cereal packaged and marketed with the word “berries” despite containing only a minimal amount of berry fruit content is “deceptive” in violation of California Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act?
  2. Does a cereal box that features the word “berries” and images of colorful berry-shaped pieces of cereal, while only containing a minimal amount of berry fruit content, meet the elements of Intentional Misrepresentation under California law?
  3. Does a seller of a cereal product marketed and packaged with the word “berries” despite containing only a minimal amount of berry fruit content breach Express and Implied Warranty under California law?

Holdings
  1. The court held that the cereal packaging was not illegally “deceptive”.
  2. The court did not find that the Plaintiff failed to show that the cereal box and marketing constitute misrepresentation.
  3. The court found that the cereal packaging did not breach warranty under California Law.

Rationale
Regarding the Unfair competition and False Advertising allegations, for a product to be deceptively packaged or advertised, it must be capable of “likely” deceiving a “reasonable” consumer. In a similar case, Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008), a Federal court found that products labeled “fruit juice snacks”, and described as containing “fruit juice and other all natural ingredients” despite containing only minimal fruit juice were deceptively packaged. The facts of the present case more closely resemble those of McKinnis v. Kellogg, 2007 WL 4766060 (C.D.Cal.), in which a state court dismissed with prejudice allegations that “Froot Loops” cereal, packaged in a box illustrating “froot” rings of brightly-colored sugared cereal, small illustrations of fruits, and the words “natural fruit flavors”, was not deceptively displayed as containing non-present fruit. In the present case, the alleged “crunch berries” are not shown on the package to be the actual fruit of a fictitious “crunch berry” plant (indeed, no image of fruit is depicted on the box), but as their true form as colored pieces of cereal. In addition, the cereal box describes the product as “sweetened corn and oat cereal”. Accordingly, the court believed that it would be “entirely unlikely” that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the “Crunch Berries” box.

Regarding the allegation of Intentional Misrepresentation, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to show how Defendant met any of the requirements of a common-law claim of misrepresentation, particularly, how the packaging was a “false representation” of the claims of real fruit. Accordingly, the court dismissed this complaint.

Regarding the allegation of breach of Express and Implied Warranty, since the cereal box accurately described the product “sweet corn and oat cereal”, and since a reasonable consumer would understand that “crunch berries” are not actual fruit, but merely colored pieces of cereal, the court could not find that Defendant breached a warrant that the cereal contained fruit, or acted to mislead or deceive the Plaintiff.

Disposition
The court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss and barred the Plaintiff from filing an amended case.

Author:  Yaragorm [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Wow, that lady must've had a lot of free time and money...

If you ask me all cereal should be illegal

Author:  Starbvck [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

So what does that all mean?

There are 7 sections present. Here's a brief rundown:

Sugawara v. Pepsico
This section is called the "caption". This lets you know who's involved in the case, in what court and when this was issued, and where you can find it in a law library or a legal research site like Westlaw or LexisNexis.

Procedural History
This section explains how this case got to court. This is a pretty simple case--the court granted a motion to dismiss, so it got tossed here before a trial could even start. There's another case I read about last week where there were four trials and several rounds of appeals, before finally getting to a state supreme court.

Issues
If you look at the "Analysis" discussion, you will notice that the court broke down the suit into three basic claims, from the five original complaints. Here, I worded the issues in the form of general questions, so if I, or somebody else at my firm, were to get a similar case, we'd know what to expect.

Holdings
I'm just answering the questions from the last section.

Rationale
Here's the real meat. I'm discussing why the court ruled it did. Notice that the basic issue is if a reasonable person would think that the cereal box is deceptive. The court talked about two previous cases, one in which packaging for "Fruit Juice Snacks" was considered deceptive, and one in which packaging for "Froot Loops" cereal was not deceptive[1], and said that this particular case more closely resembled the latter.

