October 2005
Monthly Archive
Torts #25: Intervening and Superseding Causes Friday, Oct 21 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 12:42 am
Our first actor acts negligently, but before damage occurs a second unrelated tortfeasor also acts negligently. Do we cut off liability for our first tortfeasor, or are both liable?
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. (no link available)
Torts #24: The Palsgraf Case Friday, Oct 21 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 12:31 am
We now turn to perhaps the most famous tort case of all time: Palsgraf v. Long Island RR Co. Judge Cardozo writes the majority opinion in an inordinately cited 4-3 decision.
Torts #23: Proximate Cause II Friday, Oct 21 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 12:30 am
We continue our discussion of proximate cause, now focusing on the direct test.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. (”Wagon Mound No. 1″) (no link available)
Torts #22: Proximate Cause I Friday, Oct 21 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 12:21 am
Proximate cause is perhaps THE issue of contention within tort cases. How attenuated do breach and damages have to be before we cut off liability? The general tests that courts will use are directness and forseeability, with this episode focusing on the latter.
Ryan v. NY Central RR Co. (no link available)
In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. (no link available)
Torts #21: The DES Market-Share Liability Case Friday, Oct 21 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 12:06 am
A mother takes a pill during pregnancy that causes cancer to develop years later in her daughter. The mother knows the drug formulation, but not the manufacturer. Can the daughter recover? If so, how?
Contracts #20: Requirements Contracts Thursday, Oct 20 2005
1L and Contracts and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 11:54 pm
A requirements contract is one in which a buyer agrees to purchase all of a commodity that they require from a (generally larger) vendor. However, requirements necessarily vary from year to year, so how do we intepret these contracts? In this episode we will also briefly discuss output contracts, which are very similar in structure.
Empire Gas Corp. v. American Bakeries Co. (no link available)
Contracts #19: Good Faith Thursday, Oct 20 2005
1L and Contracts and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 11:50 pm
We will briefly examine the concept of “good faith” in this episode. Our featured case involves a sordid triangle between Clint Eastwood, his former lover, and the Warner Brothers studio.
Locke v. Warner Bros. (no link available)
Contracts #18: Implied Terms Thursday, Oct 20 2005
1L and Contracts and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 11:42 pm
Is a court constrained to the literal text of the contract in front of it? Of course not! Implied-in-law and implied-in-fact terms help a court to flesh out an agreement beyond the page itself.
Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
Leibel v. Raynor Manufacturing Co. (no link available)
Contracts #17: Gateway Cases (Terms After Sale) Thursday, Oct 20 2005
1L and Contracts and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 11:34 pm
In what our casebook describes as “electronic contracting”, we will examine two cases (both involving Gateway) that deal with the question of what terms can be introduced after the sale of a computer. There is similarity between these cases and End User License Agreements, a subject I will deal with in greater detail in the next two years.
Additionally, please note that the ProCD News and Views episode is related to these cases. (Judge Easterbrook decided both ProCD and Hill.)
Constitutional Law I #24: The War Powers Resolution Thursday, Oct 20 2005
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 11:21 pm
Congress gets to declare war, and the President gets to execute war. But what exactly do those terms mean? And how have they been modified and / or codified by the War Powers Resolution? Can the President in fact wage war at will so long as he does it quickly?