Law Exam Answer

[Sebby]

The correct answer is B. Farmer B owns the goat. A verbal contract is as valid as a written contract. Think about it, when you go to the grocery store and put what you want in front of the cashier? You have a non-verbal contract to purchase that stuff. Usually contracts are written due to specific details and to use later in court if one party fails to complete their side of the bargain. Drinking while making the agreement would have nullified it, but they drank afterwards, so that information is irrelevant. Think about it for a second, have you ever bought something at a convince store, where the cashier was busy, and you just slap the money on the counter, they wave you on and you leave with a bottle of coke or whatever? It doesn’t matter, you have a verbal contract. If the cashier decides to light the money on fire or whatever, it isn’t your problem, you paid, therefore you fulfilled you portion of the verbal/non-verbal contract. The goat belongs to Farmer B. You can argue all you want. Think about how arbitrary the law is anyway when O.J. Simpson clearly murders 2 people and doesn’t go to jail. There you go. In the eyes of the law, Farmer B has upgraded his sex life.

[Lestat]

that's the answer I thought, but your explanation hardly holds water.

When I slap something down at the grocery store I don't have to buy it.. and if i eat it before i pay for it.. i still have to buy it..

[The Wenis]

you analyzed that just like a law student. excellent. but after you've practiced for a while you'll realize there is no correct answer to any legal question. the law is flexible and juries occasionally ignore it. the analysis isn't as important as sweet talking the jury. i'd give you k but i'm tapped out today.

YOU DIDN'T POST THE QUESTION!

[hamstershaver]

i was right like usual

[the nature boy]

yes, but who's having sex with the goat?

Originally posted by tqpew you analyzed that just like a law student. excellent. but after you've practiced for a while you'll realize there is no correct answer to any legal question. the law is flexible and juries occasionally ignore it. the analysis isn't as important as sweet talking the jury. i'd give you k but i'm tapped out today.

Law exam answers (or bar exam answers for that matter) are hardly ever geared toward real life instances. I don't think I've ever heard of someone shooting at their wife, with the intent to kill her, missing, having the bullet go out the window and killing a guy who jumped off the roof of the building (committing suicide). And then the guy being found guilty for 1st degree murder under transferred intent.

Basic thing to take out of this problem is (1) offer: "do you want to buy my goat for $10" (2) acceptance: Could have just said "yes" and would have been enough. Here, he slapped the $10 down (red herring that he "slapped" it down) (3) $10 was consideration for the goat: B gave consideration and A gave something up for it (detriment).

Maybe I'm sounding like a law student now. All I do is deal cards on a boat. LOL

[Bullit]

Originally posted by Sebby have you ever bought something at a convince store, where the cashier was busy, and you just slap the money on the counter, they wave you on and you leave with a bottle of coke or whatever? It doesn’t matter, you have a verbal contract. If the cashier decides to light the money on fire or whatever, it isn’t your problem, you paid, therefore you fulfilled you portion of the verbal/non-verbal contract.

BUT isnt the flipside true?
From farmer A's perspective he could say "hey... I dont care what he does with his money before he gives it to me as payment. He can put it on the table, shove it in his pocket, put it in a drawer or cram it up his ass... until I have accepted it then the contract has not been fulfilled.
I hadnt accepted it yet, thus the contract was not fullfilled."

The store example you use implies that the cashier has accepted your money.