How not to throw away porn

[CrystalTears]

Warning: Be very careful how you dispose of those embarrassing items

Written by Ben Gerrard
Monday, 23 April 2007

Wednesday morning started out just like any other for 38yr old Nebraska resident, John Greer.

Little did he know that in 20 minutes time he would set off a chain of events that would lead to his arrest and subsequent charges for supplying Pornography to minors. Greer an avid recycler always makes sure he puts out his stack of papers every Wednesday as part of the states Curb Side Paper Recycling Collection service.

Greer recently meet the girl of his dreams and decided that as such he would get rid of his collection of 20 plus Penthouse, Playboy and various other pornographic magazines. So he put all his "Dirty Magazines" in a box and put them out on the curb to be collected.

The chain of events leading to Mr Greer's arrest had begun. Greer’s house happened to be 100 meters from a local elementary school and a group of 10 year old boys walking to school decided that it would be fun to kick over and tip out all the paper on the curbside. Upon kicking over the box in front of Johns house the youngsters discovered the pile of porn. They promptly picked stuffed the entire porn collection into their school bags and continued onto school.

The magazines were quickly dispersed throughout the entire school and it wasn’t till near the end of Lunch time that teachers found and confiscated the first magazine. Two more groups of students were found reading magazines. This sparked a mass search of the school grounds as the entire teaching staff rounded up the remaining magazines.

The police were called in and the magazines were tracked back to the initial group of 5 boys who showed officers where they found them. Officers arrested and charged John Greer that afternoon.

Principal Michelle Brussels estimates that over 100 children may have been exposed to the pornographic material. "Parents have been notified and we have brought in counsellors to talk with children".

Due to the states tough anti pornography stance Greer if found guilty will face up to 4 years

http://www.stuffed.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366&Itemid=29


Isn't it illegal to go through people's trash anyway? So because stupid kids went through it he's going to go to jail for it? C'mon.

[Gan]

You are not protected by privacy laws when you physically put your 'trash' out on the curb. You are in effect giving up your rights to said property by throwing it away.

The sad part is, he was trying to be 'green' and wound up getting busted.

I bet he wont have to worry about the fiancee issue anymore either...

[CrystalTears]

Ah, okay. For some reason I thought it was a violation of privacy. Once out, no longer private. Got it. Still sucks though. :(

[TheEschaton]

The thing is, though, once it's on his curb, it's not his, anyways.

-TheE-

[The Ponzzz]

Yea, something like the front 5 feet of your yard/curb/etc is not your property. Pretty crappy situation when the poor guy just wanted to recycle.

I forget who, but I know some organization accept playboy donations. They don't want anything hardcore, however.

[Tsa`ah]

Step 1. Charge the kids with vandalism and distributing porn ... make them face the same music and then some in juvenile court.

Step 2. Bring civil charges against the parents ... they liable for the actions of their children anyway.

Step 3. Kick every legislator and elected official that you meet in the nuts/uterus.

[Gan]

Its the combination of the act of discarding unwanted materials/items and the location they were discarded in (which has to be publically accessable) such as a trash collecton point (bin, dumpster, curbside, etc.).

You can have trash bags full of trash on your porch or inside your home ready for disposal and its still considered private property because of its location.

This is a very interesting topic with regards to search and seizure laws / warrants for property searches etc.

[Drew]

It's either his property, in which case he was robbed, but may not have taken adequate steps to secure his pornography. Or it's not his property.


The way I see it, he's not liable, or the children should all be charged with theft at a juvenile court.

Or option C: chalk it up to fate and do nothing, which is really what should have happened.

[Gan]

Wonder what would have happened if that box of trash had a shit load of sex toys/bondage/etc. in it instead of men's magazines.

[Shalla]

Principal Michelle Brussels estimates that over 100 children may have been exposed to the pornographic material. "Parents have been notified and we have brought in counsellors to talk with children".



What are the counselors supposed to talk to the children about? They're blowing this way out of proportion. Discussing it even further would just escalate the situation.

[Gan]

It can also be guaranteed that his 'trash' will never be left alone now. I can imagine every boy that walks to school along that route will accidentally 'kick over' his trash cans in hopes of finding other treasure.

[CrystalTears]

What are the counselors supposed to talk to the children about? They're blowing this way out of proportion. Discussing it even further would just escalate the situation.
Father: Son, I heard you saw porn at school.
Son: Yeah.
Father: <in a hushed tone> Did you bring it back with you?

