The UVa (ACM) online judge offers solutions to various problems in C++, Python, and Java. Python code is not tested on the UVa online judge, but it works for all sample inputs. The UVa Online Judge provides solutions to 500+ problems and allows users to contribute to its development by creating an account on GitHub. The UVa Online Judge also offers basic courses and the ability to create their own assignments, but this requires practice.
The UVa Online Judge also provides information on when generative AI tools like ChatGPT may and may not be used for studies and the possible risks. Students can also check if their resume is shortlisted, has the right content, and has red flags. If the teacher has set up plagiarism detection, students must confirm that the document they submit is their original work.
In summary, the UVa Online Judge offers solutions to various problems in C++, Python, and Java, and users can contribute to its development by creating an account on GitHub. The UVa Online Judge provides a platform for students to solve problems and contribute to the development of the online judge.
📹 DOCTOR vs. NURSE: $ OVER 5 YEARS #shorts
Send us mail PO box 51109 Seattle, WA 98115 music Music by epidemic sound. Free 30 day trial through this link: …
📹 Introduction to Law School for First-Year Students
Professor Molly Bishop Shadel, Vice Dean George Geis and Professor Toby Heytens give first-year students advice about …
My father was a cop his whole life, age 21 until he turned 65. I find the law interesting, was a great subject to learn, I love it, sadly when my father was asked to be sheriff, they discovered he had terminal cancer and I gave up school to care for him. Learning helps, tho I cannot make it a profession at my age. But I can infuse it to my grandkids ears….. Thank you for these articles and the time you dedicate!.
I will be attending law school shortly in the next month. This introduction article is useful in reference, to what I can expect from my first year in law school. Along with mentioning some guidance and helpful tips/tricks to proactively apply to case readings, first year studying, to do or not to do etc,. I would love to see updated articles, perhaps even lectures to further get an understanding of law school. Thank you for sharing!
The things I took to heart was the advice given during the Q&A. focus on your stress level understand when you’re most productive Everyone has heard the saying that we should treat law school like a job but seldom does anyone truly follow that saying. Most will still study an abnormal amount of hours and neglect basic sleep, nutrition, and a social life. To put it into perspective, if you were at work and one of your coworkers told you all he did everyday was pull all nighters, had no social life, and ate nothing but Doritos, you would be very disappointed in him. In the short run, they can get a solid (A) on the midterm but by the end of the year, if they’re lucky to last that long, the amount of stress that’ll pile up could result in worse grades, burnout, and even worse, you could end up dropping out completely because you hate the law school life style that you created for yourself that you mistakenly attributed to law school as a whole. Everyone is guilty of saying ( I studied 8 hours today) but realistically, we studied for 2 hours, surfed the web, and came back intermittently to our work, which by the end of the day, we probably studied 3 hours. Those 5 hours could have been used to take a nap or go for a walk, could have extended the study time for an extra 3 hours if utilized correctly.
I just watched the entire thing and listened diligently. Here’s what I find most interesting: the dude with the glasses says he isn’t an out of the box thinker. BUT. If you listen to him. And how he approaches things and describes those approaches. You can tell that he is VERY VERY creative. And very much an out of the box thinker. And a total joy and pleasure to listen to. I really enjoyed it.
I’m Brazilian, I work with carpentry, bricklayer, hydraulics, and I’m a barber I want to leave Brazil, go to the USA, but the visa is difficult, so if I get hired with a work visa, I’m married 49 years old, and very creative, I don’t care how I go to work, cleaning, doorman, sealer, anything I do do, thanks and a hug.
I’ve been considering going into Law School once I can go to college. I think its something I would excel in. Though I am also considering more creative paths like writing, where there would be less pressure and it would cost less money. I still have a few years before I have to make any decisions so, for now, I’ll just learn as much as I can! Learning is fun and its a good pass time.
