OA87: Revenge Porn & Parol Evidence
Added 2017-07-17 20:24:15 +0000 UTCFor today's show, we take a deep dive into the law of contracts, featuring the "parol evidence" rule.
First, however, we answer a question from special listener Lydia S. who wants to know all about Blac Chyna, Rob Kardashian, and "revenge porn." YOU asked for it!
In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas discuss what you can and can't do to dispute a written contract.
Next, Garry Myers asks us about why law firms are all structured as partnerships. Again, the answer might surprise you!.
Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #32 regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Listen and find out if Thomas makes it back to .500! And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)!
Recent Appearances:
None! Have us on your show!
Show Notes & Links
- You can check out California's "revenge porn" law, Penal Code - PEN § 647(j)(4), by clicking here.
- And this is the Los Angeles Times article detailing Kamala Harris's first successful prosecution under the law back when she was California's Attorney General.
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
And email us at openarguments@gmail.com
Comments
Revenge porn is always wrong. It doesn't matter that she (it's far more often than not a female victim) took the photos. It doesn't matter that she sent them to someone. That doesn't make it his (again, usually a male) right to do with the photos what she wanted. I read somewhere it could be prosecutable as copyright infringement. Is that generally true? Is it dependent on the state, or is copyright infringement federal? Honestly, with how untrustworthy people are nowadays and how prevalent victim blaming is, I'm surprised anyone takes or sends nude photos anymore.
It’s Never Aliens
2017-07-28 21:32:32 +0000 UTCRegarding parol evidence... I was taught in my Architecture law class to never act (is act different than parol/word?) beyond the contract. The example given in class was: if your contract says you will do one site visit a month during construction, and you do a site visit every week, then you miss a few weeks, if something goes wrong the owner can sue you because the contractor had a reasonable expectation that you would be on site to tell them they were doing something wrong, and thereby your actions changed the contract. So, with "parol evidence", words cannot change a contract, but is there a different rule for actions changing contracts?
Clifton Stuckey
2017-07-22 06:12:06 +0000 UTC
