1) That is why you use a panel system in larger classes.
2) I have used the socratic method just fine in tandem with group projects, etc, at the undergraduate level.
mmmm unguided erie guesses. Did you know that the Illinois Supreme Court will only take certified questions from the Supreme court OR the 7th circuit? (talk about ridic...)
New York: Supreme Court (Trial) => Appellate Division (App Div) => Court of Appeals(Highest Court in State). Also you are not entirely correct, in some circumstances, Appellate decisions are binding to ALL lower courts, and in some jurisdictions, they are binding on only those lower courts over which they have direct review. (So the Nassau County Supreme court wouldn't be bound by 1st Department Decisions, but New York County Supreme would. N.b. In New York, this is not the case -- Appellate Decisions from any department are binding provided that the department with direct review does not have conflicting precedent)
This is not criminal. It's civil. All of the things you cite (except one) go to damages, not liability. Going to law school has made me hate slashdot so much more.
IAAL. I am assuming you meant to write "IANAL." A trial court ruling, while not binding on other courts (but certainly persuasive) may in some instances be binding on that same trial court, and as a practical matter, often is even when it need not be. Also, there may be an estoppel issue for the RIAA lurking here.
IAAL. 17 U.S.C. 501(b) authorizes an exclusive licensee to sue for inringement. he has granted an exclusive license. thus he might not want to sue you, but his publisher can. Look through the Silvers v. Sony Pictures case -- unless his contract specifically deals with the right to sue for infringement....his publisher can.
Neither Slashdot nor the SF Chronicle knows what an Unguided Erie choice is. Prior to this ruling, they made an unguided erie choice. Unguided no longer. IAAL.
I am so sick of these idiots who spout "conservative" and "liberal" like they know what it means. No way Alito goes for this. Thomas has already made clear he thinks most commerce clause jurisprudence is trash. Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Raich. I want to scream at all of/. that what they know of the court is all wrong and its more complex than that. SIGH
Scalia wing? Idiot. You should be ashamed of yourself. Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Raich. Thomas dissented. Please learn that liberals prefer commerce clause expansion and conservatives want to shrink it. TYVMIA.:-)
You are incorrect. IAAL. You confused VOID with VOIDABLE. Null = VOID in a legal context. VOID != VOIDABLE. (A voidable contract can generally be enforced by one party only, the other party could void it: for example, most contracts with minors can be enforced by the minor but not by the other side.)
Prior to this, the narrow-exception was an unguided Erie choice. Not a Hanna v Plumer issue, no BW Taxi issue. Flat out Erie. This is now binding on the 9th circuit.
The fact of the matter is that individuals do not 'knowingly' agree to the terms -- they often don't read the terms. Under the common law -- under those facts -- there is no contract at all. Contract requires offer,consideration acceptance, and a meeting of the minds. It's only a modern fiction that we allow the contract to be formed at all in the absence of a meeting of the minds. That fiction is not available when the contract is a take-it-or-leave-it adhesion contract.
It's a contract of adhesion, dumbass. Some of us that have actually learned contract law find this simple. It's black letter law. Giant company, one tiny consumer. Consumer can say "How much for the plan without the early-termination fee" and company says "won't sell it without it." When company does that to millions of people, it's called a contract of adhesion and is thus unenforceable. Please pick up Farnsworth and stfu.
Your first statement conflates false advertising and express warranty with strict liability. If a company says "our product does x" but it doesn't in fact, do X, they may be liable. (Example: Our product is microwave safe. You put it in the microwave. It blows up. Company is going to lose)
Strict liability is when there is an actual defect in the product itself, i.e. a structural weakness or improper design. In those instances (when you've made a mistake in the construction/design of a product that a "reasonable manufacturer" should not have made) you are held liable so long as the use was foreseeable. Foreseeability includes accidents etc. So for things like a mower blade detaching when the mower is lifted to trim a hedge, the same blade would also detach if -- for example -- the user tripped while mowing the lawn and pulled the mower onto it's side. Generally, when you see people that have done stupid things getting compensated, it's because there is a similar non-stupid use of the product in which the same defect will cause an injury. [We do not wait for the non-stupid use to actually HAPPEN if the stupid use occurs first]
Is this a better explanation?