Thank you very much for this! I feel a lot better after perusal this! This is super relatable and resourceful, I’m sure, for any other law freshmen who are in the same shoes as me. All the best to everyone who’s starting law school! You got this. You are there for a reason. It’s meant for you, trust me. You are the chosen one, you should feel proud of yourself! 👊❤
The subjective nature of law school is one of the things that appeals to me most. In a way its an applied philosophy class. I don’t find regular college to be engaging or what I care about. 90% of the information is memorize to brain dump the material after exams. Law school seems to be a completely different structure altogether.
Undergrad in C.J., law school bound. Let’s talk about this: Law school is not designed for us lower income individuals. I come from a family that made under $50k a year. My father couldn’t afford to put me through undergrad so I had to choose a public 2-year college that offered a four year degree that my Pell grant would cover in full. I am also living independently and working full time, 35-40 hours a week. What am I to do when I get to law school and I am restricted to only being able to work no more than 25 hours a week (Georgia State Col. of Law rule)? How am I going to pay my bills while paying back my $75k student loan? Henceforth why I chose GA State, because their law degree is only $17k a semester. Hypothetically, there is no way for me to do this since I’m working full time now and can hardly make ends meet. Once we combine that with a near 50% hour reduction, there would be no way.
The vast majority of the comments of this article are either: conspiracy theorists hating the law and government, people who cant afford this school calling it a ripoff and maybe one or two interesting comments talking about opinions on the mentioned case in the lecture. (Please dont waste your time reading them like I did)
How about the issue of fair market value for the farm and the denying of the $5 to confirm and seal the contract? I think these issues are worth consideration. Suppose the farm was valued at $1M, the signed contract was probably a joke, as in no reasonable person would sell a farm valued at $1M for just $50k. Also, financial health and well-being of the farm owner should also raise concerns. Suppose it is established that Zhemer would go bankrupt if he sold the farm…and this was the primary reason why he refused to sell the farm in past, would this not create substantial motive/evidence that Mr. Zhemer would never sell the farm as proven by the fact that he had consistently rejected Mr. Lucy’s offers.
Yeah. In case any young lawyers are perusal this, you will learn to “think” like a lawyer in law school. But law school does nothing to prepare you to practice. You get a fair understanding of the law studying for the bar exam. Where the magic happens is when you get your first legal job. The first morning of the first day as a prosecutor, my trial partner showed me a box full of files and said, “You have a dui trial at 9.” It was then I realized how little law school prepared me to practice law. Like so many clubs, law school is just a three year hazing.
June 15, 2018: Thanks so much for this article! *A glad heart makes a cheerful face, but by sorrow of heart the spirit is crushed. Proverbs 15:13; and 2) Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15
I tried to represent myself in court in a criminal case. I went to jail for two weeks for a mental eval.. just to get the “eval” minutes before my case two weeks later. Took the original plea to get out of jail the next day. this was about 8 years ago in Baltimore city. Lol I should have just went to law school. I had no idea what I was doing even though I swore I did! I learned to write and argue motions! And some procedures but I didn’t really understand how the system worked. Good times good times
I find it very funny that law schools watch Legally Blonde(Which is a fantastic film), and are changing how they treat their students. I’m guessing alot of people were like,”Do law school professors really behave that way to students by making them cry, or kicking them out if they aren’t prepared?” Nice to see law schools actually learned something from Legally Blonde. Keep it up, law schools.👍🏼❤
Doing law in the UK and I wish they did the Socratic method. All law is studied in a 3 year undergrad degree with a legal practice course that is one year. I already have an undergrad degree from an American University so I have done what is called a conversion course that is essentially the three years in one for postgrad and that the practice course. I so wish I had attended law school in the states. It appears to be so much more complete and the students have a few more life skills having done an undergrad first.
I would argue in defense of Zehmer that there were two contracts drafted, the reason for the second being that the first was invalid. The first was invalid because the wife did not explicitly agree to and sign the contract. If the wife was misled into signing a contract which was factually misrepresented to her, is the second contract not just as invalid as the first?
