OMG
Thread started by
la duderina at 05.2.09 - 1:41 am
Except as stated in Section 240, it is a condition of each party's duties to render performances to be exchanged under an exchange of promises that there be no uncured material failure by the other party to render any such performances due at an earlier time
WTF?!
reply
You'll figure it out!!!!
We all do at some point.
YOU WILL MUCH SOONER!!!!!
bentstrider05.2.09 - 1:47 am
reply
Let's say that I have agreed to do something for you, and you have agreed to do something for me in return. If I have previously promised to do the same thing for you, and failed to do so, and I have not subsequently fixed my failure to do so, then you don't have to do the thing that you promised to do for me.
...except as stated in Section 240, of course.
PC05.2.09 - 2:14 am
reply
I don't think that's it, PC...it has to do with substantial performance but I'm still not getting this. Let's break it down
we'll ignore the exceptions for now..
It is a condition that
there be no uncured material failure
by the other party
to render any such performance due at an earlier time
----------------------------------------------------
a condition of what?
conditon of each party's REMAINING duties to
render performances to be exchanged
under an exchange of promises.
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:17 am
reply
no I'm using the forum to study right now so it's ok. lol
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:20 am
reply
I'm actually pretty sure all it is saying is that you can't breach a K
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:20 am
reply
ok, so promises create a duty to perform.
so an exchange of promises, we have a contract
so in a contract (K), the promises create a condition that each party perform
oh my fucking god I'm not getting it.
I know it has to do with substantial performance I'm just not seeing that in here.
I have in my notes that it means substantial performance is not enough for express terms, but I don't see that in there!!!!!!???
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:25 am
reply
I'm pretty sure all it is saying that if you expressly promised to do something, even substantial performance will count as a breach (but only if the failure to perform is MATERIAL)
ok moving on
you wanna see Section 240? That one's a real party
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:37 am
reply
What it's saying is that your obligation to perform as promised is conditional on the other party's not having materially failed to perform (when she had promised to do so
at an earlier time...in other words, on the other party's not having
already breached the contract. She breaches the contract first, you're off the hook. That's how it reads to me. You really think that's not it?
Also, if there's substantial performance then there is no material breach, and vice versa. No?
PC05.2.09 - 12:41 pm
reply
I Am Not A Lawyer.
PC05.2.09 - 12:44 pm
reply
I actually do think that is what it is saying
What is confusing me is that on my Professor's cut sheet he labeled this as having something to do with substantial performance and it is throwing me off big time.
For express terms (terms written in the K and agreed to by the parties), substantial performance is NOT enough and ONLY substantially performing can constitute a breach...
no whether that breach relieves the other party of the duty to perform depends on whether the breach is material and total
la duderina05.2.09 - 2:36 pm
reply
now let's throw in Section 240
If the performances to be exchanged under an exchange of promises can be apportioned into corresponding pairs of part performances so that the parts of each pair are properly regarded as agreed equivalents, a party's performance of his part of such a pair has the same effect on the other's duties to render performance of the agreed equivalent as it would have if only that pair of performances had been promised.
umm Riiiiiiiight
la duderina05.2.09 - 2:40 pm
reply
so this is saying that when there are corresponding pairs of part performance, performing one part of this exchange has the same effect on the other side's duty to render performance as it would be if that is the whole K
la duderina05.2.09 - 2:43 pm
reply
I think I'm just going to re-read the caselaw see if old Justice Cardozo can straighten this out for me.
But I do think you are right, PC, I think it is just saying that in a K where both sides promise to do something, one party's duty to perform is conditional on the other side NOT materially failing to do what they promised
la duderina05.2.09 - 2:47 pm
reply
I feel for you la duderina, so glad Contracts and 1L are behind me.
Gais05.2.09 - 5:46 pm
reply
performing one part of this exchange has the same effect on the other side's duty to render performance as it would be if that is the whole K
...it has the same effect on the other side's duty to render performance
of the equivalent part. Only. So if a contract can be separated out into little sets of equivalent pairs, then they can kinda-sorta be treated like modules--like mini-contracts--with one side's previous performance being a condition of the other side's duty to perform only within the module. Right?
I Am Not A Lawyer.
