CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Thanks for the replies. :b:
Ask a law student questions about things he's not qualified or interested to answer
- Thread starter ace99
- Start date
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
RE Jack Thompson: Walk out on your own fitness hearing from the bar overseers and you've signed your own disbarment order. Doesn't matter if you're Jesus with a JD, you're done after that.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,721
edit: It is my understanding that in at least some states, you can actually become licensed to practice law without even completing a law degree or even going to law school at all... if you just take the bar exam in that state (where it works like as I described) and pass, you're technically qualified. If this is actually true, is law school 'worth it'? In other words, do you feel like what you're learning at your law school would truly help you at the profession, or are you just doing it so you're qualified to practice?
Yeah, I thought you might actually defend him considering he's VERY anti-violent video games, but I guess he's just undefendable even if he's on your side.
Oh brother
Yeah, I thought you might actually defend him considering he's VERY anti-violent video games, but I guess he's just undefendable even if he's on your side.
From his Wikipedia page said:
Oh brother
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
It is true that you can sit for the bar in some states w/o going to law school. California, for example, allows those who have apprenticed with practicing lawyers for a number of years to sit for the bar w/o attending law school. I am not aware of any state that allows a party right of the street to sit for the bar, but I have not performed any survey in that regard.
I think it is for several reasons:
- Network opportunities abound at law school (even though I've only been here a year, the chief justice of my commonwealth's appellate court knows me because of networking opportunities)
- After graduating from an accredited law school one can sit for any bar, which is a significant benefit. I am not sure, for example, whether one can be admitted to federal bar or specialized bars like the patent bar w/o going to law school
- Law school provides a broad understanding of the profession sufficient to practice most forms of law right out of the gate, whereas an apprentice may have a more limited understanding.
- Potential clients and employers are likely to be more interested in hiring someone who has a degree
- A degree opens doors to employment outside of the legal field
That said, there's plenty of open questions about the value of a law degree. Law school should help you pass the bar, but if it completely prepared you then there wouldn't be a significant number of bar prep courses.
Also at question is the actual cost of law school. I'm going to a relatively inexpensive school so the cost-benefit equation is likely to come out in my favor.
Thompson is a bombastic demagogue prone to statements that others would take as hyperbole but that he seems to believe earnestly. Regardless of one's views on violent video games, I highly doubt that there are many people who have thought critically about his opinions and remain on his side.
Cheetah
Deity
Hopefully someone who knows Common Law can help with this.
My sister is doing her Law degree in France at the moment, and is apparently in need of some help. So much, that she even asked if I could answer. This is, however, a bit more specific than what I as a layman feel comfortable in answering. So if someone could help me/her out, that would be really appreciated.
What I write here is my understanding as translated from Norwegian. Hopefully I don't lose any important details. I don't speak good legalese, neither in Norwegian nor English.
Problem:
In Common Law, as opposed to Norwegian Law (which I assume is similar to French/Continental Law? But that's really beside the point), one can not gain better rights than one's predecessor by gaining a document, e.g. a Bill of Lading.
In other words, under Common Law, if shipper A (the seller of a BOL) steals a BOL from C (the rightful owner) and sells it to B (a buyer in good faith), then B will not have a right to the goods or the BOL. Under Norwegian Law it's the other way around: B gains C's rights, and becomes the rightful owner.
Question:
What are the consequences for this example under Common Law? Who is the rightful owner to the goods or the BOL? Who will have to sue who?
My sister is doing her Law degree in France at the moment, and is apparently in need of some help. So much, that she even asked if I could answer. This is, however, a bit more specific than what I as a layman feel comfortable in answering. So if someone could help me/her out, that would be really appreciated.
What I write here is my understanding as translated from Norwegian. Hopefully I don't lose any important details. I don't speak good legalese, neither in Norwegian nor English.
Problem:
In Common Law, as opposed to Norwegian Law (which I assume is similar to French/Continental Law? But that's really beside the point), one can not gain better rights than one's predecessor by gaining a document, e.g. a Bill of Lading.