From another introduction to law school online: “The essence of legal thinking goes largely unmentioned in law school. Professors typically stay on safe ground, avoid theory, and talk about the nuts and bolts of each case. But the main faculty of mind in thinking-like-a-lawyer is the ability to see some concrete facts behind a given rule and then the rule in a different set of concrete facts. As we saw in J’Aire, the rule regarding negligent interference with prospective economic advantage requires imagination to go from its categorical (material) facts to a concrete situation in which it applies, and imagination to go the other direction. That’s why the restaurant owner initially missed the significance of the case of the negligent notary. It’s hard to see how the six, general factors that determine a relationship between one person and another, sufficient for a legal duty in tort, in Biakanja, also fit the example of renovating a restaurant. If people don’t see through two-dimensional rules to the third dimension of reality beyond it, when studying law, how can they later see the rule in the facts of life? Students are often puzzled by the facts in an essay question, unsure which rules apply. Imagine what the restaurant owner’s lawyer in J’Aire may have thought to himself: I’m not looking simply at a restaurant owner here, but at her role as a tenant and a third-party beneficiary of a contract between her landlord, the county, and a contractor, Gregory. And the very nature of the contractor’s activity seems to create a duty at law, in tort, because it’s obvious that if his work is done badly, the restaurant owner will suffer a financial loss, just as the sister did in Biakanja when the notary botched her brother’s simple will, knowing damn well her future fortune depended on him making a will that would stick.
HUGE !!!! PLEASE ADAPT TRAINING IMMEDIATELY! It’s not “just a job”, its a life. If you do not believe in your client, don’t lie to all including yourself, because you are cheating us out of truth in justice. That’s one of the root problems within the system, and it’s evolution begins with you. I know even the guilty need representation, but in these cases, be honest about your intent to just decrease a persons penalty based on whatever remorse convinces you they deserve mercy. But don’t ever mistake or detach a job as a simulated time sacrifice to your actual life and realty.
I wish we had teachers like this in India. These people have such a strong hold of the topic they’re talking about and they seem to be satisfied/happy with their teaching job. In India you will not find either of those qualities in teachers because they are underpaid. Keep in mind that UVA Law isn’t a top law school to begin with, and yet the quality of these techers is inspiring. I can’t imagine how better the teaching is in the law schools at the top.
Maybe negotiating under alcohol i don’t think is very good idea 🤔 the reason why being under the influence can change his mind from what his offer was in the beginning it might me changes. Is very dangerous to sign any contracts or making this kind of decisions while influence once the contract is signed a change of mind can even cost more, and work to reverse this contract. I’m not sure if can be settle by just both parties if the change of mind takes place after the contract is signed? If the judge says the intoxication is not at a higher level were this decision was made can they still solve this matter on their own without court after the court were involved?
The objective history of the judiciary. In the United States Constitution, two types of courts were established. An Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction where tortfeasors settled shipping and commercial trade disputes. And Common Law Courts had jurisdiction over the people written in as the common law provisions in the Bill of Rights. In the Sixth Amendment, the people had a right to legal representation and there was a bond created that settled all non-capital offences before the bench. From the very beginning, the system was saturated with corruption. The judges and lawyers alike became wordsmiths exploiting the ambiguity of the English language to garner favorable outcomes for the highest bidder. In 1888, the 41st Congress adopted the RATified 14th Amendment which had been wordsmithed so that the grammatical fraud of changing the definition of people and persons to property already in place would mean that no one had the rights and protections of the Amendment because the property has no rights. On February 21, 1871, the 41st congress adopted the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, which was the surrender of “The Republic For The United States of America” and its property,” the People” to the Federal Corporation, USA, Inc. Under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, every document created by this unlawful act is void as a matter of law. And when you factor in the absolute mandate that all contracts and laws must be written in real-time grammar and law books transliterate Latin and English in the same text, both of which is grammatical fraud) you see that the entire judiciary is fraud and that Every Single tortfeasor in history is/was judicially cognizant of their participation in this War On The People as defined in the Common Law Articles of the Constitution.
When I went to law school it was like “The Paper Chase”. Professors, for the most part, were intimidating and would make you feel very uncomfortable. It has its pros and cons, especially if fear is a motivator to make you study harder. I prefer the gentler side of the Socratic method. You can learn in a more relaxed and convivial atmosphere.