PC05.2.09 - 9:29 pm
reply
For express terms (terms written in the K and agreed to by the parties), substantial performance is NOT enough and ONLY substantially performing can constitute a breach...
no whether that breach relieves the other party of the duty to perform depends on whether the breach is material and total
That's why I said "material breach." Substantial performance is not a material breach. It's a breach, but not a material breach. An "uncured material failure by the other party" by definition involves performance short of substantial performance. Right?
I Am Not A Lawyer.
PC05.2.09 - 9:46 pm
reply
substantial performance CAN be a material breach, though, depending on the circumstances.
there's factors for determining what is material and what isn't. and the only way the other side can get out of performing is if the breach is material and total.
UNLESS the term is a constructive condition, which substantial performance of a constructive condition is enough
la duderina05.2.09 - 9:50 pm
reply
which throws a whole new twist in there....
so each party's performance is a constructive condition of the other party's performance...but what if the performance is an express term of the K?
can something be an express term and a constructive condition at the same time?
rendering substantial performance both enough and not enough at the same time?
la duderina05.2.09 - 9:52 pm
reply
Fuck it, dude. Let's go bowling.
animal05.2.09 - 9:54 pm
reply
Donny you are out of your element
you don't have to be a damn lawyer to understand a damn paragraph!
look at Presumptively Corruptible here! he got it faster than I did
la duderina05.2.09 - 9:54 pm
reply
substantial performance CAN be a material breach, though, depending on the circumstances.
Please give me an example.
PC05.2.09 - 9:56 pm
reply
OK got one.
Let's say we form a K that I will build you a house.
I build the house, do the whole thing plumbing, electricity, and everything, it is a complete entire house, except one thing is missing..
the ROOF.
la duderina05.2.09 - 9:59 pm
reply
If it is an express term, it MUST be perfect performance. to the T
la duderina05.2.09 - 9:59 pm
reply
If you didn't give me a roof, that's not substantial performance. And neither is your example. Try again.
PC05.2.09 - 10:07 pm
reply
yes it is substantial performance, actually. If I built the roof that would be perfect performance, I would have completed the K. Substantial is MOST, not all.
or let's say I build 75% of the roof and live a big gaping hole, that is still substantial performance, but it is not perfect performance and therefore breach.
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:09 pm
reply
If we were in a contractual situation and you had promised to give me an example of substantial performance being a material breach, your example would be a material breach. Hahahahahaha.
PC05.2.09 - 10:09 pm
reply
why does this thread piss me off so much?
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:10 pm
reply
PC, you are not a lawyer.and that is perfect performance of an example of substantial performance.
Here is an example the PROFESSOR gave us
You promise me to build a bridge to Hawaii, you build it 3/4s of the way there. That is substantial performance, but not perfect, and there for Breach. and material at that.
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:13 pm
reply
You're wrong, kiddo. Substantial performance does not mean "most." Substantial performance is performance that does not meet the express conditions of the contract, but is so close that it would be unreasonable to deny payment. That's why it's called
substantial performance.
PC05.2.09 - 10:13 pm
reply
Because it's a perfect example of how the legal industry has created an environment that makes lawyers more needed than they really are.
toweliesbong05.2.09 - 10:14 pm
reply
exactly towelie, they try to keep it the good ole boys club. it's quite annoying.
but if substantial performance is enough that denying payment would be unreasonable, then how does it constitute breach, which would in effect deny the obligor payment?
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:19 pm
reply
Lindsey, your professor is out of his or her tiny little mind. No way is 3/4 of a bridge to Hawaii substantial performance. If the purpose of the contract is frustrated by the defects in the work, you don't have substantial performance. The purpose of the contract here is a usable bridge between Hawaii and the mainland. Three quarters of a bridge is unusable.
PC05.2.09 - 10:19 pm
reply
depends on the definition of "substantial" is.
if ya promise to build a bridge and you only build 75% of it then you should only get paid 50% of the money due because it will cost at least twice as much to seek out a firm to complete the rest due to inflation.
bammo
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:21 pm
reply
it's also economically oppressive, too. That's the worst part. You either have to be super rich or get yourself buried in debt. It's fucking bullshit.
Check it - $30,000 a YEAR for 3 years (JUST tuition)
plus cost of books and living
all to prepare you for the Bar exam
and THEN they tell you that you can't even PASS THE BAR if you don't take a $10,000 bar review course!!!!
(not to mention the freaking LSAT and the $1000 courses you have to take if you want to do good on THAT thing)
at least I know when I'm getting fucked in the ass
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:22 pm
reply
always wondered if that feels like taking a shit rapidly over and over....