Deposition
What happened next? In an appeals court, you may see concurrences (a judge will agree with the result of the ruling, but give different or independent reasons why) or dissents (a judge will disagree with the majority ruling and explain why), or remands (the case gets sent back down to a lower court with instructions from the higher court as how to procede). Occasionally, you may see an order for a new trial. Here, the motion to dismiss was granted. Take note that the final paragraph, preventing the plaintiff from filing an amended complaint, is rare. Usually, a petitioner for a class-action suit, when faced with a dismissal, can come back with an amended complaint with better merits. Here, since the case has absolutely no merits, this would be impossible. Language such as "the survival of the instant claim would require this Court to ignore all concepts of personal responsibility and common sense" is not that common. I'm actually a little surprised that the court didn't fine the plaintiff or her attorney for filing a frivolous suit--maybe that doesn't exist at the federal level.


[1]Actual text from the opinion of the Froot Loops case:
Even taking Plaintiffs' allegations as true, as the Court is required to do, Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim. First, the product's name is spelled F-R-O-O-T, and while this might be a fanciful take on the word F-R-U-I-T, it appears in the trademarked name of the cereal, not on its own or as a description of the actual ingredients of the cereal itself. No reasonable consumer would view the trademark “FROOT LOOPS” name as describing the ingredients of the cereal. Second, Plaintiffs' allegation that the cereal pieces themselves resemble fruit is not rational, let alone reasonable. The cereal pieces are brightly colored rings, which in no way resemble any currently known fruit. As a matter of law, no reasonable consumer would view them as depicting any fruit. Third, the small “vignettes” of fruit surrounding the “NATURAL FRUIT FLAVORS” banner could not mislead the reasonable consumer. For one, the depiction of fruit on a product label is not a specific affirmation that a products contains any fruit at all. FDA regulations permit illustrations of fruit on product label to indicate that product's “characterizing flavor,” even where the product contains no ingredients derived from the depicted fruit.

Author:  Starbvck [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Yaragorm wrote:
Wow, that lady must've had a lot of free time and money...


I don't think it was her as much as it was her lawyer...he also was representing the plaintiff for the Froot Loops case.

Author:  Starbvck [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

That's it for today. Assuming I can log on tomorrow, I'll discuss more general 1L stuff, like:

Scoring free dinner
The High School After High School
Getting bribed to do research
Comments you get from wearing an Attorney at Lol shirt to class
A first semester schedule.

If I have enough time and energy, I might tap into a case or two, like the meatshield case, two rednecks walk into a bar, or purple prose, 1880-style.

Author:  Nii [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Haha I'd love to hear what comments you got for wearing that shirt. I get the feeling most of them weren't very pleasant. xD Love that von Karma vid by the way; the song suits him so well. x'D But umm... off-topic question. Why did you sign up for another account? o.o'

Author:  BSX [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Interesting. I'm likinbg this. I wonder how people reacted to the shirt.

I'm not sure how all this law stuff like LSATS etc. work in Scotland, considering that our law system is unique. Or at least, I think it is. I'm sure it's different to England's, because the laws are at least.

Author:  L_J [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

i'm waiting for reactions to the shirt, like everyone else is.

Author:  Lunaria42 [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

I wonder why her lawyer thought there was a chance this could go to court? It seemed pretty ridiculous to me. I bet the plaintiff was made to look like a total moron for thinking Crunch berries were actually fruit and that the cereal was something of nutritional value.

Author:  Yaragorm [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Starbvck wrote:
Yaragorm wrote:
Wow, that lady must've had a lot of free time and money...


I don't think it was her as much as it was her lawyer...he also was representing the plaintiff for the Froot Loops case.


Wow, that lawyer must really hate cereal....I've gotta hire him sometime....

Author:  JasmineJustice [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Foolishly foolhardily foolish lawsuit notwithstanding, I find your shelf pictures amusing. All these law books, and then a couple of Ace Attorney mangas smack-dab in the middle. It's so incongruous.

Author:  Starbvck [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

L_J wrote:
i'm waiting for reactions to the shirt, like everyone else is.


Everybody liked "Attorney at LOL", but nobody recognized the silhouette. Anyway, the reaction was overall positive.

Author:  Starbvck [ Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Blade Satoshi X wrote:
I'm not sure how all this law stuff like LSATS etc. work in Scotland, considering that our law system is unique. Or at least, I think it is. I'm sure it's different to England's, because the laws are at least.


