Author Topic: Opening Arguments #TTTBE  (Read 37278 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2747
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #675 on: November 08, 2019, 02:12:58 PM »
LOL, Being a carpenter, I can tell you that he probably won't get paid at all and will have to file a lien, and will get sued by the truck dealer for contract breach.

(click to show/hide)
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12294
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #676 on: November 08, 2019, 02:44:00 PM »
(click to show/hide)
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9377
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #677 on: November 08, 2019, 05:04:24 PM »
(click to show/hide)

An argument against C is that it was foolish of the carpenter to make a commitment predicated on the assumption of being paid exactly on time. The homeowner could argue that a reasonable person could not expect payment exactly on the day, and therefore he is not responsible for the $2,000 that the carpenter lost on the car deal.

In fact, without the full text of the contract we cannot really say that the homeowner has any obligation except to pay the $10K.

The whole question is kind of silly because nobody writes a contract without specifying the details of late-payment penalties.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12294
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #678 on: November 08, 2019, 06:15:55 PM »
... it was foolish of the carpenter to make a commitment predicated on the assumption of being paid exactly on time. The homeowner could argue that a reasonable person could not expect payment exactly on the day, and therefore he is not responsible for the $2,000 that the carpenter lost on the car deal.

In fact, without the full text of the contract we cannot really say that the homeowner has any obligation except to pay the $10K.

The whole question is kind of silly because nobody writes a contract without specifying the details of late-payment penalties.

When answering these questions, assume that we know all we need to know about what's in the contract.

The homeowner was obliged to pay the $10k.

If there was a late-payment penalty it's not relevant to how the court would rule; if there wasn't a late-payment penalty then the question is in that context (a breach of contract where the contract has no late-payment clause).

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4173
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #679 on: November 08, 2019, 06:54:04 PM »
Yes there should be everything in the question that is needed to answer the question, or we can only use the info in the question to answer the problem. We can't infer a late payment claus or fine unless it is part of the law. Nothing in a contract between the parties.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
Douglas Adams

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9377
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #680 on: November 08, 2019, 07:52:02 PM »
Yes there should be everything in the question that is needed to answer the question, or we can only use the info in the question to answer the problem. We can't infer a late payment claus or fine unless it is part of the law. Nothing in a contract between the parties.

Which means that the contractor is an idiot. Because he didn't include any penalty for failure to pay.

Here's another point: If the homeowner had paid with a check, which was not forbidden in the contract if we have all the relevant information, the contractor would not have even been able to access the money for several days, and could not have paid the car seller in any case! Since no car dealership is going to accept a two-party check issued by an unknown party, there's no way the contractor could have paid for the car in time to get the lower price.

Can the court rule against the contractor merely on the grounds that he's stupid? There is no reasonable basis to expect that he'd be paid on the very day he finishes the work so he was just being irresponsible when he made the car agreement.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12294
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #681 on: November 08, 2019, 08:53:29 PM »
Yes there should be everything in the question that is needed to answer the question, or we can only use the info in the question to answer the problem. We can't infer a late payment claus or fine unless it is part of the law. Nothing in a contract between the parties.

Which means that the contractor is an idiot. Because he didn't include any penalty for failure to pay.

Here's another point: If the homeowner had paid with a check, which was not forbidden in the contract if we have all the relevant information, the contractor would not have even been able to access the money for several days, and could not have paid the car seller in any case! Since no car dealership is going to accept a two-party check issued by an unknown party, there's no way the contractor could have paid for the car in time to get the lower price.

Can the court rule against the contractor merely on the grounds that he's stupid? There is no reasonable basis to expect that he'd be paid on the very day he finishes the work so he was just being irresponsible when he made the car agreement.

Daniel, you would fail miserably if you ever took the bar exam ;D

(So would I)

The point of these questions is to provide all the relevant information needed to choose the correct answer. (and some irrelevant information, too, but that's part of the process).

We don't know if a check was or was not forbidden, so that is not relevant. (If the contractor went to the homeowner's bank with check in hand, he would have been able to get the money right away).  The only thing relevant about the payment is that the homeowner did not pay.

No the court can't rule against the contractor for being stupid, but there is no evidence here that he's stupid or not.

But, the bar can rule against you for assuming facts not included in the question.

We only know what's in the question, and that's all the relevant information we need to make a correct answer.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9377
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #682 on: November 08, 2019, 09:19:39 PM »
Yes there should be everything in the question that is needed to answer the question, or we can only use the info in the question to answer the problem. We can't infer a late payment claus or fine unless it is part of the law. Nothing in a contract between the parties.

Which means that the contractor is an idiot. Because he didn't include any penalty for failure to pay.

Here's another point: If the homeowner had paid with a check, which was not forbidden in the contract if we have all the relevant information, the contractor would not have even been able to access the money for several days, and could not have paid the car seller in any case! Since no car dealership is going to accept a two-party check issued by an unknown party, there's no way the contractor could have paid for the car in time to get the lower price.

Can the court rule against the contractor merely on the grounds that he's stupid? There is no reasonable basis to expect that he'd be paid on the very day he finishes the work so he was just being irresponsible when he made the car agreement.

Daniel, you would fail miserably if you ever took the bar exam ;D

(So would I)

The point of these questions is to provide all the relevant information needed to choose the correct answer. (and some irrelevant information, too, but that's part of the process).

We don't know if a check was or was not forbidden, so that is not relevant. (If the contractor went to the homeowner's bank with check in hand, he would have been able to get the money right away).  The only thing relevant about the payment is that the homeowner did not pay.

No the court can't rule against the contractor for being stupid, but there is no evidence here that he's stupid or not.

But, the bar can rule against you for assuming facts not included in the question.