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:24 pm
reply
OK, so what if I built the house in it's entirety, roof and all, but the house was not up to code? Like, windows leak water when it rains, the electricity doesnt work, etc?
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:24 pm
reply
Not very nice at all, Don. Not very nice at all.
But at least my farts are always silent.
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:25 pm
reply
A minor breach doesn't deny the obligor payment. When there is substantial performance, the other party is limited to collecting damages (the difference in value between what was promised and what was delivered) in court after the fact. Right?
PC05.2.09 - 10:25 pm
reply
you'd be fucking cold and pissed off. like I am at this thread!
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:25 pm
reply
"A minor breach doesn't deny the obligor payment. When there is substantial performance, the other party is limited to collecting damages (the difference in value between what was promised and what was delivered) in court after the fact. Right? "
depends on what the definition of "damages" is.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:26 pm
reply
a breach is only material if:
it will prevent the victim from receiving what they reasonably expected under the K
the loss cannot be easily remedied
to what extent the breaching party will suffer forfeiture
whether the breaching party will cure
" " acted in good faith
if these factors show that it is material, THEN you have to look at whether it was TOTAL...only then can you get past and future damages and be relieved of performance
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:29 pm
reply
I would like to relieve myself right now.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:32 pm
reply
...actually, in some cases pro rata payment may be acceptable for substantial performance. I'm not sure.
And the example of a house that is complete, but not up to code, is an interesting one. I think that whether the contractor has rendered substantial performance would depend upon how much of the substandard electrical (etc.) work could have been reasonably prevented, and also upon how much of it there is. Is the house riddled with code violations, or are there just a few? That's why we have judges and juries. If it were always cut and dried, we wouldn't need finders of fact.
PC05.2.09 - 10:32 pm
reply
@towlie and RB: This shit isn't that complicated. If I can get it, so can you.
PC05.2.09 - 10:33 pm
reply
that's why you need to define "damages"
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:35 pm
reply
we actually read a case like that, these people paid a contractor to build them a home and the house turned out to be a brand new version of The Money Pit
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:35 pm
reply
well I guess I might as well get into damages lets see what I have here
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:35 pm
reply
expectation damages
consequential damages
restitutionary damages
specific performance
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:37 pm
reply
and agreed remedies
So for the house not up to code, you could theoretically get expectation and consequential damages, yeah?
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:38 pm
reply
In the Money Pit case, Tom Hanks sued for emotional distress because of all the problems with the house. No dice though. For Ks anyway, only get emotional distress in tort
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:39 pm
reply
repratory damages is prolly what you need to assess the house situation
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:39 pm
reply
All houses are money pits. That's why homeowners are advised to budget money every month to build a fund for the maintenance and repairs that are inevitable. The question here is which repairs are a natural and expected part of owning a house, and which could and should have been prevented by better workmanship by a contractor. That's where damages come in.
But I'm guessing that in general, if the house is delivered in such a condition that you can move into it, and it doesn't have an outrageous number of defects or code violations, the contractor has rendered at least substantial performance. There's a big difference between that and three quarters of a motherfucking bridge.
PC05.2.09 - 10:42 pm
reply
Roadblock, what the frack are you talking about?
PC05.2.09 - 10:44 pm
reply
I have no fucking idea. I'm just pissed about this thread.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:45 pm
reply
If it's not complicated than why are you arguing with la duderina and her professor???
toweliesbong05.2.09 - 10:46 pm
reply
Because her professor is misunderstanding something that is not complicated.
PC05.2.09 - 10:48 pm
reply
look up the case
Erlich v. Menezes
house was able to be lived in, but there were GROSS code violations...I mean it was unbelievable
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:48 pm
reply
"There's a big difference between that and three quarters of a motherfucking bridge."
actually. lets say the 3/4 of the bridge is up to code and perfectly use-able up until it ends. then it would not be as substantial to hire another contractor to continue the building process.
however if a house is completed but not up to code it may be a complete loss depending on what exactly is not up to code. for example if the foundation is not built correctly then it would be un-repairable. thus you would be awarded repratory damages
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:49 pm
reply
repairatory damages, Roadblock?
that would fall under the consequential damages --- as a consequence of code violations you have to pay so much $$$ to get everything fixed
and I don't think he is misunderstanding, Pedantic Corruptor, he just simplifies...
what is the difference btw building the best bridge possible, but not putting that one last piece that finishes it, and finishing the bridge but it not being usable because the contractor used the wrong materials? either way it cann't be used, how is the former not substantial performance and the latter is?