As I said before, I'm doing this purely from the American perspective. The English law system is more similar than you'd expect, considering our vastly different forms of government. While the American Revolution got rid of the parliamentary system and the monarchy, it pretty much left the courts alone. The Supreme Court affirmed in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819) that Dartmouth's royal charter from 1769 was still valid, preventing it from being put under state control. Blackstone's Commentaries are still considered an authoritative treatise. Although it's rare to see an American court cite English law anymore as our own jurisprudence has matured, many of today's cases will cite 19th century decisions for basic principles, which in turn often go back to even earlier English precedent and declare them to not be altered[1].

The Scottish system, on the other hand, has a lot of unique features. One prominent example is the "not proven" verdict in criminal trials[2], and the enforceability of unilateral gratuitous promises[3].

[1]For example, Commonwealth v. Tilley 355 Mass. 507, 246 N.E.2d 176 (1969) held that a robber who opened a closed but not locked screen door committed "breaking" into a house. The court said that opening a partially-closed window that was closed enough to ordinarily prevent entry was also "breaking", modifying an earlier decision, Commonwealth v. Strupney, 105 Mass. 588 (1870), that held that any opening of a partially-open window is not "breaking". Strupney relied on an 1829 Massachusetts case that stated that cutting down a twine net over a window was breaking, but relied on a 1789 case that stated that lifting a sash higher on a window that is "a little pushed up" is not breaking, but then further stated that "The English authorities are to the same effect", discussed two English cases that gave the same result, and gave the conclusion that "in this respect the court ought not to go beyond decided cases". So this provides an instance of American law diverging from English Law. Tilley overturned the decision that opening a window that is almost completely shut is not "breaking" into a building, but still kept the idea that if you kept your windows open enough for somebody to pass through unimpeded, you're not intending to keep intruders out.

[2]This basically means that the jury thinks the defendant did it, but the Prosecution failed to prove it. It effectively results in an acquittal. Senator Arlen Specter famously said he wished he had that option in Bill Clinton's impeachment trial.

[3]Under both American and English law, a promise to give a gift is generally not enforceable without at least a small token or consideration in return, but in Scotland, written promises of gifts are often enforceable.

Author:  Starbvck [ Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Hmmm...the last post was pretty boring. This should be less so.

A few comments about the social scene (or lack thereof).

Law school is actually a bit more like high school than undergrad was, especially if you went to a very large state school like I did. At least in the first year, all your classes will be with the same people. There's lockers. You start to see cliques forming. The difference is that we're all full adults now. Our hormones have settled to more balanced levels, but there's room for romance, but very little bullying.

It's also different from both high school and undergrad in that most of the school-sponsored events have an open bar. This is especially interesting if you're in the evening section and half the class (and the prof) are bringing in beer bottles or wine glasses.

You will, of course, gain weight if you're not careful. At least where I'm going, there's no gym in the basement, and all those bacchanals (there's one about once a week) serve food.

~~~~
In my first semester, I am taking Torts, Contracts, Legal Writing, and Economics[1]. Full-time students are in the above, and also Property. That's 11 credit hours for evening students and 15 hours for full-time students. 89 are required to graduate.

Torts meets twice a week. It provides the most entertainment value so far. So far we've gone over battery[2], assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage), and are now discussing trespass.

Economics may be a bit surprising, but the pedagogical theory is that laws, and their enforcement, shape both the nation's economy and your life as much as traditional "policy" decisions. Take, for example, the health care debate. In the U.S., there are between 10 million and 46 million uninsured, depending on who you talk to, what statistics you use, and what groups of uninsured don't count[3]. Also, the U.S. spends 16 percent of its GDP on health care, much more than any other nation[4]. So, as a lawmaker, what do you want to do? Reduce the number of uninsured, by doing things like providing a single-payer system or setting up a government-sponsored insurance company that will compete with the private sector, doing for the health care section of the economy what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did for the housing section; or do you try to reduce costs by breaking up local insurance monopolies within each state and allow private-sector insurers to expand to all 50 states, increasing competition, or implementing tort reform?

Contracts may be a little dry at times, but it has its moments[5]. It's basically all about the making, and breaking, of promises.

Legal Writing is a bit more like your undergrad experience. However, it will probably be the most relevant, or at least the most familiar, for the Ace Attorney player. This is a four semester course, and the first semester is trial-level writing. So far we're doing inter-office memos, where we take the role of junior attorneys and write to senior partners "predictive memos" where given the facts and the law, how we think a court will rule (and eventually develop strategies to win). What makes it interesting is that we're taking the role of defense attorneys, and each week there's new facts, some that help us, and others that make our clients look awfully guilty. I can't talk about one of them on the off-chance that another student might read my comments and cheat, but the class discussion project is an alleged burglary.

This is how I know I play too much Phoenix Wright: when I read a sentence that describes a new piece of evidence, I actually hear the jingle playing and see the "xxxxx added to the Court Record" animation. Also, there's two witnesses that contradict each other on a key fact.

That's about all for now. If you're interested in a couple of contracts cases, please read: Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (the actual opinion starts halfway down the left column on the third page), and Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc., 88 F.Supp.2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)[6]. Also watch this video, which is the subject of the second case. The question is, when is a joke a joke? Answers next week.