In other words, under Common Law, if shipper A (the seller of a BOL) steals a BOL from C (the rightful owner) and sells it to B (a buyer in good faith), then B will not have a right to the goods or the BOL. Under Norwegian Law it's the other way around: B gains C's rights, and becomes the rightful owner.
Question:
What are the consequences for this example under Common Law? Who is the rightful owner to the goods or the BOL? Who will have to sue who?
Nemo dat quod non habet - you can't give what you don't have. If B owns something, A cannot give it or sell it to C. If we're talking about C having goods themselves (chattels in possession), B can recover from C by suing in detinue (to recover specific goods) or in conversion (to recover damages), or can recover from A as you'd expect.
There is a key distinction illustrated in the case of contract rescission. If A sells a car to B, who turns out to be a fraud, and then B sells to C, an innocent purchaser (BFPFVWN below), then whether A can get the car back off C depends on whether property passed to B. If property did pass to B, then B could sell to C, who would legally receive the property. But if property didn't pass to B, then they couldn't have passed it to C, so A can recover the property from C, the property still actually belonging to A. Now, if a contract is void ab initio, this means that it was void from the outset, and no transfer of property took place. But if it is merely voidable, then it is a legally effective contract, but can effectively be cancelled (rescinded) at the option of A, with things returned to their previous state in relation to B. But seeing as the initial transfer of the property legally happened in this circumstance, C received the property legally and A can have no claim against them. They are limited to claiming against B for the value of the property (which is problematic if B is bankrupt or has absconded). There's a very fine distinction in the case law between those cases where the contract is void and those where it's voidable (see Lewis v Averay and Shogun Finance v Hudson if interested), but the main point is that this demonstrates that you can't sell what you don't have.
The notion of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice (BFPFVWN) comes into play when talking about equitable property, which isn't applicable to legal title of chattels. So if A holds property on trust for B (meaning B has an equitable interest), and then A sells to C, a BFPFVWN, then that BFPFVWN will take the property clear on the equitable interest, meaning B will have lost their equitable interest. But if C doesn't satisfy the BFPFVWN criteria (BF, PFV & WN respectively), then the equitable title of B persists.
In cases such as if A sells B an interest in a trust (which is an equitable interest), then sells C the same thing, such that both B and C are claiming an equitable interest, then C can actually get priority in some circumstances (see Rice v Rice and Dearle v Hall for the old English cases explaining this), such as where B has contributed to C's lack of knowledge that they were buying a dud interest, by not registering their own interest properly, for example.
There is a key distinction illustrated in the case of contract rescission. If A sells a car to B, who turns out to be a fraud, and then B sells to C, an innocent purchaser (BFPFVWN below), then whether A can get the car back off C depends on whether property passed to B. If property did pass to B, then B could sell to C, who would legally receive the property. But if property didn't pass to B, then they couldn't have passed it to C, so A can recover the property from C, the property still actually belonging to A. Now, if a contract is void ab initio, this means that it was void from the outset, and no transfer of property took place. But if it is merely voidable, then it is a legally effective contract, but can effectively be cancelled (rescinded) at the option of A, with things returned to their previous state in relation to B. But seeing as the initial transfer of the property legally happened in this circumstance, C received the property legally and A can have no claim against them. They are limited to claiming against B for the value of the property (which is problematic if B is bankrupt or has absconded). There's a very fine distinction in the case law between those cases where the contract is void and those where it's voidable (see Lewis v Averay and Shogun Finance v Hudson if interested), but the main point is that this demonstrates that you can't sell what you don't have.
The notion of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice (BFPFVWN) comes into play when talking about equitable property, which isn't applicable to legal title of chattels. So if A holds property on trust for B (meaning B has an equitable interest), and then A sells to C, a BFPFVWN, then that BFPFVWN will take the property clear on the equitable interest, meaning B will have lost their equitable interest. But if C doesn't satisfy the BFPFVWN criteria (BF, PFV & WN respectively), then the equitable title of B persists.