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:51 pm
reply
Dude...no.
PC05.2.09 - 10:51 pm
reply
"Pedantic Corruptor"
oh, that's a hella good one. i'm filing that one, too.
toweliesbong05.2.09 - 10:52 pm
reply
the difference is that a bridge that is built up to code but i missing the last piece can be resumed by another contractor whereas a bridge that is not up to code at all - depending on how severe - may actually have to be torn down and rebuilt which would cost a shit ton more than just paying for the final piece.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:53 pm
reply
If it can't be used, it's not substantial performance. Three quarters of a bridge is not substantial performance. An entire bridge made of marshmallows is not substantial performance. An entire usable bridge painted the wrong color is substantial performance. An entire usable bridge painted the right color but with minor defects that don't affect its structural integrity is substantial performance.
Substantial. Equivalent in substance, but not correct "to a T," as you put it.
PC05.2.09 - 10:55 pm
reply
RB, right, that is where materiality of the breach comes in!
the last piece of the bridge is material, but not so material as to constitute a total breach
now the one that has to be torn apart...that would be a material, total breach relieving the obligee of having to pay and possibly forcing the obligor to pay expectation and consequential damages
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:55 pm
reply
a partially build bridge CAN be used. it can be completed with more funding.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 10:57 pm
reply
so does the entire bridge with minor defects, not to a T...that constitutes a breach of an express term?
I guess we'd have to run it through our materiality and totality factors
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:57 pm
reply
and I don't think he is misunderstanding, Pedantic Corruptor, he just simplifies...
Misstatement is not simplification. If you hire me to build you a bridge to carry vehicular traffic to Hawaii and I build you three quarters of a bridge and then walk away, I have frustrated the purpose of our contract. What I've given you is not equivalent or near-equivalent in substance to what I promised to give you.
PC05.2.09 - 10:57 pm
reply
a partially build bridge CAN be used
Dude...no. Like I said, this shit isn't complicated, but you have to actually do some reading.
PC05.2.09 - 10:59 pm
reply
RB is right. I think what would happen in that case is that, depending on the materiality and the totality of the breach, the person paying for the bridge to be built would still have to pay for the portion of the bridge that WAS in fact built.....
la duderina05.2.09 - 10:59 pm
reply
I understand what you are saying PC, but I think substantial performance may come in all shapes and sizes
I have read cases with these exact scenarios and it was considered performance, and the party had to be paid for what they performed
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:00 pm
reply
that bridge shit happens all the time. a contractor (paid by the city) building a piece of infrastructure over a period of a year, runs out of money. it's not like no one got paid and it's not like the work didnt have value. consider a subway that goes way over budget. the city then ends up paying more money to complete the project using what was already built and then completing it by either hiring another ocntractor (not likely) or bilking the taxpayers for more money (likely) to finish the project.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:01 pm
reply
...using the same contractor possibly with penalties (not likely)
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:02 pm
reply
If there's a delay and the contractor is making a good faith effort to complete the work, sure. But building three quarters of a bridge and then walking away is not substantial performance, regardless of whether the breach is material and total.
PC05.2.09 - 11:03 pm
reply
OK HERE WE GO
SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE BLACK'S LAW DEFINITION
substantial performance. Performance of the primary, necessary terms of an agreement.
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:04 pm
reply
Delays and cost overruns are usually addressed in the contract. So when la dude gives me the example of a house without a roof, it's reasonable to assume that she means the contractor essentially said "
voila, there's your house."
PC05.2.09 - 11:05 pm
reply
perfect performance is
The successful completion of a contractual duty, usu. resulting in the performer's release from any past or future liability;
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:06 pm
reply
Y'all are giving me a headache. I don't know how you do it. If I was a lawyer I'd sure as hell be avoiding contract law. Heh.
toweliesbong05.2.09 - 11:08 pm
reply
you should see property law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
omg I
almost blew my brains out.
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:08 pm
reply
Performance of the primary, necessary terms of an agreement.
Bingo. A house without a roof doesn't satisfy the primary, necessary terms of an agreement to build me a house.