Yeah, I'd say that we learned exactly what you should learn in a "Computer Science" rather than a "Computer Programming" train of learning. I've been able to learn about apartments and DCOM and other things that never should have left Don Box's brain because of the knowledge I got, but I don't think I'd be able to do Max-Flow Min-Cut (or anything else that came out of Ravi's mouth) if I'd learned the MSFT world first. Plus, now I've left CS entirely (sadly) and 'tis a moot point. But oh, how I long for those days.:(
I contemplate trying to come back.
You have confused strict product liability with negligence. If the suit sounds in strict product liability, then the email will screw the company. [The plaintiff still has to make a prima facia case for strict liability.] If the suit sounds in negligence, it won't make one bit of difference if the email existed or not. Negligence suits will depend on the reasonableness of the id10t's behavior. [Assuming you're in a contributory negligence jurisdiction rather than a comparative negligence one] Under Strict Products liability, all foreseeable behavior -- no matter how unreasonable -- must be dealt with. Nevermind that strict products liability will be nearly impossible to get unless the webelfetzer was defective in the first place. The point is, that email will screw the company if in fact the product was defective, i.e. company loses if the email says "I know that under these conditions our product will break because of a defect in our manufacturing process, but no one would ever be stupid enough to do that" -- and then someone IS stupid enough to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Re: Your signature. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Wd-Q3F8KM Great example of transformative use and a wonderful classroom example.
1) That is why you use a panel system in larger classes. 2) I have used the socratic method just fine in tandem with group projects, etc, at the undergraduate level.
mmmm unguided erie guesses. Did you know that the Illinois Supreme Court will only take certified questions from the Supreme court OR the 7th circuit? (talk about ridic...)
What does that have to do with what the LAW is. Bad facts make bad law, sometimes, but there is a question of law here.
New York: Supreme Court (Trial) => Appellate Division (App Div) => Court of Appeals(Highest Court in State). Also you are not entirely correct, in some circumstances, Appellate decisions are binding to ALL lower courts, and in some jurisdictions, they are binding on only those lower courts over which they have direct review. (So the Nassau County Supreme court wouldn't be bound by 1st Department Decisions, but New York County Supreme would. N.b. In New York, this is not the case -- Appellate Decisions from any department are binding provided that the department with direct review does not have conflicting precedent)
This is not criminal. It's civil. All of the things you cite (except one) go to damages, not liability. Going to law school has made me hate slashdot so much more.
IAAL. I am assuming you meant to write "IANAL." A trial court ruling, while not binding on other courts (but certainly persuasive) may in some instances be binding on that same trial court, and as a practical matter, often is even when it need not be. Also, there may be an estoppel issue for the RIAA lurking here.
Rather than enter a special appearance to move to quash, they just waived personal jurisdiction. Nothing to see here. .....
IAAL. 17 U.S.C. 501(b) authorizes an exclusive licensee to sue for inringement. he has granted an exclusive license. thus he might not want to sue you, but his publisher can. Look through the Silvers v. Sony Pictures case -- unless his contract specifically deals with the right to sue for infringement....his publisher can.
Don't forget the amount of bullshit you're willing to buy from Frank Drake^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h Microsoft. http://xkcd.com/384/
Neither Slashdot nor the SF Chronicle knows what an Unguided Erie choice is. Prior to this ruling, they made an unguided erie choice. Unguided no longer. IAAL.