In cases such as if A sells B an interest in a trust (which is an equitable interest), then sells C the same thing, such that both B and C are claiming an equitable interest, then C can actually get priority in some circumstances (see Rice v Rice and Dearle v Hall for the old English cases explaining this), such as where B has contributed to C's lack of knowledge that they were buying a dud interest, by not registering their own interest properly, for example.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
In American property law, two forms of estoppel may act in this situation.
Statutory estoppel occurs when:
Equitable estoppel occurs when:
In both cases I believe purchaser must obtain possession of the good and be unaware of the fraud (purchase in good faith).
In either of those limited cases, Owner C is barred from pursuing a cause of action against Purchaser B. Purchaser B's title becomes good as a bone fide purchaser. So same result as under Norwegian law under those limited circumstances.
If those circumstances are not met than Owner C has a claim against Purchaser B.
However, Owner C still has a valid cause of action against Fraudster A.
Statutory estoppel functions as an extension of the Universal Commercial Code, which is by statute that may not be shared with other Common Law countries.
In general, however, the damages, if successful, will not result in the return of the goods in question unless the goods are unique. An action for replevin is required for the return of the goods and such actions only occur if the goods in question are unique rather than fungible.
Statutory estoppel occurs when:
- Owner (C) entrusts property to a merchant dealing in such property.
- Purchaser (B) acquires the property from the merchant during both a) the normal course of business and b) Purchaser paid value for the property (could not be a gift or other non-value transaction)
Equitable estoppel occurs when:
- Owner (C) entrusts any person with a piece of property and an indicia of title (title of a car, boat, land deed, most pieces of private property do not have such indicia)
- Purchaser (B) buys the property from the person entrusted with the indicia of title
In both cases I believe purchaser must obtain possession of the good and be unaware of the fraud (purchase in good faith).
In either of those limited cases, Owner C is barred from pursuing a cause of action against Purchaser B. Purchaser B's title becomes good as a bone fide purchaser. So same result as under Norwegian law under those limited circumstances.
If those circumstances are not met than Owner C has a claim against Purchaser B.
However, Owner C still has a valid cause of action against Fraudster A.
Statutory estoppel functions as an extension of the Universal Commercial Code, which is by statute that may not be shared with other Common Law countries.
In general, however, the damages, if successful, will not result in the return of the goods in question unless the goods are unique. An action for replevin is required for the return of the goods and such actions only occur if the goods in question are unique rather than fungible.
Cheetah
Deity
Thanks a lot guys.
However, that wasn't quite the answer that was needed. This is specifically about maritime law (see the Bill of Lading). My sister says that maritime law is distinct from normal Common Law, and was hoping for some answers in that particular area...
Any ideas?
However, that wasn't quite the answer that was needed. This is specifically about maritime law (see the Bill of Lading). My sister says that maritime law is distinct from normal Common Law, and was hoping for some answers in that particular area...
Any ideas?
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Disregarding the maritime law aspect, which, for US law, may be a meaningless red herring, I performed some additional research on your subject.
An important unknown fact at hand is whether the bill of lading is negotiable or non-negotiable. A negotiable bill can be delivered under the instructions of the consignee (intended recipient/purchaser) whereas a non-negotiable requires delivery to the consignee.
The consignee, at least for a negotiable bill, may be left blank or specified openly as the "delivery recipient" or other generic term such that it is left open who is the recipient. Alternatively, the bill may specify a specific recipient who can indorse it.
A bill is assumed to be negotiable unless it is expressly stated that it is not.
A party holding an "open" negotiable bill can indorse the bill and accept delivery if he or she meets the requirements of the bill.
An innocent bone fide purchaser who buys a negotiable bill of lading from a fraudster and meets the requirements gains title over the goods.
So basically the analysis is this:
Is the bill negotiable? If it is non-negotiable then the analysis stops and Owner C has a valid claim against both Fraudster A and Buyer B.