~~~~

[1]This, combined with geographical clues earlier in the thread, may reveal the name of the school where I attend, if you do some research. He who has ears, let him hear. I will not directly confirm or deny where I attend at this time. However, if anybody from admin ever reads this, let me take this opportunity to say first, that you're doing a very good job and I am overall completely satisfied with my education at your school, and second, that all my posts are completely my own, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of any law school, university, corporation, publishing company, or government agency. Additionally, while I'm at it, I haven't passed the bar exam yet, so if you are taking any of this actual legal advice for your own case, please stop and find an actual competent professional. Same goes for any other students that come across here--I will not guarantee that you will pass any exam after reading my posts. Any rebroadcast, reproduction or other use of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited.

[2]You think battery requires violence or injury? Guess again.

[3]Examples include illegal aliens, willingly uninsured people making over 75,000 a year, willingly uninsured young adults who are chancing the risk of a catastrophic accident or rare disease, and those already eligible for Medicaid but not taking advantage of it.

[4]France is second at 11 percent.

[5]Consider Stees v. Leonard, 20 Minn. 494 (1874). I am not making this up. "The defendants commenced the construction of the building, and had carried it to the height of three stories, when it fell to the ground. The next year, 1869, they began again and carried it to the same height as before, when it again fell to the ground, whereupon defendants refused to perform the contract." I'll talk more about the whole thing in a later post.

[6]No idea what it is about Pepsico that attracts...interesting claims.

Author:  Femme Fatale [ Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Legal Writing sounds fun.

I'm planning to take a Law class just for kicks, but I'm not so sure considering the teacher is a nutjoband a likely pedophile. Do you think a Law class is something more interesting based on material or is it one of those classes where "you need to have a good teacher" (like, in my opinion, Physics)?

Author:  Yaragorm [ Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Man, oh man. Law seems pretty hard....

I was hoping I could bolt my way through law school like Phoenix did but this is impossible in the world of reality.... :sadshoe:

Author:  Femme Fatale [ Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Yaragorm wrote:
Man, oh man. Law seems pretty hard....

I was hoping I could bolt my way through law school like Phoenix did but this is impossible in the world of reality.... :sadshoe:


It looked fun to me... as long as you study and are really interested in the thing, I think you'd be fine! I know people always say that "Trying your best sometimes isn't good enough" but I disagree with them and as long as you really like it and you continue to study and practice, you'll be able to pass.

Author:  LadyLuckDoubt [ Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

ROFLMAO.

Admittedly I kind of wanted to go back to school and Law's a consideration-- and this happened around the same time as I was getting into the games-- but causation and correlation are two very different things. :)

I remember being at uni and hearing classmates talk about wanting to become lawyers because they were obsessed with Ally McBeal, like Law was going to make them insanely skinny and apparently quirkily loveable (I never saw the appeal of that show, to be honest). Then all those forensics shows became hot shit and every second class I was in had some idiot going, "OMG! That's like on C.S.I: Somewhere.


While I think it's kind of naive and silly to want to do law because of a somewhat very cracky video game representation, I still think it's more interesting and quirky than "But I saw it on TV and it looks cool!"



