T3BE Week 10! Disappearing Wallets and Fake Philanthropy
Added 2024-04-17 07:13:37 +0000 UTCLast week's answers, this week's questions!
Comments
And the welsh?
127dot0dot0dot1
2024-04-22 14:52:24 +0000 UTCThen Scotland, the Irelands, and England lived happily ever after ❤️ 🏴 🇮🇪 🏴 (no Northern Ireland flag 🤷♂️).
Austin Flake
2024-04-22 13:19:14 +0000 UTCConsideration does need to be made for a legally enforceable contract. I believe consideration was legally achieved, given the setting.
Austin Flake
2024-04-22 13:12:32 +0000 UTCI think the magic word in the second question is "Publicly". Seems to me that the acclaim and recognition of being a big philanthropist would weigh in if consideration is a requirement. They definitely detrimentally relied on his promise, so I'd assume B is correct unless the fact that they detrimentally relied is irrelevant because fame and fawning by the university board as well as the public is not 'consideration'. Which, really, it should be, so I'm hopeful B is correct but I could see it being A.
Matt is a movie star ask him about The Gamers
2024-04-20 00:21:20 +0000 UTC"Back in time a call was made, To set things right when a promise fades. Williston rose and he took a stand, To fix the laws across the land. When promises go down the drain (drain!) Promissory estoppel earns its fa-a-a-ame! When you rely - as people do - And act, believing that it's true, Recall these words and feel them well, Promissory estoppel casts its spell" (I'm not a songwriter; forgive me)
Dann de Grand Pre
2024-04-19 09:06:15 +0000 UTCOne of my more insane ideas. Channelled my inner Lit / Sum 41 - and managed to dodge rhyming Estoppel...I sure as fuck hope it's B! https://soundcloud.com/dan-proctor-406299961/i-promissory-to-estoppel-after-this
Dann de Grand Pre
2024-04-19 09:04:08 +0000 UTCIt is a bit wonky. But then again, a lot of real property law is.
Austin Flake
2024-04-19 06:45:25 +0000 UTCFirst question A) Explanation The magician stole Not robbed. That requires force Legal words are strict Second Question A) Explanation Peter promised a peck of pickled pecunia But Peter's promises are probably pap Professors probably prudently perchance repudiate lawsuit
Not Gonna Support Bad Guys
2024-04-18 16:04:49 +0000 UTCFor the patreon question I’m going A, on the basis my law degree (not a solicitous/advocate) is a Scottish one, and week 1 contracts the lecturers go to great pains to emphasise that Scotland, unlike England, does allow gratuitous contracts and promises, but does not require consideration as an essential element of a contract; as US law draws its roots (mostly) from English law, it naturally follows that convention.
127dot0dot0dot1
2024-04-18 06:44:25 +0000 UTCReally, wow the law is weird.. The reliance is the thing that makes it binding.
John of the bankruptcy pirates
2024-04-18 02:52:27 +0000 UTCI mean Matt pledge to pay a million to the future winner. I believe this is an illustration of the none obligation of such a statement
John of the bankruptcy pirates
2024-04-17 23:01:47 +0000 UTCQ1: a because robbery and theft are different crimes. And so is fraud. Q2: c? But maybe a. The pledge isn't an obligation. But I believe you can create a committed agreement to make a future payment even without an consideration and if I rely on that to my detriment I might be able to seek remedy and while a public pledge is too efferial and signed agreement would show something on which I could have relied. But I'm not confident
John of the bankruptcy pirates
2024-04-17 22:49:00 +0000 UTCYes, D is a stupid answer. The law doesn’t oft care for moral obligations. C is the red herring because the university doesn’t need a signed agreement when public pronouncements are brought. A is wrong because Peter is a known philanthropist making an offer on the campus at the university to the public: that’s consideration in my book. The answer is B. Pete’d better bring out his wallet, because the university did detrimentally rely on Pete’s donation to fund their new infrastructure.
Austin Flake
2024-04-17 22:39:35 +0000 UTCIn my opinion, magic should be considered a threat of force. If Clyde made a wallet disappear, who’s to say he couldn’t make the Charles do the same? However, until magic earns its deserved recognition as mystic mischief and malice, Thomas is correct; robbery requires force or its threat, and until mere mortals come to understand mysticism, the answer is A. Deception is a red herring. The context is a magic show, and they have admission of guilt for a solid larceny charge using the word, “steal.”
Austin Flake
2024-04-17 22:01:18 +0000 UTCThere has! Haven't listened to it yet, but it's from March 30. Right after the Mifepristone episode.
Quick update, Ovechkin is only 36 goals from The Record
2024-04-17 17:20:24 +0000 UTCIf she violates the injunction, she will be in contempt of court.
Lawrence Frank
2024-04-17 12:57:42 +0000 UTCThe new opening quotes remind me to ask: Has there been a LAM for "The Paper Chase" yet?
Jon Herrin
2024-04-17 12:55:46 +0000 UTCThe more I think about this the more I twist myself into knots. Is this a donative promise that can be freely withdrawn or is this still straightforward enough that the sheer fact the university acted upon it enough to be forseeable by the donor and therefore enforceable. I think I come down on the side of 'it's recoverable' but I can see an argument both ways. I think I've still talked myself into B. I think.
Dann de Grand Pre
2024-04-17 12:48:44 +0000 UTCDon't mention the Gentleman's D to Eli
Dann de Grand Pre
2024-04-17 10:17:04 +0000 UTCGentleman's D must mean something different in America.
Whitty
2024-04-17 09:27:47 +0000 UTCPoems banned now, eh?! I think the answer is B for the Patron question. Promises were made, acted upon, and broken, and I think we're looking at promissory estoppel. But how to escalate from poetry? If I can manage to write a rhyme for Estoppel I'll try and make a song...
Dann de Grand Pre
2024-04-17 08:52:14 +0000 UTC
