Here are most of the powerpoints I have used in class:
Download 2-202.ppt
Download contracts_3_10_2008.ppt
Download contracts_3_31_08.ppt
Download ppt_4_21_2008.ppt
Download presentation_3_26_08.ppt
Here are most of the powerpoints I have used in class:
Download 2-202.ppt
Download contracts_3_10_2008.ppt
Download contracts_3_31_08.ppt
Download ppt_4_21_2008.ppt
Download presentation_3_26_08.ppt
Posted at 03:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
For this coming Monday and Tuesday:
664-667
679-683
674-677
UCC 2-601, 2-508, 2-606; 2-507(1); 2-511(1)
[equals Cal. Com. code 2601, 2508, etc.]
700-702
789-792
797-798
800-805
Please note: In the California commercial code, UCC 2-509 (for example) appears as Section 2509 (see here).
And that's it!
Posted at 05:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Here is a link to the UCC as enacted and currently in force in California. We are interested in Division [Article] 2.
Posted at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The final exam will have 2 parts, a multiple choice question part and an essay part.
The MPQ part will be closed book.
The essay part will be partial open book. You may bring your casebook, and your notes & outline only. No commercial outlines, or printouts of Web resources. A statutory supplement will be provided with key Restatement and UCC sections in it. Do not bring your own statutory supplement, though, of course, it is fine to incorporate quotations of law into your notes and/or outline.
The exam will be 3 hours long with a break in the middle.
The 3 hours will be divided about equally between the two sections.
It is not necessary to memorize exact wording of UCC or Restatement sections. However, the MPQ's will ask you to apply UCC and Restatement sections to fact based problems and provide answers, so it is important to know the substance of them and be able to apply them.
In answering essay questions, it is important to both provide the right answer and show how much you know. Show your analysis and if you have time, show alternative analyses, even ones you considered and rejected, and why.
Posted at 09:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Interesting article on Bloomer Girl by a smart law & econ professor. Good explanation of what the studio contract was really doing -- using a "pay or play" provision. Case got right result with wrong reasoning.
Posted at 09:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
[Note: These assignments may be modified (by being shortened) if necessary, depending on our pace.]
491-495
500-512
518-521
521-534
536-542
542-552
555-566
571-584
585-586
592-596
Posted at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
To accommodate a request to hold an exam in our usual room by another professor, we will hold class on Wednesday, March 12, in the third floor Courtroom of Warren Hall.
Sorry for any inconvenience. This is a one-time only deal.
Posted at 09:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
352-360
361-365
376-379
380-397
401-409
423-428
451-469
469-491
Posted at 09:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
263-272
274-277
277-279
281-284
284-291
295-296
298 review problem
299-305
305-309
312-317
324-338
342-349
Posted at 09:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Here's a contract dispute in the MMA world (hattip JI).
And here's a story about the fight between New Line Cinema and the Tolkein Trust over proceeds from the fabulously successful trilogy of Lord of the Rings movies. This NYT story is pretty good and more detailed.
I harbor a (very, very) small hope that this lawsuit might change the appalling norms in Hollywood about contract compliance, but it probably won't. If the allegations in the complaint are true (and it would not surprise me a bit), I think it would be entirely appropriate to relieve the Tolkein Trust of all of its further obligations under the contract. This would conceivably include New Line's movie rights to the book.
Posted at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)