We only know what's in the question, and that's all the relevant information we need to make a correct answer.

Do you know if a bank that will give you cash for a check if you don't have enough money in your account to cover it? I don't. The contractor claimed that he lost $2,000 because he could not pay the $10,000 for the car. That means he did not have $10,000. In that case, the bank will not cash the check. They'll accept it in deposit to his account, and give him the cash after it clears. The information in the question tells us that he didn't have enough money to pay for the car, and that means that when he goes to the bank he'll have to wait for the check to clear before he can get the cash.

This means that the homeowner's refusal to pay was not the cause of the contractor losing the $2,000 on the car.

I was being silly about the court ruling against him for stupidity, but a contract with no provisions for late payment is stupid.

The homeowner is not responsible for the $2,000 or for the heart attack which was probably due to his existing bad health.

The homeowner owes $10,000 plus legal fees. And the homeowner is an asshole, unless the work was shoddy. You're right that I'd flunk the bar exam because I've never studied law. But I won't flunk the bar exam because I won't ever take it.

(Parenthetically, my sister is a retired lawyer. She passed the bar exam the first time she took it. She also believes in every sort of medical quackery you'd care to think of. She gets acupuncture for her dog, for fuck's sake! I have no particular respect for the intelligence of lawyers as a class.)
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10807
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #683 on: November 08, 2019, 10:36:50 PM »
I'll guess D. A makes sense, but I guess that by failing to pay can get some extra compensation, and that one makes the most sense.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8139
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #684 on: November 08, 2019, 11:20:52 PM »
Daniel, the things you are talking about are absolutely irrelevant to the legal question.  And the legal question is what this game is about.  I get it, you don’t like how the law works and you don’t like the constraints of the questions; but that’s the game we’re playing, here; this is not the place to air your grievances or to take a stand against how the law works.  If you don’t like the terms of the game, don’t play it.

Now, on the the actual question:

It’s pretty straightforward that the contractor will get his 10k. The question is really whether he will get more. Answer B says the contractor will get damaged for emotional distress, which I do not think is the case, here; such damages require intent to inflict the distress or paryicularly egregious conduct. I don’t think that the homeowner’s breach can change the terms of the contract to market price, so D is out.

After a lot of thinking, I’m going with C.  The terms of the contract required payment on completion. The contractor had a right to rely on the expectation that he would receive the payment as promised, and his $2000 loss was a result of the homeowner’s failure to fulfill the promise. Ultimately, the court is trying to put the contractor in the position he would have been in if the breach had not happened, and that would be $12,000 richer.

I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12047
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #685 on: November 09, 2019, 12:41:05 AM »
I think C too.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4173
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #686 on: November 09, 2019, 10:23:19 AM »
My problem with going with C is that how far can you  go with this? What would be the upper limit on this? Would I be liable for more then the price of the job being done? I shouldn't be held accountable for the contractor bad decisions.  Since there was nothing in the contract saying what happens for nonpayment beyond the price of the job. I can see going after cost involved with the nonpayment. Like the cost of putting a lien on your property, but beyond that I don't see it.

That said I have no idea what the law says on this and just because I think it should go one way doesn't mean that the law agrees with me. Law sometimes is counterintuitive.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
Douglas Adams

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9377
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #687 on: November 09, 2019, 01:22:16 PM »
My problem with going with C is that how far can you  go with this? What would be the upper limit on this? Would I be liable for more then the price of the job being done? I shouldn't be held accountable for the contractor bad decisions.  Since there was nothing in the contract saying what happens for nonpayment beyond the price of the job. I can see going after cost involved with the nonpayment. Like the cost of putting a lien on your property, but beyond that I don't see it.

That said I have no idea what the law says on this and just because I think it should go one way doesn't mean that the law agrees with me. Law sometimes is counterintuitive.

I agree with xenu: How far can you take it? The car cost him an extra $2,000 if he didn't pay on June 1. What if the car had cost an extra $100,000? Would the homeowner be liable for that? I get it that we're talking about what the law is, not what it "should" be. But in the absence of a clause in the contract, how can the homeowner be responsible for the contractor's unrelated commitments? Doesn't the law take into account such things as "reasonable expectations"? I think it does. It would not be reasonable for the contractor to expect could get the money from the homeowner in time for him to get it to the car seller on the same day. The homeowner is liable for the $10K but he could argue that he is not liable for the $2K because even if he had paid on June 1 after the banks closed, the contractor would have been unable to make his June 1 payment to the car seller.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8139
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #688 on: November 09, 2019, 01:24:10 PM »
I shouldn't be held accountable for the contractor bad decisions.

The contractor did not make a bad decision, though; he made a decision in expectation of the fulfillment of the contract.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9377
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #689 on: November 09, 2019, 01:40:13 PM »
Here's another thought, to which I don't know the answer: Is there an assumption in law that "completion" of the job assumes an independent inspection? When I had my solar installed, the contract specified that the final payment was due after the final inspection. What is the legal definition of "completion"? Presumably, someone taking the bar exam is expected to know this.

The wild card here is that the homeowner just refused to pay at all, without explanation. In this case, if the contract does not specify a penalty, I have no idea what the law says. Unless there's a precedent, I'd imagine the judge can rule however he likes. Since we're not offered $19,000 (the $13K actual value plus medical and car losses) as an option, the judge might pick B just because it's the largest of the offered choices, to punish the homeowner for refusing to pay.

I'll stick with my answer (A) because the contract doesn't appear to offer the contractor any remedy for failure to pay. But I really don't know because if the law actually covers this kind of situation, I have no idea what it says, and if there's a legal precedent, I don't know what it is. If there isn't, the judge could rule however he likes.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

 

personate-rain