Ack: I was replying to stuff way earlier, but having read everything here... this is most awesome and seriously amusing; am loving the updates and how in-depth you're going on your experience. Also, the disclaimer made me giggle. :)

Author:  GigaHand [ Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Starbvck wrote:
[1]Actual text from the opinion of the Froot Loops case:
Even taking Plaintiffs' allegations as true, as the Court is required to do, Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim. First, the product's name is spelled F-R-O-O-T, and while this might be a fanciful take on the word F-R-U-I-T, it appears in the trademarked name of the cereal, not on its own or as a description of the actual ingredients of the cereal itself. No reasonable consumer would view the trademark “FROOT LOOPS” name as describing the ingredients of the cereal.

I have to say, I disagree with this. I would expect Cap'n Crunch to be crunchy (except when completely drenched in milk, the way I like any cereal), and I expect Coca Cola to contain mostly cola. Hence, I would expect Froot Loops to cantain froot, er, I mean, fruit. Does this mean I'm not a reasonable consumer? :sadshoe:

Author:  Lunaria42 [ Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

The funniest part of the Pepsi suit was the description of the commercial itself. I remember that ad campaign and the merchandise from it. I remember really wanting those sunglasses, but looking at the commercial now makes me question my taste in fashion back then.

I haven't read the other suit yet, but I will as soon as I get more free time.

Author:  L_J [ Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Starbvck wrote:
This is how I know I play too much Phoenix Wright: when I read a sentence that describes a new piece of evidence, I actually hear the jingle playing and see the "xxxxx added to the Court Record" animation.

i am amused.

Author:  Starbvck [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

GigaHand wrote:
I have to say, I disagree with this. I would expect Cap'n Crunch to be crunchy (except when completely drenched in milk, the way I like any cereal), and I expect Coca Cola to contain mostly cola. Hence, I would expect Froot Loops to cantain froot, er, I mean, fruit. Does this mean I'm not a reasonable consumer? :sadshoe:


According to the courts, no. And notice the distinction the court made between "froot" and "fruit". If "froot" is artificial color and flavor, then that's certainly what "Froot Loops" contains.

Author:  Yaragorm [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Just goes to show that cereal is a messed up business....I mean look at the new Cinnamon Toast Crunch commercials.....

Author:  Starbvck [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Lucy v. Zehmer
196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954)

Facts
Plaintiff W.O. Lucy has been attempting to buy the “Ferguson Farm” property for at least “seven or eight years” from defendants Mr. and Mrs. Zehmer. On 20 December 1952, Lucy met Zehmer in a restaurant owned by Zehmer, Lucy carrying a bottle of whiskey. They shared at least several drinks. Lucy believed neither party became intoxicated, whereas Zehmer stated both were “high as a Georgia pine”[1]. Eventually, the two parties discussed the Ferguson farm. They negotiated for “thirty or forty minutes”. Lucy offered to buy the Ferguson farm for $50,000. Zehmer verbally agreed, believing Lucy didn’t have the funds. Zehmer wrote a contract on the back of a restaurant check reading “I hereby agree to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000.00, title satisfactory to buyer”. Lucy then asked Zehmer to revise the contract to change “I” to “We” and ask Mrs. Zehmer to sign the revised contract[2]. Zehmer did so, but explained to Mrs. Zehmer that the contract was a joke. Lucy then offered five dollars consideration to make the deal official, at which point Zehmer then recanted to Lucy, stating that the contract was a joke. Lucy left, insisting that he bought the Ferguson Farm. The following Monday, Lucy got the title clear with an attorney. The farm had an assessed value for $6,300. Zehmer refused to close the deal for cash, still insisting that he had never intended to sell the farm.

Procedural History
Plaintiffs sued for specific performance[3] by the defendants to sell the Ferguson Farm for $50,000 cash. The trial court found for the defendants, saying that specific performance on a real estate contract is not a matter of right. Plaintiffs appealed to the commonwealth[4] Supreme Court.

Issues
  1. Does alcohol intoxication at the time of signing a contract prevent a party from being bound to the contract?
  2. Is a contract that appears to be valid, despite a party’s hidden intent of only writing the contract in jest, enforceable?
  3. Is specific performance a remedy for a breach of a real estate contract?

