T3BE59!
Added 2025-02-19 10:47:24 +0000 UTCSince you fine folks already heard the second part of the Thursday Night Massacre, this one is just T3BE and the shoutouts!
Comments
I'm not here to answer the T3BE question, although I definitely think it's A...you should be entitled to a Jury Trial. Anyway, the 4 Nations was AMAZING. Sad to see the US lose, but what an amazing series! WAY better than the All Star break. Also, Go Caps!
Irregardless of anything, Ovechkin is only 15 goals from the record.
2025-02-21 17:27:31 +0000 UTCSo I believe the answer is B. This is a very tricky question but the issue being tested is that specific performance is an equitable remedy where you are not entitled to a jury trail. This goes way back in the history of common law courts where there literally used to be two separate courts. One that could only doll out equitable remedies and another court of βlawβ that could award money damages.
Michael Anderson
2025-02-20 14:05:00 +0000 UTCI think it's A because the 7th Amendment protects the right to a jury trail in civil cases. At least that's what the AI overview told me when I googled it. I could pretend this information was already in my brain, but why? Everything is on fire and I'm out of fucks to give.
Kait from Seattle
2025-02-19 17:29:45 +0000 UTCBONUS T3BE QUESTION: Who has the power to interpret laws? A. The judicial branch B. Federal agencies C. Congress D. Only the President and the Attorney General
All-inclusive Gender Resort
2025-02-19 16:52:36 +0000 UTCcackled at the miracle on ice! spectacular. ππ»
citationy stuff
2025-02-19 16:28:50 +0000 UTCI'm going to guess B. The dispute on the painting is based on whether Sabrina knew or should have known it was a forgery. I think there's an amount in controversy rule too (probably some ridiculous British common law rule like an amount more than three chickens or something) but I'm sure that $3 million is well over that threshold. The breach of contract portion of the question says that he "sought specific performance". This is a huge clue. Ben is requesting the court to order specific performance rather than seeking damages.
Shad Riley
2025-02-19 15:30:22 +0000 UTCT3BE answer A I think there's a plausible claim by Ben and the question will be to the facts. Judges deal in law, juries deal in facts. My second guess is C because there's always some special rule about fraud that nobody knows unless you're looking through the law version of Robert's Rules of Order or Gray's Anatomy at the time.
The Great State of Denial
2025-02-19 15:20:52 +0000 UTCI think T3BE answer is B. He is entitled to a jury trial to determine whether there was in fact fraud with regard to the painting. As to the sale of the house, specific performance is an equitable remedy so he doesnβt get a jury trial. If he were seeking money damages he would get a jury to determine the amount that the breech cost him, but since he wants specific performance she can get a judicial decision on that portion. Here in the real world though this is never going to trial - this is an easy summary judgement decision.
Charley Kelly, Bird Law Specialist
2025-02-19 14:44:26 +0000 UTCT3BE answer B Jury is the finder of facts and the judge is the finder of law. In regards to the painting, the court needs to figure out if there was, in fact, fraud committed. With the breach of contract, there are no questions of fact involved. There was a contract, it was breached. The question is was there a legal reason to breach the contract.
Leon
2025-02-19 13:26:18 +0000 UTC