Mahn I love perusal Suits USA even though I don’t understand most of almost all the Attorney Law factor my hats off too all attorneys I used too envy Lawyers but a whole new respect to those. All that work that needs to be in play it’s like carrying the world on the shoulders ofcoz the same can be said about doctors
Do they ever bring up public vs private? That the UNITED STATES is bankrupt since 1933 or discuss HJR 192 (giving the people a remedy to resolve/discharge debt since lawful money is gold and silver and federal reserve notes are legal tender backed by nothing and they stole ALL the people’s gold & silver under threat and duress via Executive Order, which actually only is legally directed to government employees and agents, not the free men and women standing on the land, it’s also considered TREASON by POTUS) or discuss 18 USC 8: all debt public and private is the obligation of the UNITED STATES? That this UNITED STATES is a foreign corporation and different than the constitutional united States of (for) America. That Congress committed treason, deceived the people of the States of the Union, CAPTURED them via deceptions using assumptions and presumptions (as always and continues today) and kidnapped the people into the foreign jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES in 1901. Everything asks you to check the box, admitting being a U.S. citizen; cit i zen: “sit in sin”. That the 14th amendment actually hijacked EVERYONE OFF THE LAND and ENSLAVED EVERYONE under the foreign corporation located in Washington, D.C., formerly known as Rome, Maryland, that the 16th amendment was illegally ratified as it needed 36 states to ratify it and only two did. That income is not a wage or earnings and not a profit thus can not be taxes, that natural breathing men and women can not be taxes, only ALL CAPS NAMES LEGAL FICTION CORPORATE DEAD ENTITIES can thus they tricked you into identifying as being IT (thus the self suffocation face diaper shows people performing ACTION CONTRACTS agreeing with Dunn & Bradstreet FOR PROFIT alphabet soup agencies/government that they are not the natural BREATHING man or woman standing on the LAND under The Creator, that when you were born, you were born on the land, being a non citizen Stare National (where you were born), until the hospitals got the name, turned your mother into an INFORMANT, giving you to “THE STATE OF .
So amongst the college students treating their education like a job I take the assumption after they set their school social life in a way it is, and people are now a receptive/proactive benefit to their own education; the next step will be research, and city patrols. My guess is that you will want close eye on crime; not just paperwork of it, and a medium to big size room to hear your voice echo off the walls. How will you enter the streets? All of your economic stratum? What will your focus be towards, and what blind spots may you have of crime? I suffer blind spots. Curious being a law novice.
SO the flag behind the presenter, is a gold trim flag, meaning its maritime admiralty flag, the flag of water,. If they are presenting a maritime admiralty flag of the sea, as one of its symbols, then how is that law, is not the common law locked, and maritime admiralty statute acts go on the statute role, Is this a contradiction of law?. do the law society speak legalese, which is the language of the sewer?. as all roads are registered as inland waterways, where the rainwater runs from the road to the sewer and into the sea, thus magistrates court is also registered as a Ship in dry dock, being connected to the road of the water of the sewer?. Does this mean day 1 of school there is a difference from common-law of the land and maritime admiralty,? and is this why those that speak the common language may not speak in a magistrate court being of the language of the law society of the water of the sewer? and there is the separation that defines what is the law and what is maritime admiralty rule of the sea, to simplify this question, can you name the only official common law court left in each of the countries whos judges pass the BAR left, though common law can be used in lots of places. try finding the only registered common law court in each country, then ask your self why is their only one left, and now if you are wanting to educate your elf beyond the new world of training your mind one way, rather than ll laws such as natural law common law bill of rights constitutional, and of the 28 kings of Britannia written out of history being the 3 tribes of tranquillity the for the runner to common law, who law was of 3, similar to the law now which is of 3 religion symbols and astrology, who knows was the fleet street maritime admiralty and Vatican law of 3 before or same time or copied from the Britania law of 3, why do none of you get to these things, what is the reason for hiding this from you, what is the agenda to only showing you and having you think that maritime admiralty is the law?