PC05.2.09 - 11:09 pm
reply
but it may be substantial enough to bring to completion.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:11 pm
reply
A brick manufacturer contracted with a builder to deliver 1000 bricks per week for 5 weeks, at a price of $500 per shipment. After the first shipment was made and accepted, the brick manufacturer called the builder and explained that he was retiring and would not be able to finish out the contract. Builder said, “But I need those shipments on time to complete the house I’m building. If you don’t continue to ship me bricks as you promised to do, I will not pay you for the first shipment, even though there was nothing wrong with that one.” The manufacturer then sued the builder for $500. Does he win?
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:11 pm
reply
maybe
depending on what the definition of "brick shipment" is
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:13 pm
reply
that's why you always gotta go with half up front half upon completion folks
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:14 pm
reply
right! divisible performances!
see?! you DON'T have to be a lawyer to get this crap!
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:15 pm
reply
why did you change your yes answer to maybe?
you were right he wins because it is a divisible performances K, each part is treated like its own K.
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:15 pm
reply
because there may have been a clause stating that "if not all then none"
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:16 pm
reply
he did complete, though. He delivered the bricks so dude owes him the $500 for the bricks that were delivered.
even though he repudiated, he is still entitled to payment for what he did perform
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:17 pm
reply
you gotta go with the facts you are given RB.
and btw, i think its pretty fucking fascist that you get to amend things you say, fix your typos, etc. and the rest of us are forced to look like idiots.
just saying. lol
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:18 pm
reply
There was no "yes answer." You're high.
PC05.2.09 - 11:18 pm
reply
that's true in this case because bricks are a commodity. but what if the contractor was the only person who could perform the duty of the contract?
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:18 pm
reply
Oh, OK, he changed it. I missed that. Never mind. Man, I wish I could change shit that I wrote here.
PC05.2.09 - 11:19 pm
reply
I meant to put "maybe"
and yes it is facist. but this thread is facist so gtfo
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:19 pm
reply
The ringer is $500 PER DELIVERY...and the first delivery was made and accepted.
Now if this was a flat $50,000 K, then it might be a different story...but I think the dude would still have to pay him for the services rendered, no?
then again with the materiality and totality factors
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:19 pm
reply
He's entitled to payment for what he performed because the contract is divisible. Shipments of bricks are divisible. A house isn't, and neither is a bridge.
PC05.2.09 - 11:20 pm
reply
but what about if the service or delivered goods are unique to that one contractor? what is the shipment is a certain type of adobe brick for which the contractor held an exclusive world rights patent?
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:21 pm
reply
If he was the ONLY one who could do it, then that makes it more of a material breach and although he would still have to be paid for the bricks delivered, he might have to pay consequential damages or expectation damages or both...so the services rendered would be subtracted from the damages he would have to pay
I think
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:21 pm
reply
this fucking thread makes me want to throw a brick at it.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:23 pm
reply
OR if there was no other remedy available, the court could order specific performance -- basically force the adobe brick maker to perform
and Presuming Cantaloupe, I am not high thank you very much. I haven't smoked all day. as a matter of fact yesterday after the meeting was the only time I smoked all week thank you!
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:24 pm
reply
I think you're right. ^^^
PC05.2.09 - 11:24 pm
reply
RB, of all threads that have ever been made on MR this one deserves to be deleted. It gave me one helluva headache which no other MR thread has ever done.
PLEASE DELETE ME!
toweliesbong05.2.09 - 11:25 pm
reply
"force adobe brick maker to perform"
lmao. laying adobe bricks!
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:25 pm
reply
hahaha, hey I am having fun here!!
you guys aren't?
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:26 pm
reply
That was directed at your earlier post...the brick maker being entitled to his $500 less damages. I have a hard time believing that a court would force a retiring brick maker to stay in business and keep making bricks just to satisfy a contract--even a contract that he should have known better than to make.
PC05.2.09 - 11:26 pm
reply
I'm having fun.
PC05.2.09 - 11:27 pm
reply
the problem is in the title of the thread. what do they call it in the law when something promises to be something it is not? false implication?