If it is negotiable then ask if it is an "open" negotiable bill that will fit Buyer B. If the BoL is negotiable but states an intended consignee who can direct the delivery then Buyer B will probably be liable b/c Buyer B is not the consignee specified. Unless the stated consignee already indorsed the bill and thusly made it an open instrument. An indorsement which, I suppose, might be the work of Fraudster A.
However, if the consignee is left blank or if Buyer B can meet the requirements, say if the delivery is to whomever is docked at pier 5 and Buyer B is docked there for the delivery, then Buyer B becomes a bone fide purchaser for value assuming Buyer B is innocent to Fraudster A's fraud.
The validity of Buyer B's title to goods following negotiation of the BoL in no way affects Owner C's ability to pursue a case against Fraudster A.
This analysis rests on US statutes. The analysis for other common law countries may vary.
However, I noticed that the federal bill of ladings act only covers shipments that originate in the US. It is possible that separate laws may apply to shipments originating in foreign nations. I didn't research this, but it seems likely that the law of the originating nation may apply unless there is a superseding US law.
An important unknown fact at hand is whether the bill of lading is negotiable or non-negotiable. A negotiable bill can be delivered under the instructions of the consignee (intended recipient/purchaser) whereas a non-negotiable requires delivery to the consignee.
The consignee, at least for a negotiable bill, may be left blank or specified openly as the "delivery recipient" or other generic term such that it is left open who is the recipient. Alternatively, the bill may specify a specific recipient who can indorse it.
A bill is assumed to be negotiable unless it is expressly stated that it is not.
A party holding an "open" negotiable bill can indorse the bill and accept delivery if he or she meets the requirements of the bill.
An innocent bone fide purchaser who buys a negotiable bill of lading from a fraudster and meets the requirements gains title over the goods.
So basically the analysis is this:
Is the bill negotiable? If it is non-negotiable then the analysis stops and Owner C has a valid claim against both Fraudster A and Buyer B.
If it is negotiable then ask if it is an "open" negotiable bill that will fit Buyer B. If the BoL is negotiable but states an intended consignee who can direct the delivery then Buyer B will probably be liable b/c Buyer B is not the consignee specified. Unless the stated consignee already indorsed the bill and thusly made it an open instrument. An indorsement which, I suppose, might be the work of Fraudster A.
However, if the consignee is left blank or if Buyer B can meet the requirements, say if the delivery is to whomever is docked at pier 5 and Buyer B is docked there for the delivery, then Buyer B becomes a bone fide purchaser for value assuming Buyer B is innocent to Fraudster A's fraud.
The validity of Buyer B's title to goods following negotiation of the BoL in no way affects Owner C's ability to pursue a case against Fraudster A.
This analysis rests on US statutes. The analysis for other common law countries may vary.
However, I noticed that the federal bill of ladings act only covers shipments that originate in the US. It is possible that separate laws may apply to shipments originating in foreign nations. I didn't research this, but it seems likely that the law of the originating nation may apply unless there is a superseding US law.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,721
Let me point out, before I ask you this question, that regardless of how you answer it I have no intention of *actually* going to Law school. No offense to you, but I'm not interested.
That said:
Based on what you know of me (which is obviously limited to what you've seen of my debating abilities on this site) do I "have what it takes" to be a lawyer? (courtroom lawyer that is).
That said:
Based on what you know of me (which is obviously limited to what you've seen of my debating abilities on this site) do I "have what it takes" to be a lawyer? (courtroom lawyer that is).