I am so sick of these idiots who spout "conservative" and "liberal" like they know what it means. No way Alito goes for this. Thomas has already made clear he thinks most commerce clause jurisprudence is trash. Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Raich. I want to scream at all of /. that what they know of the court is all wrong and its more complex than that. SIGH
There is no general federal common law. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
Scalia wing? Idiot. You should be ashamed of yourself. Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Raich. Thomas dissented. Please learn that liberals prefer commerce clause expansion and conservatives want to shrink it. TYVMIA. :-)
You actually hit the nail on the head. But, null = void. Void != voidable. :)
You are incorrect. IAAL. You confused VOID with VOIDABLE. Null = VOID in a legal context. VOID != VOIDABLE. (A voidable contract can generally be enforced by one party only, the other party could void it: for example, most contracts with minors can be enforced by the minor but not by the other side.)
http://www.judgepainter.org/legalwriter34.htm :)
Enjoy.
(IAAL)
-b
Prior to this, the narrow-exception was an unguided Erie choice. Not a Hanna v Plumer issue, no BW Taxi issue. Flat out Erie. This is now binding on the 9th circuit.
If you'd like to know more about why contracts of adhesion are not enforceable, please start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract
The fact of the matter is that individuals do not 'knowingly' agree to the terms -- they often don't read the terms. Under the common law -- under those facts -- there is no contract at all. Contract requires offer,consideration acceptance, and a meeting of the minds. It's only a modern fiction that we allow the contract to be formed at all in the absence of a meeting of the minds. That fiction is not available when the contract is a take-it-or-leave-it adhesion contract.
This happens in fed court too, JMOL/RJMOL (formerly JNOV).
Google "contract of adhesion" and read anything by Rakoff.
It's a contract of adhesion, dumbass. Some of us that have actually learned contract law find this simple. It's black letter law. Giant company, one tiny consumer. Consumer can say "How much for the plan without the early-termination fee" and company says "won't sell it without it." When company does that to millions of people, it's called a contract of adhesion and is thus unenforceable. Please pick up Farnsworth and stfu.
Your first statement conflates false advertising and express warranty with strict liability. If a company says "our product does x" but it doesn't in fact, do X, they may be liable. (Example: Our product is microwave safe. You put it in the microwave. It blows up. Company is going to lose)
Strict liability is when there is an actual defect in the product itself, i.e. a structural weakness or improper design. In those instances (when you've made a mistake in the construction/design of a product that a "reasonable manufacturer" should not have made) you are held liable so long as the use was foreseeable. Foreseeability includes accidents etc. So for things like a mower blade detaching when the mower is lifted to trim a hedge, the same blade would also detach if -- for example -- the user tripped while mowing the lawn and pulled the mower onto it's side. Generally, when you see people that have done stupid things getting compensated, it's because there is a similar non-stupid use of the product in which the same defect will cause an injury. [We do not wait for the non-stupid use to actually HAPPEN if the stupid use occurs first] Is this a better explanation?
Yeah, I'd say that we learned exactly what you should learn in a "Computer Science" rather than a "Computer Programming" train of learning. I've been able to learn about apartments and DCOM and other things that never should have left Don Box's brain because of the knowledge I got, but I don't think I'd be able to do Max-Flow Min-Cut (or anything else that came out of Ravi's mouth) if I'd learned the MSFT world first. Plus, now I've left CS entirely (sadly) and 'tis a moot point. But oh, how I long for those days. :(
I contemplate trying to come back.
You have confused strict product liability with negligence. If the suit sounds in strict product liability, then the email will screw the company. [The plaintiff still has to make a prima facia case for strict liability.] If the suit sounds in negligence, it won't make one bit of difference if the email existed or not. Negligence suits will depend on the reasonableness of the id10t's behavior. [Assuming you're in a contributory negligence jurisdiction rather than a comparative negligence one] Under Strict Products liability, all foreseeable behavior -- no matter how unreasonable -- must be dealt with. Nevermind that strict products liability will be nearly impossible to get unless the webelfetzer was defective in the first place. The point is, that email will screw the company if in fact the product was defective, i.e. company loses if the email says "I know that under these conditions our product will break because of a defect in our manufacturing process, but no one would ever be stupid enough to do that" -- and then someone IS stupid enough to do that.