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:27 pm
reply
well it would depend on the circumstances whether a court would require specific performance....
justice and equity are always factors to be considered, as is reliance
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:28 pm
reply
I'm secretly having fun too, but I'm pissed because I didnt get anything done today which is a total breach of implied contract with my client who is expecting a website and shirt designs by monday.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:29 pm
reply
I think false representation..
but that was exactly what I was thinking when I posted this thread, OH MY GOOOOOOODDDDD!!!!!!!!!
you can retitle it if you want, fascist. Call it La Duderina's Study Thread.
ha
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:29 pm
reply
shouldn't you not be posting in the name of work?
steph05.2.09 - 11:31 pm
reply
oohh ohh don! a real life hypothetical!! tell me more!
implied K, yes? what are the terms give me something I can ANALYZE
let us see if substantial performance of these designs will constitute a breach!
come on due et
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:31 pm
reply
Substantial performance, absent specific performance, is always a breach, I thought. No?
PC05.2.09 - 11:33 pm
reply
I already got paid half and one of it is in writing and there is no specific definition of what they will get. AND I have no developer who can commit that I can sub contract to. is there a legal term for "you're fucked"?
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:33 pm
reply
I'm having a sssssssssssssssssmokin' Saturday night on the Internet.
PC05.2.09 - 11:34 pm
reply
is there a legal term for dickin around on the web?
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:34 pm
reply
ok here is a question: lets say I build a website half way, then I disappear off the side of the earth what is that called?
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:36 pm
reply
well there if there is no specific term that requires you to finish the job then it doesn't matter
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:38 pm
reply
lmao @ PC
lmfao.
I'm used to it. You're way too likely to die going out on a saturday night in LA anyways. drunk drivers, ppl with guns, jesus
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:39 pm
reply
actually I sent a text saying I would have some shit done. however I lost the text and do not remember specifically what I promised. I hope my client is not going to find this thread.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:40 pm
reply
is there a legal term for dickin around on the web?
Roadblock
05.3.09 - 2:34 am
AVOIDING PERFORMANCE
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:40 pm
reply
"some shit"
well that does not imply completion of that is the exact term you used
are they expecting total completion by Monday?
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:41 pm
reply
fortunately no. they were expecting that about a month ago
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:42 pm
reply
I'm doing exactly what I wanted to do today and tonight, i.e. nothing. Making up for all the sleep I haven't gotten in the last two months because you dickheads keep making me do stuff and go places.
Tomorrow's plan: same thing.
Why are we not arguing about substantial performance anymore? I think we are still pretty far apart on that definition.
PC05.2.09 - 11:44 pm
reply
FIRST, let me ask this:
Don, did you sign anything?
hmm...well the text may constitute a signed writing, which falls under the statute of frauds...which means you could be fucked
but if there is no specific term for what you are required to have done on Monday than there is nothing you have to specifically perform
and the design part is awesome (we talked about this in class), is the design subject to their approval?
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:45 pm
reply
fortunately no. they were expecting that about a month ago
Roadblock
05.3.09 - 2:42 am
dude...you just need to get off yo lazy ass
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:46 pm
reply
if it is subject to their approval (I'm assuming it is) then they must be reasonable about it. If they are super finicky, you can sue them
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:46 pm
reply
I'm going to go to sleep and wake up later around 4 am to think about just how fucked I am. then I will check facebook and try to sleep again after I twitter about how fucked I am.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:47 pm
reply
it's not that I'm lazy... it's that I'm addicted to doing nothing.
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:48 pm
reply
ok I'm leaving you all now. sorry PC I know you were actually having a real debate about material and substantial breach.... I'll let you get back to your saturday night
Roadblock05.2.09 - 11:51 pm
reply
personally, I'm going to make a pot of black tea, pour tons of sugar in it, and get my ass back to making flash cards
thank you all for your help, really, it really helped. I'm serious. Spending your saturday night talking law with me here on ole MR. I love you all. seriously guys. seriously.
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:51 pm
reply
substantial performance is performance of the necessary terms of the K, is it not?
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:52 pm
reply
performance of necessary, but not ALL terms does constitute breach, but whether you get damages and are relieved of performing your side of the bargain depends on HOW material and total the breach is
la duderina05.2.09 - 11:53 pm
reply
Correct, but I still don't see how three quarters of a bridge or a roofless house can constitute substantial performance in any case. But never mind. You need to study; you don't need to argue with me. GTFO.
(But also, chew on
this.)
PC05.3.09 - 12:01 am
reply
because I performed building the house, I performed building the bridge, I just didnt COMPLETE the performance, but I DID perform
la duderina05.3.09 - 12:04 am
reply
You performed, but you didn't substantially perform. The word "substantially" is in there for a reason.
GTFO. Go study.