On day one you should do the consolidation lecture. is amazing that you take a course on contract and you never see a contract. show a contract to the glass and take them through on day one. identify to them the parts to the contract, the consideration, the terms and so on. then you would see how it all will fit throughout the lectures. have enjoy the lecture. all AAAAAs
… Wow, I must be ready for law school… I am already familiar to this and understand even more. Thanks to whomever sent this… My mind is vast and I love to learn … Note to the case that stood out… Lucy never had the initial amount to give in exchange for the farm. $50,000 to $5.00… In my opinion …
If I was a lawyer I would try to settle the case for $10 of damages to the plantif ($5 for the money $5 for the drink). With the threat of counter suing if he doesn’t take the settlement. After I would recommend my client seek a restraining order on the plantif. Unfortunately this outcome doesn’t work unless you do it pro bono because it would be wrong to make the defendant have to pay the attorneys fee’s for something he’s not at fault for and you can’t collect for defense unless you win the case.
The issue is not the signed document but that there was never any mutual exchange of value. No consideration was accepted it was refused. The five dollars was the binder. The contract was not initially binding as they acted by not excepting the monetary exchange. The consideration is necessary to bind an exchange of value (of property) and the initial rejection of money constitutes an intent to not accept the offer. To reject any consideration so close to the signing is in truth a rejection of the contract and unless consideration is exchanged there can be no contract. Without consideration no contract exists. The value was one sided and the one who has, cannot be forced to give or exchange without an exchange of value around what is reasonable or specifically noted as such for some other aspect of the agreement, having the money quickly to get Mom out of jail. Then it is truly a contract. The exchange is utmost I do not see a contract without consideration and so many think a signed contract is the end of all the deal. I do believe property is devolved to the buyer in signing when an exchange is made and the buyer knows this and that is why he offered the money, it seals the deal. There has to be a maxium that applies to this question.
Having spilled my opinions, can I ask the room of hopefully well educated and astute observers, how can one identify the hidden racism in the modern practice of law? I’m a former southern right wing Christian racist now many years long reformed. I tend to recognize my former kind when many others do not. Are there similar experiences and how did you recognize them despite the subtly? How did they practice? What did they do that illuminated the underlying cause?
I am going down a 🐇 hole to help me help my high school debate child get better after she scored in the top 5 in her first congressional debate meet. All those career aptitude tests said I should be a lawyer or psychiatrist, which frustrated me because I didn’t want to deal with mentally ill people all the time and I didn’t want to be hated (high schooler) and I was always told that lawyers are assholes. Ironically, I ended up with a career in healthcare policy and administration. I love hearing this now – and I would’ve loved it then. Thank you UVA 🙂
31:46 “Lucy wants the Farm” Lucy, the human, is not LUCY, legal fiction artificial person identity/name. And you guys aren’t explaining this screwed up difference that enables attorneys to dehumanize us into only “being”/”appearing”/”manifesting” as the legal avatar. The legal avatar is a corporation, it’s so dehumanizing that you are treating Lucy as a CORPORATION to make things LEGAL FICTIONAL.
When in medicine u always take law 🙏❤️Facts if a person lies to one he lies to all until he himself is lied to and he can’t handle it and goes nuts until the conscious is cleared he might even become a lawyer of honesty about broken promises written down never meant to be honored 🙏❤️thou shall not lie …………………..
8:26 I think this is poorly conceived and organized, because you don’t look for the holding of a case BEFORE looking for the legal question, the issue, which the holding just answers. Her emphasis is wrong. The procedural posture is also of trivial importance; it’s rarely mentioned on bar exams and law school exams. “Issues of precedent” is misnamed and distracts from the legal ‘issue’ in the case. The best way to brief a case, I submit, is to organize it like this: Facts: Issue: Holding: Rationale: Comment: Karl Llewellyn, who wrote the UCC, asked for 12 numbered sections in student briefs when he taught at Columbia Law School in the 1930’s. Some people overcomplicate it and focus on the trivial things, which distract from what is most important. For an alternate introduction to law school, made by a lawyer, not a professor, check out the article on YouTube called “How law-school orientation broke my heart.”