:D

[Drew]

What are the counselors supposed to talk to the children about? They're blowing this way out of proportion. Discussing it even further would just escalate the situation.


Pornography can have a negative affect on children, I'm sure that all of them don't need counseling but it's well documented that children who are exposed to pornography at young ages grow up to engage in more deviant behaviors than those who are not exposed to it.

[Drew]

Although, that said, if it was just ten year old boys and it wasn't hardcore stuff, I doubt it will affect them that much.

[CrystalTears]

Pornography can have a negative affect on children, I'm sure that all of them don't need counseling but it's well documented that children who are exposed to pornography at young ages grow up to engage in more deviant behaviors than those who are not exposed to it.

Really? This explains a lot about me....

[StrayRogue]

I wouldn't ever consider Playboy to be porn. Considering what those children have access to a single click away on the internet, I imagine it's not something they hadn't seen before.

[Artha]

Eh, they're still a couple years away from seeing the full wonders of the internet...but Playboy's not anything they wouldn't find under daddy's mattress anyway.

[Drew]

Yeah I think I was about 10 or 11 when one of my friends paid a homeless guy to buy us a playboy at a gas station, that was the first porn I saw. I'm not really worried about a 10 year old boy seeing a playboy, but elementary schools have children 5, 6, 7, and 8 years old there, I think everyone can agree that that's something you wouldn't want them seeing.

[Landrion]

Pornography can have a negative affect on children, I'm sure that all of them don't need counseling but it's well documented that children who are exposed to pornography at young ages grow up to engage in more deviant behaviors than those who are not exposed to it.

I consider deviancy a positive trait, thank you very much.

[Drew]

I consider deviancy a positive trait, thank you very much.


Sorry, I wasn't referring to sexual deviancy. Maybe I should have said delinquency. Children who are exposed to porn, controlling for variables, are more likely to wind up in juvie or jail when they grow up. The particular study I read didn't theorize as to why.

[xtc]

Sorry, I wasn't referring to sexual deviancy. Maybe I should have said delinquency. Children who are exposed to porn, controlling for variables, are more likely to wind up in juvie or jail when they grow up. The particular study I read didn't theorize as to why.

Do you have a source? I find it hard to believe that reading (watching) playboy as a child will cause someone to become a criminal as an adult.

I figure most of my flaws were caused by lack of pornography exposure as a child.

[Shalla]

What I mean't was, Are the counselours and parents supposed to say that it's wrong?

[Warriorbird]

This guy needs a good lawyer badly.

[Krendeli]

My mom bought me a subscription to Playboy when i was 13. She rocked.

[Shalla]

Pornography can have a negative affect on children, I'm sure that all of them don't need counseling but it's well documented that children who are exposed to pornography at young ages grow up to engage in more deviant behaviors than those who are not exposed to it.

I'd like to see this documentation as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the research was conducted by a religious nut. Almost any action can have negative consequences. Just what criminal charges are we talking about here? I'm sure there are many reasons that led to that but blaming it on pornography alone and not how the child was raised is absurd.

[Bobmuhthol]

I think the problem with saying exposure to pornography leads to criminal behavior is that it says pornography is the cause of crime when in reality it's just that a majority of criminals have seen pornography. Since a majority of people in general have seen pornography, the same exact study could be done that says pornography leads to law abiding behavior.

[Landrion]

Sorry, I wasn't referring to sexual deviancy. Maybe I should have said delinquency. Children who are exposed to porn, controlling for variables, are more likely to wind up in juvie or jail when they grow up. The particular study I read didn't theorize as to why.

Interesting, but as the Merovingian would say, it ees about causality. Did the porno cause the delinquency? Or did rebelliousness, bad parenting, socio-economics or the ether cause both?

In any event, I doubt this guy will get in much, if any trouble. It would be hard to establish that he intended for the children to get this material. It also sounds like he followed normal and accepted procedure for disposing of paper materials. Even a claim of negligence would have have to have some backing that he did something he wasnt supposed to be doing. Could one be held liable if someone ate from thier garbage and got sick?

[Shalla]

It's not as if he can donate it to charity. Hahaha! Reminds me of this british comedy show when a deviant sexy lady decided to give up her lifestyle and donated her toys and sexy lingerie to charity. Keeping up appearances, I think? I love it!