PC05.3.09 - 12:07 am
reply
I think there is a difference between substantial completion and substantial performance
That TX case talks about the building being substantially completed, but the contractor could have substantially performed prior to the substantial completion.
la duderina05.3.09 - 12:07 am
reply
"Substantial," not "substantially." GTFO, Russell.
PC05.3.09 - 12:08 am
reply
The Texas case talks about whether the doctrine of substantial
performance excuses the contractor from complying with an express condition of the contract, namely submitting an all-bills-paid affadavit (whatever the fuck that is).
Bye.
PC05.3.09 - 12:11 am
reply
This is by far the best plain-English explanation that I have found of the paragraph that we were originally discussing. Check it out. And then GTFO.
(You'll also want to study Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, if you haven't already, to get an idea of the spirit of the doctrine of substantial performance...which is basically to prevent the unjust enrichment of building contractors' counterparties just because the contractors haven't performed right down to the last little minutia of the contract.)
PC05.3.09 - 2:31 am
reply
haha..Jacob Youngs is the case we were assigned. Cardozo laid it out pretty well, let me check out that link though
la duderina05.3.09 - 2:46 am
reply
ohhh that's good. that's
really good
THANKS PC!!!!!
Who needs lawyers when you have the interwebz?
la duderina05.3.09 - 2:49 am
reply
basically 2 parties promise each other something. the performance of the second promise is conditioned on performance of the promise that is due first. The second promise is only relieved of a duty to perform if there is a material failure to perform the promise due first, and if that failure is not remedied.
makes total fuckin sense.
la duderina05.3.09 - 2:52 am
reply
I need help making mnemonic devices
AT??!! Acronym writer extraordinaire?
M M E U M N UP
and
M C I F M
la duderina05.4.09 - 2:57 am
reply
M M E U M N UP
Make Me Ejaculate Upon My New UnderPants
and
M C I F M
My Crotch Is For Molesting
...hey, you should have known better than to ask that here.
Now GTFO.
PC05.4.09 - 4:37 am
reply
oh where would Professor Copyright be when I need him?
la duderina12.16.09 - 1:12 am
reply
la duderina DO I KNOW YOU?
I CANT BELIEVE I MISSED THIS THREAD.
MUSTA BEEN WHEN I HAD NO INTERNETS AT HOME.
eddieboyinla12.16.09 - 12:55 pm
reply
I'm right here. What?
PC responding to a
comment by la duderina
12.16.09 - 12:56 pm
reply
haha. I've been on a couple rides with you and I don't know if you remember this but I introduced myself to you in a metro station once.
@PC
day late, dolla short brother.
la duderina responding to a
comment by eddieboyinla
12.16.09 - 1:06 pm
reply
On the Internet, nobody can see you shrug.
PC responding to a
comment by la duderina
12.16.09 - 1:08 pm
reply
turns out Copyright isn't all that confusing. Until you get a work that was created between 1978 and 1989 and published without notice.
la duderina responding to a
comment by PC
12.16.09 - 1:12 pm
reply
hang on let me look it up...
it says, "Fuck it."
la duderina responding to a
comment by Joe Borfo
12.16.09 - 1:23 pm
reply
Call it a no-flake clause. If You contract with Somebody to, say, create a clothing line for the next three months, and after the second month the Somebody stops returning your calls or stops paying you or doesn't send in any more specs, Somebody won't have much luck in court if Somebody sues you for not finishing the job. With the exceptions as listed in Section 240, say for example Somebody saying Somebody will be in Mexico for a week during the second month, so You can't pretend you didn't know that.
/not a lawyer
Yellow_Bike01.25.10 - 3:24 pm
reply
I can't wait to see what your professors are wrong about this time.
PC responding to a
comment by shotgunBOOMBOOM
04.14.10 - 3:23 am
reply
don't lawyers have their own forums?
_iJunes responding to a
comment by shotgunBOOMBOOM
04.28.10 - 2:36 pm
reply
valuation is hardly a legal question, and yet I have to fucking learn it anyway.
the fuck is up with THAT?!
shotgunBOOMBOOM responding to a
comment by _iJunes
04.28.10 - 5:17 pm
reply
supplementary education is supplemental
_iJunes responding to a
comment by shotgunBOOMBOOM
04.28.10 - 5:31 pm
reply
http://midnightridazz.com/viewStory.php?storyId=6263
Sham-Wow01.27.11 - 6:05 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