There is a very potentially dangerous thing when the court rules to what the common man would think . In its very nature the road traveled to be a judge the court can not speak to the thoughts of the common . How can you set aside knowledge when making a decision. As for the case was it ever thought to argue that Lucy was the one that was too drunk to go into this contract . That even thought he had always wanted to buy it that at that moment he was not able to enter into that agree,ent . And that zimmer was joking and making fun of an obviously drunk person perhaps to placate an obnoxious drunk individual. Or that there was underhanded behavior by Lucy in bringing the bottle of whisky an obviously stronger drink. Then what’s usually sold at a restaurant
I went to a law school but the experience was so bad. I am one of those whom you will consider as logician of the highest class, an elite class of logicians that boasts intellectuals like Leibniz, Godel, Popper and Kripke. I used to question the logic of a law or a body of laws to see if it holds water, i.e. it is not incoherent and it is free from logical fallacies. By the way, loopholes in the laws exist because of logical fallacies. So going back, everytime I presented a fallacy, it was always met with excruciating resentment from people whom we label as legal professors. I was always disgusted by such display of foul attitude. So I had to leave that crappy law school to obtain a PhD in Philosophy and in Mathematics and in retrospect, I have no regrets whatsoever.
Why won’t you explain off the bat that EVERYTHING LEGAL IS FICTION? a lot of people would be interesting in the fact that everything you are talking about is not more real than Harry Potter. Legal = Fiction = Voluntary. Explain the voluntary nature of “legal”… explain the governing law governing governing law. Attorneys have a reputation for being liars for a reason.
I got an idea. what if someone beat up his wife. Then the wife claims that earlier she threatened him with more violence that he would strike her badly if she did agree to sell the land later. Then she says that she drops charges after the land has been is returned to them. They can still prosecute him for abuse but hey at least the land is back in their possession!? crazy brain for crazy thinking.
Why don’t you teach the difference between military occupation of a country and it’s Admiralty law if the courts. And why don’t you tell them as soon as they pass exam they are bound AS FORIEGN AGENTS UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AND MUST REGISTER AND HAVE UT AVAILABLE TO THE PU LIC!!!!!!!ANSWER ME LADY OF MULTIPLE TITLES. WHO ARE YOU?
I paused at @1:30 and want to speculate about her question before proceeding. While I’m a DV, I’m now also just a full time dad with an interest in law. Tear my untrained answer apart at will. 🤷♂️ I suspect they use the Socratic method to teach law (specifically it’s practice of putting students on the spot) because in the practice of law that’s how you argue. You have to stand in a room full of people and make a case knowing you have the eyes and minds of everyone examining your every word. It’s verbally combative by nature, and hiding this fact only trains poor lawyers who will find out the hard way much later when a client’s future hangs in the balance. The verbally combative with an audience nature of law has to be front and foremost, in the education of law. That’s why the Socratic method? -Just some untrained guy / veteran / dad speculating.
Become another lawyer. That way you’ ll have options. Community agitator, ambulance chaser, corporate shill, politician or teleprompter reader for CNN ( fill in you own favorite notwork ) A great fallback position would be soliciting plaintiffs for class action extortion attempts ( oh I mean lawsuits, sorry) If your dad is a judge or a politician you can always be a clerk. My wife refers to me as a Nuisance, Attorney. Im pretty sure she just means nuisance.