Holdings
  1. The court held that the mental state of parties signing a contract is not material to the contract’s validity[5].
  2. The court held that only outward statements and acts made by the parties, not inward intent, determines if a contract is valid.
  3. The court held that specific performance to sell is an acceptable remedy for a failed real estate contract deal.

Rationale
Regarding the defendants’ allegation that intoxication is material to forming a contract, the court stated that mental state of the parties involved does not matter except when there is ambiguity or discrepancy in the meaning in terms of the contract so that the two sides could not agree what the contract actually stated, citing section 71 of the First Restatement of Contracts. Here, “We agree to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000.00, title satisfactory to buyer” contained no such “unreasonable meaning”.

Regarding the defendants’ allegation that they could not be held to a contract made as a joke, the court stated that it is not the inward, unstated intent that determines if a contract is valid, but rather, if his words and acts would make a reasonable person believe that the contract is intended to be valid. Here, since Zehmer negotiated for over a half hour the contract, wrote a written contract, brought it to his wife to sign, and signed it himself, only revealing the joke after Lucy attempted to pay consideration, his words and actions suggested that he intended to uphold the contract.

Regarding specific performance, the court stated that this is not an absolute right, but is within discretion of the courts to grant specific performance. Since the contract was not unconscionably unenforceable (Lucy gave Zehmer a very good offer for the farm), the court found it equitable to give specific performance.

Disposition
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the trial court decision.

~~~~
[1]I, for one, am in favor of bringing this phrase used more often in daily life. Please go ahead and use it whenever you feel it is needed.

[2]Image of the actual contract:
Image
More images, including pictures of the restaurant and the farm available at this site.

[3]"Specific Performance" is relatively rare. This is when a court orders somebody to do a particular action. Courts generally do not want to exercise this rather extreme power lightly.

[4]Virginia, like Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, styles itself a "Commonwealth" rather than a "State".

[5]In other words, "I was too drunk to know what I was doing" is not a valid excuse, at least in real estate contracts.

Author:  Starbvck [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

I'll try and get a write-up of the pepsi points case done over the weekend. After that, I'll try to get a little into torts, likely with Laidlaw v. Sage or Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.
And then: buildings falling into quicksand, and how to screw over a widow and get away with it.

Author:  Yaragorm [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Oh god, Hustler magazine?! This will get interesting....

Author:  Lunaria42 [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Starbvck wrote:
I'll try and get a write-up of the pepsi points case done over the weekend. After that, I'll try to get a little into torts, likely with Laidlaw v. Sage or Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.
And then: buildings falling into quicksand, and how to screw over a widow and get away with it.


Hustler Magazine b. Falwell is the case that upholds parody as protected speech, correct?

Author:  Starbvck [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Lunaria42 wrote:
Starbvck wrote:
I'll try and get a write-up of the pepsi points case done over the weekend. After that, I'll try to get a little into torts, likely with Laidlaw v. Sage or Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.
And then: buildings falling into quicksand, and how to screw over a widow and get away with it.


Hustler Magazine b. Falwell is the case that upholds parody as protected speech, correct?


That's one of the rulings, but so far we're looking at the late Rev. Falwell's complaints. Public figures are held to a higher standard of what it takes to inflict emotional distress and libel.

Spoiler: Very large image of something that appeared in Hustler magazine, not for dial-up or the very sensitive
Image


Notice the fine print at the bottom: "AD PARODY - NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY"

Author:  GigaHand [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player

Starbvck wrote:
GigaHand wrote:
I have to say, I disagree with this. I would expect Cap'n Crunch to be crunchy (except when completely drenched in milk, the way I like any cereal), and I expect Coca Cola to contain mostly cola. Hence, I would expect Froot Loops to cantain froot, er, I mean, fruit. Does this mean I'm not a reasonable consumer? :sadshoe:


According to the courts, no. And notice the distinction the court made between "froot" and "fruit". If "froot" is artificial color and flavor, then that's certainly what "Froot Loops" contains.

DAMN YOU WHOEVER THAT JUDGE WAS THAT MADE THAT DECISION!! :foam:

Page 2 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/