Law School War of Words

Check out these Facebook Wall-to-Wall posting between two law students who decided to see how many legal terms they could use in a facebook wall post. If you can count more than ten legal references in each post, you are definitely a law student.

CONTRACTS

Student # 1:
This sucks. I don’t know about you, but I’m about ready to anticipatorily repudiate all over someone’s extrinsic evidence – in violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing – and then I’m gonna exercise my undue influence over a weaker party and overcome its will and misrepresent myself by estopping my… own waiver and frustrating the purpose before they get a chance to mitigate. Does this sound impracticable to you?

Student # 2:
Soo my ex-girlfriend just retracted her offer, but I already had materially altered my position on marriage, so she demanded adequate assurances…apparently the ring I got wasn’t enough and so I brought a claim for material breach. I tried to claim that “hook up” was just an ambiguous term and therefore I satisfied the terms of our prenuptial contract, but she didn’t believe me and so I claimed Undue Influence as for the reason for proposing at 4:30 am in Vegas. Again, she didn’t buy it. I hope some unforeseen circumstances can get me out of this mess….

TORTS

Student #1:
Did u hear about Mike and Ms. Palsgraf ? I heard that she is seeking punitive damages for his abnormally dangerous “activities” after they left the bar last night. He is claiming that it was merely a design defect, but we all know that he had knowledge to a substantial certainty that it would proximately cause her harm…. Hopefully, he will have a heeding presumption next time or else he will be held jointly and severally liable for her injuries.

Student #2:
Mike almost certainly has an affirmative defense that Mrs. Palsgraf “assumed the risk” of such dangerous activities and that she also is comparatively at fault for the occurrence (or should I say, LACK of occurrence) of the defect in his design. Conversely, Palsgraf will argue that Mike failed to provide an adequate warning as to the defect in his “design.” To do this, we apply the Pittman factors: (1) did the warning indicate the SCOPE of Mike’s DANGER? (2) Did the warning communicate the extent or seriousness of the harm that could result? (3) Were the PHYSICAL ASPECTS of the warning adequate? (4) Does the warning indicate the consequences? Because consumers have a right to be warned about the dangers in the products it uses. Now, I hear that Palsgraf gets around so she may very well be a learned intermediary, so that would change the analysis….

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Student # 1
I hope you can appreciate the originalism of this story because there is no other text or tool better to relay constitutional obscenities than Facebook. I doubt however that you will be able to separate this writing power from my other power that goes unchecked. Did you hear about person who got facially neutral’ed when we were out at the bar last weekend. The other person had no compelling reason to do it, except for perhaps when the drunk guy said some fighting words and then was subsequently not left standing. It’s kind of a ripe question too since the doctor has to fix his nose that was recently narrowly tailored. Sorry about the length of this message, I hope it doesn’t unduly burden you.

Student #2
So I went to a methadone clinic the other day. I’d heard there was this really sexy guy named Beazer who hung around there a lot so I decided to check him out. I saw him from across the room – my first impression was that his pants were very narrowly tailored. I decided to step closer in order to give his ass some strict scrutiny. I was prepared to have an open mind and to potentially be content-neutral regarding his personality. (As long as he looked good I was willing to give him a shot). But then he turned around – and my reaction was immediate. He was facially invalid and had to be stricken.