It woule be different story if its in my country. First of all they will look what legal contract is? Agreeing and signing in the restaurant bill will not be contract what so ever. Few criteria to be valid contract are Signee should be fully conscious ( not under any influence? Contract should be prepared by the lawyer or the legal advisor. Atleast two witnesses and signed by them to the agreement. Lol its not that easy mate. Lucky it happened in USA. By the way i am also business graduate from US itself and lived their for 7 years, incase anyone tells me what u know about USA..hahaha
Dear God💗❤️♥️💖💕💕💖💕❤️💞🙏in heaven, I come to you in the name of Jesus. I acknowledge to You that I am a sinner, and I am sorry for my sins and the, life that I have lived; I need your forgiveness. I believe that your only begotten Son Jesus Christ shed His precious blood on the cross at Calvary and died for my sins, and I am now willing to turn from my sin. You said in the bible that if we confess the Lord our God and believe in our hearts that God raised Jesus from the dead, we shall be saved. Right now I confess Jesus as my Lord. With my heart, I believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. This very moment I accept Jesus Christ as my own personal Savior and according to His Word, right now I am saved. Amen.
If you really think about them, the reasons she gave for holdings/dicta are as unconvincing as they are unconstitutional. Article 1 gives ALL legislative authority to the Congress to ensure the laws we must live by are created by people we can hold accountable and throw out of office. As soon as we started allowing the executive branch (bureaucrats from independent executive agencies) and the judiciary start legislating, we started playing the blame game which they use to get re-elected (although that actually started with a bicameral legislature, but that’s another topic). There is nothing in the constitution that permits the judiciary to fill in gaps or make things up or hold another branch accountable, or even the states (especially when they start playing Mad Libs with the Constitution). For example, if you consult the dictionary Congress used at the time, the word “speech” is exclusively defined as verbal or written phenomenon. That’s one of the reasons why we have a separate word for the term “expression”. Speech is only one way of expressing yourself. If you showed up at a rally and exposed yourself, you might be trying to express yourself, but that would NOT be speech. Even the court fumbled with delineating between appropriate and inappropriate forms of sexual content when deciding if a movie was pornographic or artistic. The best the justice could do is say that he knows it (pornography) when he sees it. lol. Speech, thanks to the SCOTUS, now includes students wearing black armbands, “art”, and flag burning, and the court has taken it upon itself to decide which methods of self-expression are acceptable.
Wow Law School sounds like a career for me. It involves lots of debates on today’s issues. Lots of things I don’t agree with can finally be debunked. “Gender theory” “Queer theory” Abortion Ecetera. I have a statement to make towards Zehmer. You do not, under any kind of serious circumstance make a joke. You were about to seal a business agreement, you KNEW that your business associate was going to agree to it but then you backtrack and say you joked? That’s not a very good attraction for making business deals nor making a profit!! And if it continues, it will be subject towards conning people for his or her money which will initially piss them off and ofc, people like Zehmer will end up in court!! Law is a science. Christopher Langdell is correct. Arthur Corbin is wrong. Question: “If there is no objective truth, then why debate and what is the point of court?” – Latter-day Saint Batman Answer: Because in the events of court cases, real things happen and everybody involved is required to be honest in telling THE TRUTH in order to secure the fate of criminals. YOU CANNOT LIE IN COURT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT TO TELL THE TRUTH! Truth is another way of saying fact. Opinions aren’t the truth and is always subjective. Facts and truth have evidence to support it. This will then objectively determine what truly happens in criminal cases. I will name a few: The Ted Bundy tapes, Charles Manson and the Manson Family murders and ofc the Texas Chainsaw Massacre etc etc. However hard the truth is to be believed, that is how debates come into play.
the fact that he offered 5 dollars shows that even he did not think that the contract was binding. He knew it was a joke maybe. but in law that argument won’t hold unfortunately unless the plaintiff admits he too knew it was a joke. “play the man” Harvey Spectre. maybe this would work better for a criminal trial where you place him on the stand and be like “Your arguments lies on the fact that you thought he was serious but you then offered $5 to bind an already binding contract. let’s be honest you knew it then and you know it now, it was a joke and you knew it was not real and too good to be factual”. 2 problems with this argument. Firstly he could say that Yes I offered $5 but not because I thought it was a joke but because I wasn’t sure if it was 100% legally binding on a napkin but that does not matter as it turns out it is legally binding. Secondly he could say he was joking with the $5 but the difference is when he was joking with the $5 he only put up $5 and will be happy to give that and also it may not have been legally binding as it was not written down.