[Keller]

From a "lawyer's" perspective:

First, he faces criminal liability. Garbage at the curb is "your property held out to the public." Meaning, it is still his property and there is no way to argue the kids didn't have every right to rumage through it. From a black-letter law stand point he's fucked. See: State of California v. Greenwood (1988).

But, or should I say second, I'm sure the jury will nullify as long as he has half-way competent legal representation. I can't imagine a group of people sincerely thinking he has any sort of criminal culpability. I can imagine, however, a jury saying he has civil liability. In fact, I'd be willing to represent any of those kids on a contingency basis knowing that I'd be seeing a decent payday in the end.

[Keller]

Interesting, but as the Merovingian would say, it ees about causality. Did the porno cause the delinquency? Or did rebelliousness, bad parenting, socio-economics or the ether cause both?

In any event, I doubt this guy will get in much, if any trouble. It would be hard to establish that he intended for the children to get this material. It also sounds like he followed normal and accepted procedure for disposing of paper materials. Even a claim of negligence would have have to have some backing that he did something he wasnt supposed to be doing. Could one be held liable if someone ate from thier garbage and got sick?

Not criminally negligent, but definately civally negligent. At the very least he could have taped the box shut.

[Latrinsorm]

I wouldn't be surprised if the research was conducted by a religious nut.I must have missed the memo at the science dude meeting, when did we decide ad hominem attacks count as scientific rebuttal again?

[Keller]

I think the problem with saying exposure to pornography leads to criminal behavior is that it says pornography is the cause of crime when in reality it's just that a majority of criminals have seen pornography. Since a majority of people in general have seen pornography, the same exact study could be done that says pornography leads to law abiding behavior.

It's even more attenuated when you figure people who don't look at porn don't look at it b/c of their moral beliefs. The same beliefs which will likely make them law-abiding citizens.

[Gan]

From a "lawyer's" perspective:

First, he faces criminal liability. Garbage at the curb is "your property held out to the public." Meaning, it is still his property and there is no way to argue the kids didn't have every right to rumage through it. From a black-letter law stand point he's fucked. See: State of California v. Greenwood (1988).

But, or should I say second, I'm sure the jury will nullify as long as he has half-way competent legal representation. I can't imagine a group of people sincerely thinking he has any sort of criminal culpability. I can imagine, however, a jury saying he has civil liability. In fact, I'd be willing to represent any of those kids on a contingency basis knowing that I'd be seeing a decent payday in the end.



(a) Since respondents voluntarily left their trash for collection in an area particularly suited for public inspection, their claimed expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items they discarded was not objectively reasonable. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left along a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through it or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. The police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public. Pp. 43-44.

I think the first cite in the opinions explains the merits of expectation with regards to privacy. However, this is an application in reverse of the current issue. In Calif. v. Greenwood the expectation was that the trash placed on the curb was considered private property and thus requiring a search warrant in order to obtain further warrants for a premisis search.

Thus while it is not against the law for the man to posess the 'pornography', it was also not against the law for him to discard such material. It could further be argued that the man had reasonable expectation that the material in question was being properly discarded and by the act of putting it in a box, acted in good faith to keep such material discreet until it was picked up by the recycle collectors.

If anything, the children in question should be charged with litter and criminal mischief for their actions not to mention distribution of pornographic material to other minors since they took the material to school for distribution.

What will be difficult to decide is whether or not the man discarding the porn knew before hand that children walked past his house on the way to school and that if by taping the boxes shut would have represented less negligence and a greater good faith effort in keeping such material discreet until it could be properly disposed of.

Furthermore is it considered proper to dispose of such material in the way it was discarded? Should it have been destroyed in a more confidential manner in order to avoid exposure to unintended individuals?

Also, since it has been determined, at least by how the story was written, that the intent of the boys in question was to 'dump all the papers out onto the ground', what good would have taping the box shut represented?

[Shalla]

I must have missed the memo at the science dude meeting, when did we decide ad hominem attacks count as scientific rebuttal again?

When you were taking hypocrisy 101.

[Latrinsorm]

I guess I should have expected you to defend yourself with an ad hominem attack, but it's still pretty funny. :)

[Sean of the Thread]

Wow. This country needs a serious kick in the balls. That being said....absolutely agree with what Tsa'ah said.


I for one and very happy about my uncle's negligence... found my first penthouse in his car new in the bag while rummaging for change. :)


<3 Penthouse.

[Keller]

I think the first cite in the opinions explains the merits of expectation with regards to privacy. However, this is an application in reverse of the current issue. In Calif. v. Greenwood the expectation was that the trash placed on the curb was considered private property and thus requiring a search warrant in order to obtain further warrants for a premisis search.

Thus while it is not against the law for the man to posess the 'pornography', it was also not against the law for him to discard such material. It could further be argued that the man had reasonable expectation that the material in question was being properly discarded and by the act of putting it in a box, acted in good faith to keep such material discreet until it was picked up by the recycle collectors.

If anything, the children in question should be charged with litter and criminal mischief for their actions not to mention distribution of pornographic material to other minors since they took the material to school for distribution.

What will be difficult to decide is whether or not the man discarding the porn knew before hand that children walked past his house on the way to school and that if by taping the boxes shut would have represented less negligence and a greater good faith effort in keeping such material discreet until it could be properly disposed of.

Furthermore is it considered proper to dispose of such material in the way it was discarded? Should it have been destroyed in a more confidential manner in order to avoid exposure to unintended individuals?

Also, since it has been determined, at least by how the story was written, that the intent of the boys in question was to 'dump all the papers out onto the ground', what good would have taping the box shut represented?


But Greenwood established that putting trash to the curb was essentially holding it out to the public. There is no expectation of privacy and therefore he should expect the public to riffle through it. That includes the kids.

There is no doubt that the kids are an intervening act in the widespread distribution to the school, but I think he would be responsible for the first 5 kids.

Negligence is really a spectrum. Anything he could have done to further secure the pornographic content would lessen the negligence. Think about what you would have done in his situation?

[Gan]

I'd have kept the mags!!! ;)

Hindsight being 20/20...
Actually, given that I do live a block away from an elementary school, with pedestrian traffic passing in front of my house thats made up of school age children, I would have probably taken the box of mags and dumped them into a large paper recycling collector that frequents recycle/reuse collection places (just not the one at the school ;) ). That or bagged them up with the regular trash and put out the container right before the pickup was expected.



But Greenwood established that putting trash to the curb was essentially holding it out to the public. There is no expectation of privacy and therefore he should expect the public to riffle through it. That includes the kids.

I guess my angle of attack would be that because it was trash placed in a public collection point (curbside) that there is also no expecation of ownership. However, the fact that it was in front of his house could be perceived otherwise. If I were him, I would not have claimed ownership of said box nor any idea as to how it came to be on the curb in front of his house. Of course, that would mean that there would be no identifying marks on the magazines or the box itself. Fingerprints might prove otherwise, or DNA if some pages were stuck together...

Which begs the question, are you responsible for your trash even after its left your posession? I can understand if you are discarding toxic waste, etc. But what about pornography?

[Faent]

He needs a lawyer who will sue the pants off everybody in that town. If charges are brought against him, he should bring ten times as many charges against the children, their parents, their friends, their friends parents, the principal, the principal's mother, the police, the garbage company, the district attorney, and on and on and on... In other words, turning the lives of everyone in the town into an absolute legal hell. Make them weep, cry, beg and plead for mercy. Force so many people to keep court dates that the city has to shut down and children starve.

[Sean of the Thread]

Fuck it.. sue the city for not picking it up promptly.

[SpunGirl]

That is ridiculous. He didn't "distribute" jack shit. Those little shits should be soundly whipped for littering/vandalism (as they were clearly trying to create some kind of mess by kicking over the trash) and their parents should be fined.

With regards to the kids seeing porn issue, I think there is a problem with that - in certain situations. Children who are heavily exposed to porn (and I mean hustler-type porn, not nekkid chix in playboy) are more likely to grow up with a completely unrealistic view of sex (because we all know porn doesn't necessarily depict "real" sex). I have no moral issues with porn, but I think when little kids don't have anything *else* to base an idea of "normal" sex on, it can be harmful.

Having said that, calling in counselors is retarded. Let's harp on the porn more, why don't we?

-K

[CrystalTears]

My problem is saying that trash is now open to the public thus not subject to being private property. So if it's public, why is it his responsibility? Either it's public or it's not.

You know what truly bothers me about this is that if he is charged, he'll get hit with a sex offender tag and branded as such for the rest of his life, when he never had any ill intent with what he did. For Christ's sakes he was throwing it out for the sake of his girlfriend! What man these days even does that? The whole situation bothers me to no end.

[Skirmisher]

Wow. That really is a sad commentary on the state of society.

The kids should not be going through other peoples garbage. Legal or not it is improper and doubly so for a child.

Leave the dumpster diving to the FBI kids.

[Tolwynn]

The saddest thing is that this guy's in trouble and that sick fuck mentioned in a thread a while back that was exposing himself to kids getting off their school bus doesn't get even a slap on the wrist.

Gotta love the American legal system.

[Bobmuhthol]

Gotta love states' rights since it's not a federal issue.

[Ignot]

Kids are babied way to much these days. We need to bring back metal monkey bars, the giant spring you could ride that rocked you back and forth, the lethal sandbox with old screws stickin out from the side, and oh yes...the porn.

[grenthor]

My bullshit meter is hitting pretty high on this one.I'd be real supprised if there was any truth to this.
There are no links to an real newspaper article or a source from that website. Nothing is turned up in a search for the guys name.

[TheEschaton]

I thought this man put the mags in his RECYCLING BIN?

If so, he can't be reasonably expected to tape it shut.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Kids are babied way to much these days. We need to bring back metal monkey bars, the giant spring you could ride that rocked you back and forth, the lethal sandbox with old screws stickin out from the side, and oh yes...the porn.


AND LAWN DARTS!!!!!!!

[Farquar]

Man, have first year law students taken over this board?

Anyway, this case seemed interesting enough for me to weigh in. I'll do this quickly, so pardon the grammar.

1. criminal liability: probably not. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" analysis doesn't apply here; no governmental search occurred. Greenwood is not relevant here...the property is held out to the public, but only in the sense of the 4th amendment's treatment of that property. Held out to the public=no probable cause needed for governmental search.

Also, most distribution laws have one crucial element: intent. The facts seem to weigh against the prosecution on that one.

Criminally negligent? Maybe, if the state in question has a negligent distribution law that reads something like: Whoever shall negligently store or display pornographic material, and that material is accessed by minors shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor and so on. But you can't be held criminally negligent for a crime that does not incorporate the negligence analysis within its elements.

Negligence-possible, but most likely not. You have to show 1) duty, 2)breach of that duty, 3) causation, 4) harm. Duty not to allow pron into kids hands? Sure. But the meat of the analysis lies in 2 and 3 and a bit of 4. Did he breach the duty by putting the things on the curb. Reasonable person analysis that becomes fact specific...how far away was the school, number of kids in the neighborhood, town demographics, etc.

Proximate cause? Counsel can argue that the chain of events was attenuated enough to blur causation. But this probably is a loser, think guns instead of magazines.

I think any decent defense lawyer would be able to get the guy off with a misdemeanor public disorderly.

[TheEschaton]

Keller and Khariz are in their second year. Hulkein and I are in our first.

-TheE-

[Nieninque]

That is ridiculous. He didn't "distribute" jack shit. Those little shits should be soundly whipped for littering/vandalism (as they were clearly trying to create some kind of mess by kicking over the trash) and their parents should be fined.

With regards to the kids seeing porn issue, I think there is a problem with that - in certain situations. Children who are heavily exposed to porn (and I mean hustler-type porn, not nekkid chix in playboy) are more likely to grow up with a completely unrealistic view of sex (because we all know porn doesn't necessarily depict "real" sex). I have no moral issues with porn, but I think when little kids don't have anything *else* to base an idea of "normal" sex on, it can be harmful.

Having said that, calling in counselors is retarded. Let's harp on the porn more, why don't we?

-K

Absolutely.

And the "kids having exposure to porn" argument has two levels really.

Assuming we are talking about standard playboy-type porn, there is a world of difference between kids stumbling across some magazines while with their friends (or even alone) as happened here, and probably having a bit of a laugh about it and looking at the pictures...and some dirty old fucker getting his kids with the neighbours kids he is babysitting, saying "'Ere, have a look at these Tommy" and pulling out a wank mag.

[Farquar]

Keller and Khariz are in their second year. Hulkein and I are in our first.

-TheE-

Hey we have enough to form the PC Forum Law Firm...

May I suggest white collar crime defense? The clients are never dangerous, and even though they're completely innocent, they always come up with the legal fees!

[Gan]

Nice

[TheEschaton]

I plan on doing criminal prosecution. :P

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

Still choosing between a few schools but I should be headed to law school starting in August.

[Gan]

Its still about 18 months out for me. :(

Will post a thread to discuss LSAT test taking tips and techniques when I get closer to taking it.

[DeV]

Will post a thread to discuss LSAT test taking tips and techniques when I get closer to taking it.A little over a month left until I take the plunge; June 11th to be exact. Mastering analytical reasoning will definitely be ftw, I think. *fingers crossed*

[Krendeli]

Christ...we already have enough lawyers. Stop making more!

[TheEschaton]

Tip #1: Don't have acute respitory pneumonia when you take it the first time in a country you've never been in.

I got a 158, but I was so delirious I thought I might of aced it (which is why I didn't cancel the score, in addition to not knowing if it would be possible for me to travel all the way to Jo'burg again to take it). Had to check into the hospital a day later back in Namibia and be on an IV for a week. Luckily, LSAC understood and let me cancel the score even after it had been released, and let me take the test again without paying the fee again.

Second time around, that shit was my bitch.
Oh, sorry, Russell Simmons banned that word: That shit was my *****.

-TheE-

[Keller]

What schools are you choosing between WB?

Also, Farq, will you tell me what firm you work for yet?

[Farquar]

A little over a month left until I take the plunge; June 11th to be exact. Mastering analytical reasoning will definitely be ftw, I think. *fingers crossed*

http://www.powerscore.com/pubs_lgb.htm

Live it. Learn it. Love it.


What schools are you choosing between WB?

Also, Farq, will you tell me what firm you work for yet?

Does it matter? I left a little while ago and moved to a smallish boutique white collar defense firm.

If you really want to know more, my old haunt was one of the following: Sullivan, Cleary, or Debevoise.

[Keller]

http://www.powerscore.com/pubs_lgb.htm

Live it. Learn it. Love it.



Does it matter? I left a little while ago and moved to a smallish boutique white collar defense firm.

If you really want to know more, my old haunt was one of the following: Sullivan, Cleary, or Debevoise.

I think you can find a thread or two on there forums discussing the merits of PowerScore. By far the best out there.

And congrats on leaving Biglaw. I hope it wasn't SC.

[TheEschaton]

I don't understand why 90% of my class wants to go into Biglaw. I think they just see the pricetag (165k now in New York) and not the 80+ hour weeks, constant shit work from senior partners, and the insane pressure to bill, bill, bill.

-TheE-

[Gan]

My focus shall remain real estate/contract law. I'm with the company I hope to call home to for a very long time and there's plenty of opportunity to grow in the legal end.

[TheEschaton]

I can teach you Contract Law right now:

Offer. Acceptance.

-or-

Consideration.

Oh, and the mailbox rule.

I think that's all I got out of our Contracts class, since our prof (who taught John Kerry back in the day) hated the UCC.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Heh.

I'm working with an attorney presently over title and abstract involving some commercial land developments. He's got some really great insights in how land is conveyed and the intricities(sp) of purchase contracts and the different types of deeds necessary to reflect proper conveyance.

My primary job is escrow/closing for residential real estate transactions; however, I hope to shift the focus eventually to full time commercial.

Its really cool stuff.

[Keller]

I don't understand why 90% of my class wants to go into Biglaw. I think they just see the pricetag (165k now in New York) and not the 80+ hour weeks, constant shit work from senior partners, and the insane pressure to bill, bill, bill.

-TheE-

Indentured servitude.

Seriously.

[Keller]

I can teach you Contract Law right now:

Offer. Acceptance.

-or-

Consideration.

Oh, and the mailbox rule.

I think that's all I got out of our Contracts class, since our prof (who taught John Kerry back in the day) hated the UCC.

-TheE-

You had a shitty contracts class.

You at least have to have section 90 PE.

I miss contracts. It was so easy.

[TheEschaton]

Oh, we briefly touched on section 90, only to have a 2 class rant on why the idiots who did the UCC were a bunch of retarded monkeys.

-TheE-

[Keller]

Oh, we briefly touched on section 90, only to have a 2 class rant on why the idiots who did the UCC were a bunch of retarded monkeys.

-TheE-


Maybe it's a matter of instructor preference, but we were taught the modern theory on contract is moving toward the reasonableness standard -- and section 90/reliance/unjust-enrichment are all prime examples.