sophie
Break My Heart
I think that's a question that only you can answer for yourself. Do you have what it takes? Are you committed enough to kick your ass trying to get the good GPA through college? Are you committed enough to a) prepare tirelessly and relentlessly for the LSAT and b) spend quite a bit of time and money taking the test multiple times to achieve the best score possible? Are you ready to face the near constant stress and pressure to perform at a high enough level throughout undergrad: stressing over getting an A- or B+ in some meaningless class, getting gray hairs over whether it's worth it to take the LSAT one more time, agonizing over whether or not you have enough stuff to put on your applications - all so you can get into a Tier 1 Law School? Are you committed enough to effectively have no life while you're studying 18 hours a day to do well in Law School and pass the BAR? Are you interested enough in being a lawyer to fight tooth and nail to beat out the hundred other recent law school grads (who are just as committed, intelligent and driven as you are) for the 2 or 3 quality law firm/DA offerings in your area? Are you willing to denigrate yourself and do grunt work on low salary with massive Law School debts hanging over your head on the slim chance that you will some day be made a partner? If none of those things deter you and you still look forward to some day being a courtroom lawyer, then I think you'll be just fine.
Surprisingly (or not) that's basically the same question process for if you want to get into Academia.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,721
I guess what I meant is that even if we were living 30 years ago where lawyers had a much more sturdy profession on their hands than they do now, would I have what it took even then? Even supposing I managed to get accepted into a decent law school (we'll say second tier) and do reasonably well, graduating with a law degree and passing the bar (based on what I've heard, just about all law school graduates call the bar a joke, which of course is not to say law school itself is a joke, but if you've managed to survive law school itself, you'll probably survive the bar).
Even in these much less competitive circumstances, do I have the "debate skills" to be a lawyer. Based on what Tucker max has said I'm guessing the answer is no, although his article is based on the here and now rather than my hypothetical.
Even in these much less competitive circumstances, do I have the "debate skills" to be a lawyer. Based on what Tucker max has said I'm guessing the answer is no, although his article is based on the here and now rather than my hypothetical.
sophie
Break My Heart
See but that's the point. Being successful as a lawyer really isn't about being a "good debater". It's about putting yourself on the right path and then using your drive, determination, hardworking, and cutthroat nature to reach the top. It's much more about connections and motivation than debating.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
I've never seen Freeman law in practice, but generally speaking it is nonsense. The Freeman practice relies on examining the minute details of the law and expanding the perceived significance of those details far beyond what courts recognize. The malarkey about the fringe around a flag indicating admiralty law, for example.
This interesting in part because the practice of law was once composed of these minute details, writ pleading for example, but has now moved much more towards plain language. (Albeit slowly and not universally.)
The Freeman idea that statutory law cannot override common law is plainly absurd on its face.
The best argument that a Freeman can make may be that he did not consent to the social contract binding him before the court. However, that's a philosophical argument not a legal one.
This interesting in part because the practice of law was once composed of these minute details, writ pleading for example, but has now moved much more towards plain language. (Albeit slowly and not universally.)
The Freeman idea that statutory law cannot override common law is plainly absurd on its face.
The best argument that a Freeman can make may be that he did not consent to the social contract binding him before the court. However, that's a philosophical argument not a legal one.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Got a couple of kids living here with us in the Philippines. Wife and I love em both and plan on someday adopting them. I'm a US citizen semi retired in the Philippines and living here on a permanent resident visa. My wife is a Philippine national and she has dual citizenship. The kids are distant relatives of hers. Their father, wife's cousin, somehow got himself on another island and up the remote mountains of Surigao where he married a tribal woman and they had these 2 kids, they are brother and sister. Typhoon came along and washed out their meager home and small vegetable farm. So, father spent all he had and brought them down the mountain and across to Bohol in the hopes that family would adopt them. We took the kids, and refunded the father's pesos and bought him a boat ticket. Both kids needed hospitalization for parasites and the boy had pneumonia which was a really extensive treatment to fix including a week in a pediatric hospital with a list of antibiotics as long as my arm.
Anyway, what's the fastest and cheapest way to make these kids ours legally and bring them to the US? Wife and I go back and forth to work and would like them to be able to join us.
Anyway, what's the fastest and cheapest way to make these kids ours legally and bring them to the US? Wife and I go back and forth to work and would like them to be able to join us.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Legal advice regarding adoption is far beyond my ability to provide an accurate or helpful answer.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Okay, thanks for the reply.
Similar threads
