A lawyer lived in an exquisite home located in a fashionable neighborhood. He had known a gardner for many years. One day the gardner was walking down the street when he ran into the lawyer. The gardner said to the lawyer, "I will landscape your garden for $200." The lawyer replied, "That seems like a good deal." Thereupon the lawyer's brother-in-law walked by. The three individuals then started conversing about the stock market. Nothing further was said about landscaping the lawyer's garden. The next day, the lawyer telephoned the gardener and said, "I accept your offer." The gardner replied, "I can't landscape your garden because last night I contracted to landscape your neighbor's property."
The lawyer sues the gardner for breach of contract. Who will likely prevail?I honestly don't even know where to begin with this one...not so much in the answer to the question, but in my analysis thereof. I guess first I'll answer the question...the lawyer is completely in the wrong. The most fundamental legal reason is that the gardner's offer was terminated at the conclusion of their conversation, and therefore was not open for the lawyer to accept as he tried to do the next day. And as a lawyer, he should have known and not been a jerk. Good to know he's holding down the asshole name for us over $200.
Moreover, let's look at reality. If this lawyer is living in "an exquisite home located in a fashionable neighborhood," he's probably doing pretty well in his practice. The jag bag can afford to pay his long-time friend more than $200 to do his garden, could hire someone else to do it, or just let the whole thing go. But instead, he went down to small claims court and paid $150 to try to recover $200 from his landscaper buddy.
At the risk of being branded a racist, I would further point to the fact that odds are good that the lawyer is a white man, and even greater that his friend is brown (be honest...were you picturing something else?). He has a fair shot at being a migrant worker, and may or may not speak English as a second language. Now his lawyer "friend" is suing him for trying to be nice in a conversation, and he pretty much has three choices: cave in to the lawyer's demands, go pay some other asshole lawyer more than the case is worth to find out that he is actually on the right side of the law and shouldn't worry, or else have wicked stones and go head to head against the lawyer in front of the judge. Lesson: don't be friends with lawyers.
Also, it is mostly law professors who write bar review questions. Evidently they hate lawyers and law students as much as anyone...Question 29 kicks off with another motivational premise:
A student had failed the bar exam three times. On her fourth try, she hired a tutor...Thanks Prof. I needed that just now. Those butt holes also love coming up with the most convoluted, ridiculous, never-going-to-happen-but-would-cause-interesting-legal-situations-if-they-did kind of scenarios. For example, Question 7 (paraphrased):
Hod, God's little brother, was slightly less omnipotent than his older sibling. Mostly he could just put ideas in people's heads and liked to cause trouble. One day he decided to mess with law students studying contracts and/or water fountain law. He makes a water fountain manufacturer send a letter to a retailer, offering to sell him 100 water fountains at $200 each. At the exact same time, he makes the retailer write a letter to the seller offering to buy 100 water fountains at $200 each. What is their legal relationship?Eff it. I'm done.
Because about one in a million turns out to be a human being.
How are lawyers like nuclear weapons?
Once one side has one the other side has to get one; once they're launched, there's no calling them back; and when they arrive, they screw things up forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment