Contracts - Session 11

Transcript

SFV Room 200B: Okay, dude, we’ll do is I explode.
SFV Room 200B: Okay.
SFV Room 200B: Yep.
SFV Room 200B: Jesus.
SFV Room 200B: This one, I don’t Picking.
SFV Room 200B: Oh, it’s, like, empty today. Sick day. Sick day. Vacation day? Donna’s gonna be, on Zoom today.
SFV Room 200B: Also, she’s… oh, no, we haven’t.
SFV Room 200B: You know they’re getting sold? He’s buying out gold. Oh, yeah, are they? EOS Fitness? Every Gold’s gym is gonna turn into EOS Fitz Gym.
SFV Room 200B: They can change the name, too. They’re getting bought out. Yeah, but that doesn’t… Yeah, yeah, yeah.
SFV Room 200B: So everything’s, like, half-off? I’m sure they’ll have a half-off at your location.
SFV Room 200B: They’re trying to get rid of everything. Hey, how are you? That’s a very fashionable person. The jewelry? The jewelry and looks, and yes.
SFV Room 200B: What’s up, boys and girls?
SFV Room 200B: Oh, yeah, yeah. What is that, a restaurant?
SFV Room 200B: Chanel model. Oh, yeah, yeah.
SFV Room 200B: He just replied to me because of it.
SFV Room 200B: Joey, I hate you.
SFV Room 200B: He’s gone.
SFV Room 200B: That’s it.
SFV Room 200B: You see the chat mobile when you pay? That’s so funny.
SFV Room 200B: And my browser forgot.
SFV Room 200B: It’s just too void.
SFV Room 200B: I can’t believe I messed up on ours. Oh, you didn’t? But there was arson. Oh.
SFV Room 200B: This is the procession on live TV right now, is that deputy? Oh, is it? Oh, actually, yes, yes, it is. Yeah, yeah, it should be right now, from the corner.
SFV Room 200B: Yeah, bro.
SFV Room 200B: But it’s property, that’s what I argue. Is it any structure, property, or something else. I mean, it’s personal property, it’s in the definition. See, I knew I was right. The wall doesn’t matter, because the wall was black.
SFV Room 200B: By the time we get there, the car is smashed. No.
SFV Room 200B: I guess that does make sense. Isn’t that something tangible that it’s not arson?
SFV Room 200B: Structure means any building affixed to the ground. I’m gonna go back, yeah.
SFV Room 200B: It contains a car.
SFV Room 200B: All I know is the minute…
SFV Room 200B: He said if you can argue it, he’s not… remember, we did that at BE, and
SFV Room 200B: Okie dokie, everyone. I have 6.33. Next time.
SFV Room 200B: True.
SFV Room 200B: Ruben Agajanian? Here.
SFV Room 200B: Humberto Campos, or Marcovsky.
SFV Room 200B: Brianna Camaro-Estrada? Here.
SFV Room 200B: Joseph Kjecjian?
SFV Room 200B: Robert Monsigned?
Robert Nazarian: Here.
SFV Room 200B: Go ahead, Patricia. She texted, she’s on her way, Professor, stuck in traffic.
SFV Room 200B: Thank you. Danny Ramirez? Here.
SFV Room 200B: Armin Zakarian? Joshua Zone?
Josh Zone: You’re a professor.
SFV Room 200B: You’ve seen our Rahamian?
Lusine Abrahamian: Here.
SFV Room 200B: Surin Abraham? Here.
SFV Room 200B: Edmund, Eddie Gillian.
Edwin Aghilian: You’re a professional.
SFV Room 200B: Daniel Orman?
danielarmin: Ew.
SFV Room 200B: Armen Bashian?
Armen Bashian: Good evening, Professor. Here.
SFV Room 200B: Franz Biombe?
frantzbiamby: Here.
SFV Room 200B: Victoria Brianis?
SFV Room 200B: Victoria Briones.
SFV Room 200B: Giancarlo Salidon. Here.
SFV Room 200B: Have, like, Eugene… Doctorian?
SFV Room 200B: Open License, please.
SFV Room 200B: Sure, I mispronounced anybody. Juan Esparza? Here.
SFV Room 200B: Josue Flores?
Josue Flores: Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Anna Galazian?
SFV Room 200B: Anna Galazian?
SFV Room 200B: Sona Khazarian?
Sona Ghazaryan: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Kevin Golovati.
Kevin Golovaty: Here.
SFV Room 200B: Cesar Gonzalez.
Cesar Gonzalez: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: All of them salvage?
Paul Gonzalez: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Anna Kopian? Your pleasure. Rami Halo?
Rami Helo: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Karen Hernandez-Vazquez.
Karen Hernandez: Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Ruben Sundanian.
Ruben Hunanyan: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Rita Karayan.
Rita Karaian: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Liana Karibian?
LIANNA KARIBYAN: Beer.
SFV Room 200B: Prigor Kasabian. Hello, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Karo Kushkaria.
Karo Koshkaryan: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Matt Lena Kushkarian.
maddykoshkaryan: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Adrian Imamato.
SFV Room 200B: Kumamoto.
SFV Room 200B: Adrian Komamoto.
SFV Room 200B: Cynthia Lager.
Cynthia estefania’s iPhone: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Jason Markarian?
Jason Makaryan: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Sabrina Malecon?
Sabrina Malekan: Ear…
SFV Room 200B: Arthur Ms. Lumion.
arthur mazloumian: Here.
SFV Room 200B: Jana Mosmanian. Come here.
SFV Room 200B: Arman Mizojan, here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Present.
SFV Room 200B: Laura Moradian?
Laura Muradyan: Here.
SFV Room 200B: Sebastian Azor? Here.
SFV Room 200B: The Oni Nasarian? Here.
SFV Room 200B: The Lona Nazarian?
Elona Nazaryan: Here.
SFV Room 200B: Amanda Odin?
Amanda Oden: Here.
SFV Room 200B: Marcy Oyaka.
Masie Oyaga: Here.
SFV Room 200B: Alexander…
Alex Poberezhskiy: Chris, I’m here.
SFV Room 200B: Jasmine Pozanjani.
Jasmine Pourzanjani: Here, good evening, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Tina Rosavi?
Fatima Razavi: Dear Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Yoni?
SFV Room 200B: Read?
Yanique Reid: Care, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Savara Safarian?
Sevada Safarian: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Isabelle solisar.
Isabel Salazar: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Marina, Maria?
Karia Salazar: Karia Salazar?
SFV Room 200B: you, Salazar Maria?
Karia Salazar: Here.
SFV Room 200B: Daniel Schick?
Daniel Sheck: Hi, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Hello.
SFV Room 200B: Susie Shakhadumion.
Suzy Shkhrdumyan: Here, Professor, good evening.
SFV Room 200B: What do you mean? Carmen Smith.
SFV Room 200B: Cameron Smith.
Cameron Smith: Here, Cassid.
SFV Room 200B: Yesenia Sonia? Soria?
Yessenia Soria: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Annabella Sulah… Sulahian?
Anabella Sulahian: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Marisa Tarazas?
Clarissa Terrazas: Here.
SFV Room 200B: Daniel, Buchlungian.
Daniel Toukhlandjian: Here, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Arthur Boskechian? Here.
SFV Room 200B: Madonna Youssef.
Madona Yousef: I’m here. Also, I sent you an email earlier regarding the camera situation.
SFV Room 200B: Camera situation.
SFV Room 200B: Can you shoot me a text, please?
SFV Room 200B: Oh, okay.
Madona Yousef: Do you want me to send that now?
SFV Room 200B: Yes.
Madona Yousef: Okay.
Adreanne Kumamoto: Professor?
SFV Room 200B: Yes?
Adreanne Kumamoto: Hi.
Adreanne Kumamoto: Adrian Kumamoto, I’m here. I was a few minutes late.
SFV Room 200B: Thank you.
SFV Room 200B: I got… Let’s see… I don’t have Ana Golazian.
SFV Room 200B: Victoria Briones.
SFV Room 200B: And Ms. Petrosian, which we know she’s gonna be like. Anybody else?
SFV Room 200B: Anyone’s name has not been called.
SFV Room 200B: I got you, Miss Kamamoto.
Adreanne Kumamoto: Thank you.
SFV Room 200B: You’re welcome.
SFV Room 200B: All right, everyone. Good evening.
SFV Room 200B: Let’s go to page 276, please.
SFV Room 200B: The goal is to go all the way to… where are we going to?
SFV Room 200B: And the franchise stop.
SFV Room 200B: If time permits.
SFV Room 200B: Okay. And as you probably know.
SFV Room 200B: If you look at the, if you carefully look at the syllabus, We are skipping…
SFV Room 200B: Chapter… was it Chapter 6? Statue of Frauds? Chapter 6. We’re skipping that. We’re going to start Statue of Frauds next semester, the very first session.
SFV Room 200B: So, that’s how the syllabus is…
SFV Room 200B: designed. It makes more sense than what the,
SFV Room 200B: But the framers of this book, the authors,
SFV Room 200B: planted for us. Okay, moral obligations and considerations, as you already know.
SFV Room 200B: Moral obligations are pretty much the minority of the rules, right?
SFV Room 200B: Sheldon vs. Blackmon comes up a lot.
SFV Room 200B: It talks about the restatement second, or if it should, if it doesn’t. Section 86.
SFV Room 200B: Sub 2B.
SFV Room 200B: But, it comes up a lot because
SFV Room 200B: It stands for a promise to pay for the benefits if you… if you pay for the benefit that you received.
SFV Room 200B: It may be enforced even if disproportionate in value. So let’s see if anybody wants to take, on this case, 1925 seats. Anybody? Page 276.
Karia Salazar: I can brief the case.
SFV Room 200B: Did you want to do it on Zoom?
Karia Salazar: Yes.
SFV Room 200B: May I please have your name?
Karia Salazar: Karia, Salazar Maria?
SFV Room 200B: Ms. Sasa, please.
Karia Salazar: Shelton versus, Blackman, correct?
Karia Salazar: Julia Sheldon, plaintiff, went to live with her uncle and aunt.
Karia Salazar: Henry Wilkinson and his wife, in order to care for them in their old age.
Karia Salazar: She did so, her uncle’s request…
Karia Salazar: And the understanding was that she would receive his property after he and his wife died.
Karia Salazar: Until their deaths, 34 years later.
Karia Salazar: Plaintiff, provided them substantial physical and domestic service.
Karia Salazar: In 1919, her uncle Wilkinson made out a promissory note
Karia Salazar: to Sheldon, plaintiff, in which he promised to pay her $30,000 at the time of his death for the services she had provided him and his wife up to the date of the note.
Karia Salazar: He further promised to pay her…
Karia Salazar: The reasonable value of services she performed after the date of the note.
Karia Salazar: At the time of the note,
Karia Salazar: Wilkinson also willed to Sheldon the residue of his property, but the will was lost or destroyed.
Karia Salazar: After Wilkinson’s death, Sheldon filed a claim in probate court against his estate.
Karia Salazar: For the funds promised in the note, and alternatively, the value of services she provided. The court ruled that
Karia Salazar: The note was enforceable, and it allowed Sheldon’s claim of $30,000 plus approximately
Karia Salazar: $6,000 for services provided between the date of the note and Wilkinson’s death. The estate conceded that Sheldon had a claim in Quantum Marriott, but, disputed the amount of the award.
Karia Salazar: The state argued on appeal, and the note lacked consideration.
Karia Salazar: And that the relationship between Sheldon and Wilkinson required an express contract subject to… A 6-year statute of limitations.
Karia Salazar: And the issue here is,
Karia Salazar: Where one party’s intent to pay another for services rendered is clear, and the latter is entitled to payment as a matter of quantum area, may the court rely on evidence
Karia Salazar: Indicating the intent amount of payment in order to determine an appropriate award.
Karia Salazar: And ultimately, the court ruled yes.
SFV Room 200B: Anything you want to add?
Karia Salazar: There’s evidence that one party intended to compensate another for services.
Karia Salazar: Such evidence rebuts a presumption that services were rendered gratuitously.
Karia Salazar: Sheldon commenced caring for Wilkinson’s on the mutual understanding that she would receive residue of their estate.
Karia Salazar: The services were not, considered gratuitous,
Karia Salazar: And that’s why it’s not… it wasn’t a gift.
SFV Room 200B: So, to improve… this is a very, very good job.
SFV Room 200B: two important points out of this case. First of all.
SFV Room 200B: The services were not just rendered
SFV Room 200B: Just because somebody wanted to be nice. It was requested.
SFV Room 200B: Right?
SFV Room 200B: A court also concluded that This person gave up a job, Or a business?
SFV Room 200B: The dressmaking establishment.
SFV Room 200B: Am I correct?
SFV Room 200B: Page 277.
SFV Room 200B: And so it was at the request of the decedent.
SFV Room 200B: and…
SFV Room 200B: it sounds like, or it looks like, as you correctly stated, the presumption of gift, which is where we start, always, by presumption of gift. Why was there a presumption of gift?
SFV Room 200B: In this case, that she had to overcome.
SFV Room 200B: Yeah, that’s it. In fact, the court says she was treated like a family. It says the claimant lived in and was treated as a member of the family.
SFV Room 200B: So, yeah, there’s a presumption that this is just a gratuitous
SFV Room 200B: Thing that you’re doing, right?
SFV Room 200B: if my niece is doing something for me, I’m sure she doesn’t expect Payments in return.
SFV Room 200B: Right? Unless…
SFV Room 200B: this happens. You can… you can overcome the presumption. And of course, the second thing is, because it was at the request and the presumption was overcome, then the court says, well, it’s only fair, right? Otherwise, there would be, unjust enrichment, it would be
SFV Room 200B: It would be unfair. Now, let me tell you about
SFV Room 200B: Restatement second, section 60… sorry, 86.
SFV Room 200B: It’s a 1981 restatement second.
SFV Room 200B: section 86 that deals with promise for benefit received, meaning a promise AFTER the benefit was received.
SFV Room 200B: It addresses moral obligation arising from past benefit conferred.
SFV Room 200B: That makes a subsequent promise enforceable, even though there was no bargain or consideration at the time of the benefit… at the time that the benefit was given. When you say the second section 4086, states.
SFV Room 200B: one with two most important 2B in this case, but I want to read all of it to you.
SFV Room 200B: A promise made in recognition of a benefit previously received by the promisor from the promisee is binding to the extent necessary to prevent injustice.
SFV Room 200B: So, this may be the modern trend. In other words, you want to basically say, look, it would otherwise
SFV Room 200B: really be unfair. Not just maybe on a Trump-Serstoppol theory, but also on just enrichment, right? It would be wholly unfair.
SFV Room 200B: And two, it says a promise is not binding under subsection 1.
SFV Room 200B: A, if the promisee conferred the benefit as a gift.
SFV Room 200B: Or, for other reasons, the promisor has not been unjustly enriched.
SFV Room 200B: for example, there was this for that. There was some exchange between the parties. And B, to the extent that this value is disproportionate to the benefit received. Obviously, the court here looks like they don’t care for proportionality, they only care that there was, in fact.
SFV Room 200B: Benefit requested.
SFV Room 200B: And benefit-benefit Conferred. There was…
SFV Room 200B: there was, an intent to… to be compensated. There was, in fact, a discussion about it at the very least, and so the court says that’s how it’s going to be.
SFV Room 200B: That was not my phone. Whoever’s phone it was, please put it on silent.
SFV Room 200B: Okay, any questions about that case?
SFV Room 200B: Banco de Brazil. Anybody? Yes, ma’am.
SFV Room 200B: and people in one.
SFV Room 200B: New York Appellate Division, 1st Department, Year 2000, Litigants Arbottle de Brazil, as the State of Antigua, the defendant.
SFV Room 200B: In 1981, a plaintiff, a banking corporation based out of Brazil, entered into a loan agreement with the defendant.
SFV Room 200B: Plaintiff agreed to pay principal amount of $3 million plus interest with certain promissory notes for repayment of a loan with interest. Under the terms of the loan, if the defendant was not able to pay, the guarantor, who was the minister, agreed to pay the amount due under the agreement.
SFV Room 200B: The state failed to pay within the time period. A letter by the ministry to the plaintiff was written in 1989 confirming obligation to pay. However, payments needed to be rescheduled due to a hurricane.
SFV Room 200B: In 1997, a second letter from the ministry, signed by a financial secretary confirmed the balance of interest in the total amount being a little over a million dollars. And following on that date, despite repeated demands by the plaintiff, defendant refused to pay.
SFV Room 200B: Plaintiff filed an action against the defendant for breach of the loan agreement, breach of promissory note, and breach of the guaranteed agreement. Defendant moved to dismiss complaint under the six-year statute of limitation. Court denied defendant’s motion under the law.
SFV Room 200B: The issue was whether the defendant’s 1997 letter regarding their loan agreement sent to plaintiffs after the statute of limitation had run constituted an acknowledgement or a promise within the meaning of the General Obligation Rules 17-101, and was sufficient to revive plaintiffs’ time barking.
SFV Room 200B: Rule stated that a written acknowledgement or promissory…
SFV Room 200B: Promise note, which told… which toll the statute of limitation.
SFV Room 200B: My analysis was the defendants argued that in 1989 nor 1997, letters specified the requirement of general obligation law, as these letters indicated an absolute and unqualified intention to repay the debt that was owed.
SFV Room 200B: In 1987, the letter clearly did constitute a plain admission of debtness, and nothing in the letter was inconsistent with the clear intent to repay the loan, and clearly stated an acknowledgement and promised within the meaning of the general obligation rule to revive plaintiff’s otherwise time-barred claim, and clearly conveyed intention to pay, which is all that was needed to show in order to satisfy the
SFV Room 200B: Section 17-101.
SFV Room 200B: Letter did come in writing an acknowledgement, a recognition of an existing debt, and must contain no inconsistency with the intention to… to the part of the debtor to pay it, which it did, so the court confirmed. Very, very good. So, the advice that I always give
SFV Room 200B: Anybody who is my client, or wants to be my client, and calls and says, oh.
SFV Room 200B: I’m owed so much money, and and I’m like, well…
SFV Room 200B: When were you supposed to be paid? Oh, it was, like, 3 years ago. Do you have something in writing? Yeah, I do. Okay, what do you have?
SFV Room 200B: Well, he emailed me, he said he’s gonna pay me.
SFV Room 200B: When did he email you? Three years ago.
SFV Room 200B: And the advice that I have is, Independent.
SFV Room 200B: On the facts of the case.
SFV Room 200B: Perhaps try to get another email.
SFV Room 200B: Or another writing that says, look.
SFV Room 200B: When I have the money, I’ll pay you.
SFV Room 200B: What that does is that it does revive the statute of limitation.
SFV Room 200B: And so, the oral contract’s 2 years in California, written is 4 years.
SFV Room 200B: Right? From time of breach. You only have that much time to sue. And if you don’t, within that time, you… you blew it.
SFV Room 200B: So I almost always ask the client, even if it’s within the statute, to see if you can get something else, even a text message that says, I’ll pay you when I’ll pay, or…
SFV Room 200B: You know, here’s $5, $5.
SFV Room 200B: Doesn’t matter. Get him to pay 50 bucks. That also, that act of paying that debt, portion of that debt, revives the statute, so we get to easily sue without worrying about lowering it, right?
SFV Room 200B: And that’s pretty much what this case is all about. It basically is not necessarily a moral obligation, it’s an obligation that is subject to the statute of limitations, but the court says, yeah, certain
SFV Room 200B: California as such, you may be able to revise that statute of limitation and pursue under that theory, yes ma’am. Sir, why does that email, revise the statute of limitation?
SFV Room 200B: Why? Why? Because it’s another writing that is… that basically is 3 states that I’m gonna pay you. So my time limitation, technically, is not that the breach happened 3 years ago, the breach happened now. You just said you’re gonna pay me, right?
SFV Room 200B: It’s a long shot, but it’s far better than blowing the statute, because if you do.
SFV Room 200B: What happens? They just filed the murder and motioned to strike, and there you go, you’re done. It’s over. You lose.
SFV Room 200B: But if you get that, it’ll be much, much, much harder, right? It probably has to go before the court, try to fact, all that stuff, and it’s much harder to dismiss, get rid of.
SFV Room 200B: Yes. Is the statute of limitations on everything 2 years? No. Oh, I’m talking about breach of contract.
SFV Room 200B: Oral bridge contract, 2 years. Written bridge contract, 4 years. No, everything is different. The statute of limitation to sue a lawyer is 1 year, typically. To sue a doctor is 1 year. To sue for negligence is 2 years.
SFV Room 200B: used to be a year when I first became a lawyer. For the longest time, it was one year, so if you had a car accident, you only had one year to file.
SFV Room 200B: Now it’s 2 years. Has been for, I don’t know, 10 years or something.
SFV Room 200B: Anyway, but that statute of limitations is one of the biggest Perhaps by lawyers.
SFV Room 200B: They give wrong advice.
SFV Room 200B: And so, I try very hard not to, even when I’m dropping a client, I make sure to say, you have 2 years for your negligence cause of action, but you have 3 years for your property damage.
SFV Room 200B: Right? Because if they don’t go after their profit damage after 2 years, then they come sue you. And if you didn’t tell me it’s 3 years, you should have told me.
SFV Room 200B: Which is true, you should’ve.
SFV Room 200B: So, statute of limitations are very, very complex, difficult at times. Why do I say that?
SFV Room 200B: Typical car accident, and everybody knows. If you don’t know, then you’re an idiot.
SFV Room 200B: You have no business being a lawyer, honestly. Because it’s pretty, pretty…
SFV Room 200B: clear cut, right? If it’s a government claim, it’s pretty much 6 months. If it’s not a government claim, it’s pretty much 2 years. Boom, boom, boom, let’s go. If it’s on federal land, who knows? We have to look into those statutes as well, but…
SFV Room 200B: when I say complex is when you have 6 or 7 causes of action. One of them is fraud, the other one is, you know, breach of contract, and the other one is, you know, unfair business practice, this, that, whatever. Every one of these things typically have a separate statute of limitations. You gotta be careful.
SFV Room 200B: advising a client. Don’t just…
SFV Room 200B: run your mouth and say, this is what I think, because you will be sued. That’s why you’re going to have a very good malpractice insurance.
SFV Room 200B: one of my friends is being sued. I may have to mention this, He’s a lawyer, PI lawyer.
SFV Room 200B: Sensei’s client… To a licensed physician.
SFV Room 200B: Okay? Licensed physician.
SFV Room 200B: The guy’s injured, sends him to a licensed physician.
SFV Room 200B: Licensed physician sends him to a specialist. Think about this. The specialist did something wrong.
SFV Room 200B: Probably.
SFV Room 200B: And caused injury to this… Bookers.
SFV Room 200B: Not only did he sue this stupid lawyer, sued
SFV Room 200B: the doctor, the specialist. He sued the referring doctor, And he sued the lawyer.
SFV Room 200B: For referring to the doctor who referred to this other doctor who screwed up. Oh, God. Swear to God I’m not kidding. That’s not the case. I don’t know if it’s the case. Do you know for sure? I don’t know.
SFV Room 200B: What is the attorney’s fault? Well, that’s exactly my point. So my friend who’s freaking out, he has malpractice insurance, he actually hired me. I think I mentioned this in this class, don’t? No, I don’t think so. He hired me on top of his malpractice lawyer.
SFV Room 200B: to make sure That no harm will come to him.
SFV Room 200B: I said, okay, I’ll make sure, but now imagine this BS. You gotta take depositions and go through discovery front. What is his fault? What did he do wrong?
SFV Room 200B: Was it because there is some allegations that there’s Under the table, yeah.
SFV Room 200B: you always put that BS in there to keep the lawsuit going, right? Which is completely bullshit. There was no connection whatsoever. He’s the cleanest lawyer I know. I swear to God, I’m not kidding. Like, the cleanest… cleaner than me. Or cleaner than me. The cleanest lawyer I know, and that’s what pisses me off.
SFV Room 200B: I mean, any lawyers… It would be too nice. If you had kicked his ass, he would not be suing you. Him hiring you, your job is just to clear him of liability? My job is to… to go over all discovery, attend all depositions.
SFV Room 200B: do everything I can, advise him properly to make sure that the lawyers are not going to school him somehow, and…
SFV Room 200B: And ruin his… Excellent reputation. He’s never been sued in 17, 16, 17 years.
SFV Room 200B: You know?
SFV Room 200B: So what’s the cause of action for referring someone to that person? Negligent referral is what they call it, and there’s some other stuff in there, but negligent referral basically saying that he was negligent… I’m like, they’re licensed!
SFV Room 200B: Negligent for what? If I had sent this patient to somebody who was not a licensed physician, okay, I’m negligent. Fine. Even then, what am I supposed to go check his license every day? I don’t care.
SFV Room 200B: But you can imagine, if you don’t have malpractice insurance.
SFV Room 200B: You’re gonna have many sleepless nights. Many.
SFV Room 200B: somebody who fell in Ralph’s supermarket and broke her arm.
SFV Room 200B: She doesn’t know why she fell.
SFV Room 200B: She doesn’t know why she fell. And I said, fine, I’ll investigate.
SFV Room 200B: She signed the retainer with me just 3 or 4 days ago, and today she sent a text message saying, I’m so sorry, Mr. K, thank you so much, I decided I don’t want to pursue the case, because I just got a job at such and such place, and I just don’t want him to find out that I’m suing anybody.
SFV Room 200B: Fine.
SFV Room 200B: I’m saying this for a reason.
SFV Room 200B: How do you drop a case?
SFV Room 200B: How do you drop a client?
SFV Room 200B: Certified letter.
SFV Room 200B: Not only I texted her back, the entire content of the letter, I emailed it to her, I sent it U.S. mail and certified mail.
SFV Room 200B: You don’t ask for a signature? Of course we’re asking for a signature. Hell yeah!
SFV Room 200B: Oh, she’s too stupid to do DocuSign. I’m doing the old-fashioned… Old-fashioned. Yeah.
SFV Room 200B: I’ve had people getting served, like, getting an investigator to go knock on their job. I have told you before, right, that I was sued for malpractice. I told you about that, right? I learned my lesson.
SFV Room 200B: And I did it again. I sent the retainer to her. Stupid me, should have never done that.
SFV Room 200B: Swear to God.
SFV Room 200B: Every time you want to be nice, you get screwed. True. Don’t be too nice.
SFV Room 200B: Protect your license, protect yourself.
SFV Room 200B: Don’t be too nice.
SFV Room 200B: Especially to family members.
SFV Room 200B: Family members haven’t heard me, but I know they talk shit. You know? You should have got me $100,000, I mean… Oh, yeah. Okay, you have a… you had a pimple on your ass. What do you want me to say? Kidney is great. You know? I love it. So that’s how it is. You have to protect you.
SFV Room 200B: Got it? Please don’t do favors for anybody. Not even your classmates. Not even your professor. You’ve got to protect that license. The State Bar is not
SFV Room 200B: Your friend, you know that, right?
SFV Room 200B: If you don’t know, I just told you. Staybar is not your friend.
SFV Room 200B: When lawyers told me initially, when I became a lawyer, I was like, oh, shut up.
SFV Room 200B: They’re just… they’re dirty. They’re dirty lawyers. Of course they say that.
SFV Room 200B: What is true?
SFV Room 200B: They’re not your enemy, necessarily, but they’re not your friends.
SFV Room 200B: They don’t want to do you any favors. You do one thing wrong, they’re on your, you know…
SFV Room 200B: You need to protect you.
SFV Room 200B: Well, this is one of the lawyers at arms.
SFV Room 200B: Send a letter. Just send an email. That’s good enough. Get her on the phone.
SFV Room 200B: Nope.
SFV Room 200B: Pay $8, send this stupid certified mail. Cover yourself.
SFV Room 200B: So how do those, like, people, like, suing Trump, like, how do they come, like, 20 years out, say, like, he touched… sexually harassed himself? Technically, the… the… right now, our… actually, the firm that I work with is… is just settled against the county.
SFV Room 200B: For cases that are more than 23, 25 years out, $4 billion.
SFV Room 200B: A heliot. In the B.
SFV Room 200B: Because California basically removed the statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases of children.
SFV Room 200B: And so, there are states such as New York, I believe, that have
SFV Room 200B: sort of huge or unlimited statute of limitations when somebody was sexually abused, even as an adult.
SFV Room 200B: So, they get to sue. But if you’re… I mean, it’s… if you think about it, it’s a little unfair, because
SFV Room 200B: Witnesses die, evidence is lost, right? Well, that’s why there is a statute of limitation to begin with.
SFV Room 200B: Right? Because if you sue the doctor 10 years later, doctor may not remember what the hell he or she did 10 years ago. It’s not fair, right? Or suing the lawyer. He’s not going to have the… or she’s not going to have the files to defend herself.
SFV Room 200B: It would be wholly unfair.
SFV Room 200B: But, you know, like, just like murder has no statute of limitations, you can come after you 60 years from now.
SFV Room 200B: Pretty much, sexual assault, specialty penetration is…
SFV Room 200B: As far as I know, pretty much unlimited in California, and many other states.
SFV Room 200B: Okay.
SFV Room 200B: Let’s do Webb versus McGowan.
SFV Room 200B: On 282 Coast Spring News.
SFV Room 200B: No, we’re not skipping. Sorry, Parrington versus Taylor, thank you. It’s yours.
Adreanne Kumamoto: I’ll take that one.
SFV Room 200B: We have one in the classroom, but we’ll go to you on the next one, if you so choose. Okay, so Harrington v. Taylor.
SFV Room 200B: The Taylors are husband and wife, and Mr. Taylor was assaulted his wife, one day. The next day, Mr. Taylor, the wife, sought refuge.
SFV Room 200B: in a nearby house, like, neighbor’s house, and he discovered her location and decided to go there and continue insulting her. At one point, the wife knocks him out and ends up grabbing an axe from inside the home of Mr. Harrington, and that’s the home they’re in, and he’s… she’s literally about to, like, you know, end his life and…
SFV Room 200B: Cut him up very bad with an axe, but Mr. Harrington intervenes and ends up actually severely injuring his hand in the process, because the axe was coming down, so his arm becomes mutilated.
SFV Room 200B: The team promised to pay Harrington for the damage he stained on his arm, and the husband, he paid him a little amount, but then after that, he stopped
SFV Room 200B: paying him altogether, and the issue here, I found was that whether, like, the nice, heroic act, we should say, of trying to stop the attack supports the consideration aspect of a contract, whether it was sufficient. Sadly for this, the court ruled that it does not for this matter, and
SFV Room 200B: Harrington just is stuck with his severely mutilated hand.
SFV Room 200B: What’s the difference between this case and the case where
SFV Room 200B: The person was asked to provide service.
SFV Room 200B: she provided service, and then she sued, but she was successful there. I guess in this one, based off your wording, no one asked here to be safe. He went out of his own way. He just did it on his own, yeah. So he basically intervened on his own. She didn’t ask.
SFV Room 200B: And that’s number one. Number two, this is, in fact, the orthodox view of things, right? That a promise to pay for a service that you’ve voluntarily rendered is unenforceable. Under what condition can a service, a voluntary service provided, be enforceable?
SFV Room 200B: At least.
frantzbiamby: Pardon me.
SFV Room 200B: Under what theory? Yes, ma’am? There is a material benefit.
SFV Room 200B: Material benefit, and… The rescue, Doctor M? The what? The rescue, if it’s, like.
frantzbiamby: That’s other parties.
SFV Room 200B: Oh, say again, other party what?
frantzbiamby: The other party was aware.
SFV Room 200B: Sounds good. Close.
SFV Room 200B: What… yes? If the other party has, suffered.
SFV Room 200B: I need images?
SFV Room 200B: What about unjust enrichment?
SFV Room 200B: Isn’t that a theory where you can recover at least restitution, meaning out-of-pocket expenses?
SFV Room 200B: Based on the theory of unjust enrichment.
SFV Room 200B: Yes. Wasn’t there a case where the doctor helped out an unconscious person and then… Yes. …and then sued the person first? Yes.
SFV Room 200B: So, in a minority of jurisdictions, you do have… well, I don’t really want to call it minority, because I think many states are now adopting the same theory.
SFV Room 200B: on just the enrichment, I think, as I said, promise to stop on just enrichment is your last resort, remember? So if everything else fails, it’s not a contract theory.
SFV Room 200B: You don’t recover contract damages.
SFV Room 200B: Why?
SFV Room 200B: It’s not a contract. It’s not a contract. It’s a quasi-contract remedy.
SFV Room 200B: Right? It looks like a contract, but it’s not a contract.
SFV Room 200B: Right? There’s no offer acceptance consideration, there’s just…
SFV Room 200B: unjust enrichment, right? That one party unfairly got unjustly enriched, and so the other party says, look, at least pay me for my expenses, right? For what I lost.
SFV Room 200B: Make sense? So that’s one theory that I want you to put right next to this Harrington case.
SFV Room 200B: Just in case, right? And let me just read you from my notes, and then I’m gonna go to questions.
SFV Room 200B: I wrote, actually wrote in the margins of the book, Orthodox view promised to pay for voluntary rendered services is not enforceable, so no offer acceptance consideration, therefore no contract. But… but for unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment is a quasi-contract… contractual theory.
SFV Room 200B: That was not supported by this case, obviously, but that’s the only way that you could recover, or even voluntarily provided services, yes. What’s the difference between promissory estoppel versus implied-in-law contract?
SFV Room 200B: Let’s just say promise to stop Paul is a way of an implied in-law contract.
SFV Room 200B: Okay? Until we get to more… into remedies, and then I will discuss that happily. But if I do that now, there’ll be a whole chapter, I think, and that would be probably improper to do right now.
SFV Room 200B: That’s next semester.
SFV Room 200B: Anybody has any questions or comments?
SFV Room 200B: Nope.
frantzbiamby: Yes, Professor, I wanted to ask you, what’s the difference between unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel? Like, how would you, tell the difference?
SFV Room 200B: Well, unjust enrichment would be, in fact, the end result, okay, of… now, promise to stoppel is a promise that one party makes that has four elements. We’re going to get to the four elements today.
SFV Room 200B: Unjust enrichment essentially has to do with
SFV Room 200B: One party unjustly getting enriched because of the services that another party provided.
SFV Room 200B: Right? And yeah, sentimental reliance, all that stuff, right?
SFV Room 200B: But let’s talk about Promise Gestapo when we get to it, which is going to be, I would suspect, before break, we’re going to talk about it, because it’s coming up.
frantzbiamby: Thank you.
SFV Room 200B: In fact, well, the court will tell us.
SFV Room 200B: what it is, okay? So, hang in there for a sec.
SFV Room 200B: Let’s see… Webb versus McGowan. Anybody?
SFV Room 200B: That’s what?
Adreanne Kumamoto: Take it.
SFV Room 200B: Please, ma’am, it’s yours.
SFV Room 200B: I’m excited.
Adreanne Kumamoto: Okay.
Adreanne Kumamoto: Webb vs. McGowan.
Adreanne Kumamoto: Appeals court.
Adreanne Kumamoto: Alabama, 1935.
Adreanne Kumamoto: The facts are… Plaintiff Webb worked for W.T. Smith Lumber Company, clearing the upper floor of a mill.
Adreanne Kumamoto: While dropping heavy pine blocks about 75 pounds from the upper floor, which was a normal part of his job, he saw his boss, McGowan, standing directly below where a block would fall.
Adreanne Kumamoto: If he had dropped it, he felt like it would have killed or seriously injured Mr. McGowan. So, to prevent this, he held onto the block and fell with it, diverting it, but sustaining several injuries that were permanent, broken leg, crippled for life, etc.
Adreanne Kumamoto: Afterward, McGowan promised to pay Webb $15 every two weeks for the rest of his life, in consideration for him saving and sustaining his life.
Adreanne Kumamoto: Mcgowan made these payments for over 8 years until his death afterwards, McGowan… after McGowan’s death.
Adreanne Kumamoto: His estates stopped making the payments, and Webb sued to continue receiving them.
Adreanne Kumamoto: The trial court dismissed Webb’s suit, holding there was no legal obligation because the act was passed and voluntary, but then Webb appealed. What is the issue? The issue is, is a promise to compensate someone for voluntarily saving the promisor’s life.
Adreanne Kumamoto: Supported by sufficient consideration to be legally enforceable.
Adreanne Kumamoto: The rule, a moral obligation, is sufficient consideration to support a subsequent promise if the promisser received a material benefit from the promisee’s prior act.
Adreanne Kumamoto: So, the application. Webb conferred substantial material benefit from McGowan by saving his life and preventing severe bodily harm.
Adreanne Kumamoto: This benefit had pecunary value, which is monetary value, as life and physical safety are recognized as having measurable worth. McGowan acknowledged this benefit by expressingly
Adreanne Kumamoto: Promising to pay Webb for life, and he fulfilled that promise for over 8 years, demonstrating a mutual understanding and reliance.
Adreanne Kumamoto: The court reasoned that saving a person’s life is far more material than saving property for another escaped bull justified payment, like in the Boone v. Fitzpatrick case.
Adreanne Kumamoto: The moral obligation combined with the material benefit received was sufficient to constitute valid legal consideration.
Adreanne Kumamoto: So, the holding was the court held that McGowan’s promise was enforceable because it was supported by material benefit.
Adreanne Kumamoto: which is the preservation of life received from Webb’s prior act.
Adreanne Kumamoto: The judgment reversed. Webb was entitled to recover the promised payments from McGowan’s estate.
SFV Room 200B: Very, very good.
SFV Room 200B: I think that’s something that somebody in class mentioned minutes 8 earlier. Material benefit.
SFV Room 200B: So again, minority of jurisdictions where there is a material benefit received by a party.
SFV Room 200B: A subsequent promise, moral obligations is sufficient consideration by itself.
SFV Room 200B: Again, very, very minority, right? Yes. The death, doesn’t discharge all the duties. I’m sorry, what was that again? The debt? It doesn’t discharge all the duties? The debt? Oh, no, it absolutely does not. They always come after your estate. Oh, yeah.
SFV Room 200B: No, I wish it did. Yeah, no, it doesn’t. I mean.
SFV Room 200B: This is not a trust and estate class, but if you… but everything you have is…
SFV Room 200B: He’s in a revocable estate, trust, maybe.
SFV Room 200B: most of your debt will be discharged, you know, maybe all of it will be discharged. It really depends on how it was…
SFV Room 200B: If it was through fraudulent means, for example, Yeah.
SFV Room 200B: But yeah, death does not discharge.
SFV Room 200B: death in Follow you forever. Say again. What if they file for bankruptcy?
SFV Room 200B: Well, it depends. Some debts are dischargeable, some are not, okay? So, if you sue somebody for fraud and successfully get a judgment, bankruptcy is not going to save them, as far as I know.
SFV Room 200B: And I’ve successfully argued, before the bankruptcy court many times on
SFV Room 200B: These motions not to allow discharge.
SFV Room 200B: fraud, certain other type of causes of actions.
SFV Room 200B: you sue somebody for, God forbid, molesting a child or a person, assault, those kind of acts, you can’t just do that and just say, oh, tomorrow I’ll file bankruptcy, I’m okay now. No, but if you cause a car accident, even if you kill somebody, yeah, you can file bankruptcy and you’re done.
SFV Room 200B: Sure. Assuming that the debt is discharged. Professor, the material benefit, like, in case there’s a voluntary act, if there was a material benefit, then…
SFV Room 200B: The answer would be that my short answer would be that you would say, in a…
SFV Room 200B: In a minority of jurisdictions, as I said in the lecture a couple of weeks ago, in a minority of jurisdictions, a moral obligation may be enforceable if, for example, the party that made the promise had materially benefited
SFV Room 200B: From, a previously received benefit, And, and…
SFV Room 200B: It would be unfair and unjust For them to, basically, benefit from the…
SFV Room 200B: Services that were rendered without just compensation.
SFV Room 200B: Which is basically what the essence of unjust enrichment is. I think the gentleman asked on Zoom.
SFV Room 200B: The difference between unjust enrichment and promised estoppel.
SFV Room 200B: I think we know that in a promise to estoppel context, we have a clear promise that is made by a party. The other party
SFV Room 200B: reasonably relied on that promise. The promissor knew
SFV Room 200B: That the other party will reasonably rely on the promise.
SFV Room 200B: And the promisee relied on that promise to his or her detriment. That’s a promise to stoppel. Unjust enrichment, on the other hand.
SFV Room 200B: is where the defendant has received some sort of a benefit, it may not be necessarily material benefit, it may be any benefit.
SFV Room 200B: For he had a, a reasonable opportunity to object He did not object.
SFV Room 200B: Plaintiff suffered a loss because of it?
SFV Room 200B: And it would be unfair or unjust to allow the defendant to…
SFV Room 200B: Obtain the benefit without just compensation.
SFV Room 200B: So the difference is, one, there’s a promise, in the other, there’s no promise, but the defendant did actually have an opportunity to stop.
SFV Room 200B: Object. I think I mentioned this previously when I gave an example of
SFV Room 200B: You know the painter is there to paint your next-door neighbor’s house.
SFV Room 200B: But the painter starts painting your house, and you’re watching this whole thing, and you’re like, oh, what an idiot. I’m not gonna say anything. It’s his mistake, let him paint.
SFV Room 200B: He paints the entire house, and he comes to you for money, and you go, oh.
SFV Room 200B: It’s the next door’s house you were supposed to paint.
SFV Room 200B: Now you get sued for unjust enrichment. You never made any promise. But you certainly had an opportunity to come out and say, stop!
SFV Room 200B: I didn’t hire you.
SFV Room 200B: I’m not paying you.
SFV Room 200B: Make sense? That’s not just enrichment. If the person wasn’t aware or couldn’t… Well, if you’re not aware, then you’re not aware. Yeah. Even if you received the benefit, at least you’re… you can make the argument, right? And the counterargument to that is that the defendant would say, I didn’t know.
SFV Room 200B: I was clueless. I was in New York. This guy’s painting my home in California. I didn’t know.
SFV Room 200B: Right?
SFV Room 200B: But it usually falls on you when you have an opportunity to object and you don’t. So even though you got the benefit, it does not matter if it’s… I wouldn’t say entirely doesn’t matter, because the elements are that the defendant did actually receive the benefit, the plaintiff suffered a loss.
SFV Room 200B: as a result, and it would be unjust for the defendant to keep the benefit without just compensation. So I would… I would not close the door entirely.
SFV Room 200B: But I would say that if… just think about it, if you’re the judge, would you give
SFV Room 200B: Judgment to the plaintiff, where the defendant had no clue, especially if the plaintiff was the negligent party that made a mistake, painted the wrong house.
SFV Room 200B: Right? Would you give any… I wouldn’t. I would say, sorry, buddy, it’s your own doing. Maybe someone who requested the service did not give, specific directions where to go or without… Perhaps. So, my point is that this particular homeowner
SFV Room 200B: should not be held to, you know, to pay the price for somebody else’s mistake. But if he has an opportunity to say something, to object, the court certainly will have, would place a responsibility on him to, in good conscience, to come and say, stop.
SFV Room 200B: I didn’t hire you, don’t do this. I’m not paying you.
SFV Room 200B: Okay? Give him some sort of a notice, right?
SFV Room 200B: Okay.
SFV Room 200B: You do know, I hope you do know, that if Apple Computer sends a computer by mistake to your home, and you retain it, you’re going to prison.
SFV Room 200B: I hope you know that, right? It’s not jail, it’s prison. Why is that? I thought it’s, because when you know, or you should have known, that the item is… belongs to the neighbor, for example, and you decided to keep it, okay, you have now committed a crime.
SFV Room 200B: And if they find out, and they choose to prosecute you… In LA? But in Orange County, because I had a case like that. In Orange County, the deputies will pump to your home.
SFV Room 200B: In 3 or 4 cars, 20 of them will storm your home, as they should, make your life miserable.
SFV Room 200B: Handcuff your child. I’ve seen it, I have the body cam footage to prove it. They handcuff the child, 17-year-old, on the floor.
SFV Room 200B: Officer safety. 17-year-old is not a child. I’m nuts, officer. I agree with you. Good for the officer who did that. Yeah, well, I agree with you. I gotta tell you, though, I gotta tell you… No, they don’t do anything, so obviously… No, no, I gotta tell you, when you look at… when you look at that 17-year-old, he looks like a child. I mean, he looked like a freaked…
SFV Room 200B: 14-year-old. I was like, he’s 17? He doesn’t look 17. He looks 14, 13, maybe. But I know he was 17. Nevertheless, it… what I’m trying to say is not that this is not a criminal, of course.
SFV Room 200B: But to tell you that you could get sued civilly for retaining what you know is not yours.
SFV Room 200B: Could, right? Yeah, absolutely, you could, if they find out.
SFV Room 200B: In Orange County. In Orange County. In LA County, they probably will pay you to sue Apple for suing you. Sue Apple, and go after the government for being so stupid to question you to begin with. Yes.
SFV Room 200B: You’re a victim. If you’re a… if you’re a criminal, you’re a victim. You’re gonna get me this far. If you’re a criminal, you’re a victim by the… Delete! Delete me. Mauricio being suppressed by the government. Yes.
SFV Room 200B: statement.
SFV Room 200B: Although, I gotta tell you, the new prosecutors do a far better job. They took off the $1,000 rule. Far, far better job. Excuse me? They took off that $1,000 rule where it’s like, the items… There was no such a rule. People assume that there is a rule like that. But everyone followed it! Everybody followed because they were idiots! I represented those people that followed it. I was like, yep, please follow it! No problem.
SFV Room 200B: There’s no such a thing. People assumed, falsely.
SFV Room 200B: that if you steal something that is less than $1,000, you will not be prosecuted. That is bullshit. Never was the law. Never was the law. What happened was…
SFV Room 200B: When you steal something that is less than $950, which is a misdemeanor.
SFV Room 200B: in certain counties in Orange County… not in Orange County, in LA County, sometimes that’s actually City of Los Angeles, not necessarily every city. City of LA would allow you to participate in a program called, Neighborhood Justice Program.
SFV Room 200B: Which actually, if you think about it, it’s actually a painful program, because it takes many hours to complete. It’s a pain in the butt. You have to meet with a panel of your peers.
SFV Room 200B: Label Justice Program sends you a letter that basically says you have
SFV Room 200B: X number of days to contact us to participate in our program, otherwise we’re going to file criminal charges against you. You call them and they, if you agree to participate, they put you into a program which, quite honestly, I have to honestly say one thing good about this program.
SFV Room 200B: Which is that… It is very, very civil.
SFV Room 200B: And it teaches you, it really does. Some people don’t understand the magnitude of damage they caused by even stealing $5. They just don’t… they think it’s…
SFV Room 200B: harmless, it’s, you know, these big corporations with all the money. What happens? I just took a shoe.
SFV Room 200B: And they take you through steps, hours, and hours. This 4 hours, 5 hours.
SFV Room 200B: of steps through
SFV Room 200B: learning the damage that you caused to yourself, to your family, to the neighborhood, to the employees of that establishment, etc, etc, then you may have to do community service, you may have to do, do a letter, you know, reflection letter, etc, etc, and if you do all of those things successfully.
SFV Room 200B: they won’t file charges against you, and it’s only a one-time deal. You do it again, they not only will file on the first one, they file on the second one, too, if the statute of limitation is not blown. So, I kind of like the program, it’s just…
SFV Room 200B: Once they file in court, it’s easier to deal with, in my opinion. Far easier for a criminal lawyer to deal with than this program.
SFV Room 200B: They… the thing is, they cost the city a lot of money, because they have to provide you an interpreter, and, you know, if you have an emotional support dog, he will be present. I’m kidding.
SFV Room 200B: It’s like that, but that’s… that’s what… I find it, helpful.
SFV Room 200B: Because some people truly don’t realize
SFV Room 200B: You know, the… the impact of… of… and some people… this is really their very first time they do something stupid, and the city gives them an op… an op… you know, an option.
SFV Room 200B: You know, do this, and we’ll let you go any one time.
SFV Room 200B: Okay? Yes, ma’am. I was gonna ask, but I think you kind of answered it. How easy is it to get it dismissed when you hire an attorney for something like this?
SFV Room 200B: It’s, like, in LA? Yeah.
SFV Room 200B: Off the record, I’ll answer you at 7.45. Okay. It’s easy. Yeah. It’s very easy. You answered my question. The problem is that if you don’t know what you’re doing as a criminal defense lawyer, now that you asked that question, I’ll tell you to protect me, all of you, and your license.
SFV Room 200B: If you don’t know what you’re doing, based on the Neil Riley’s Act that Trump just passed.
SFV Room 200B: Their client can be deported, even if they stole $1.
SFV Room 200B: 5 cents of anything, even if you got the case dismissed. So you have to know how you do it. Now, you may have
SFV Room 200B: No sympathy for the guy who stole a dollar, but at least have one for your license, because they will file ineffective assistance of counsel against you, and if that is proven in court, you would have to self-report yourself to the state bar. Oh, yeah.
SFV Room 200B: If the judge says that it was ineffective, what you did, you could have done it differently, so that your client would not suffer immigration consequences, you will have to report yourself to the state law. And if you don’t, that’s an offense by itself.
SFV Room 200B: But that’s for non-citizens, correct? Yes, of course.
SFV Room 200B: So, but just keep all of that in mind, that you really have to know what the hell you’re doing. If you don’t, ask. Okay? Don’t come out of law school, and again, do a favor for a family or friend. Oh, don’t worry, I got this. Professor K told me I’ll just show up in court, they’ll dismiss it.
SFV Room 200B: They might dismiss it, and you may find out two years down the line, some lawyer writes you a letter and says, oh, you effed up, and now, I just filed a motion, come to court and testify.
SFV Room 200B: They’re gonna put you on stand, and you have to testify. It’s very uncomfortable, trust me.
Armen Bashian: That was a… Professor, can I say this? Sorry. I just love what you just said, regarding the citizenship piece of it, and how it, like, really ties into everything, from a criminal perspective. It’s not just non-citizens, but it’s anyone that’s here that’s not a citizen, that even has
Armen Bashian: citizenship, you know, green card status or whatever, and they plead out something, and then it then affects them, so I think that was a… it was a great lesson in immigration class, in school as well, and it just… it’s very… it’s so relevant now, so thank you.
SFV Room 200B: do have the option to take an immigration course as a, elective, especially if it’s Professor Mizrahi.
SFV Room 200B: I suggest…
Armen Bashian: And that’s who it was. That was the one, yes.
SFV Room 200B: You gotta take that course, I gotta tell you, it ties into everything.
SFV Room 200B: I thought immigration is not my problem.
SFV Room 200B: What do I care? But it actually ties into many, many other different things, not just criminal law. It’s a good set of knowledge to… skill set to have, in my opinion.
SFV Room 200B: Years ago, 7, 6, 7 years ago, 8 years ago.
SFV Room 200B: Criminal lawyers repeatedly, and that was not an effective assistance of counsel.
SFV Room 200B: would tell their client, that’s okay, you just plead to the charge, let’s say it was a shoplifting, you plead guilty or no contest to the charge, you go do X, Y, and Z, you come back and the case is dismissed, which was exactly what the law was.
SFV Room 200B: They would come back 3 months, 6 months down the line, I did this, I did that, I did this, and the judge would say, okay, your plea of guilty is withdrawn, a plea of not guilty is entered, your case is dismissed. Guess what?
SFV Room 200B: Those people are now in Arizona federal prison, or a holding tank, awaiting removal from… the country.
SFV Room 200B: And those lawyers are… Not enjoying.
SFV Room 200B: The moments, right now.
SFV Room 200B: Although, I gotta tell you, it was not malpractice at the time. It would be today. So, as I said again, you gotta know what you’re doing, okay? Otherwise, you may find yourself in… this is not just about criminal defense. I’m talking about everything.
SFV Room 200B: If you’re not sure, call me.
SFV Room 200B: Seriously, text me. 10 years from now, I don’t care. If I’m alive, at least I will direct you in the right direction, because people did it for me. I’ll do it for you.
SFV Room 200B: Always ask. Trust me, it doesn’t hurt.
SFV Room 200B: Screw your ego.
frantzbiamby: Excuse me, Professor, I wanted to ask you.
SFV Room 200B: Let’s make one more comment, one more observation.
SFV Room 200B: And I gotta tell you honestly, and I think I may have mentioned this in this class, my wife asked me once, she said, there is this…
SFV Room 200B: criminal defense… group.
SFV Room 200B: In Facebook, that we go and ask questions of each other.
SFV Room 200B: a couple of times, I said… I put a bunch of questions and questions, and my wife, who was also a criminal defense lawyer in… when we met.
SFV Room 200B: She’s no longer a criminal offense lawyer, but she was at the time.
SFV Room 200B: She said.
SFV Room 200B: Do you feel okay posting these things? Because these people always ask you questions. Don’t you think it’s…
SFV Room 200B: I said, The ego. Forget the ego.
SFV Room 200B: It means nothing. If I’m gonna do my job right, I don’t give a shit. Let me look back. I don’t care. I’ll ask.
SFV Room 200B: I think that is the proper attitude.
SFV Room 200B: Right? Yes, absolutely. Honestly.
SFV Room 200B: do that.
SFV Room 200B: I ask my wife all the time, and she’s been a lawyer 10 years, 10, 12 years less than me. I ask her questions all the time.
SFV Room 200B: And other friends. Text them, email them, put it in that chat thing. I don’t care. Why not? We have a saying where it says, the day you think you know everything is a day you need to retire.
SFV Room 200B: Because you’ll get yourself killed. 100% true. You get yourself killed, and you get yourself this part. Yeah.
SFV Room 200B: Or you harm a client, screw this part.
SFV Room 200B: You may truly harm a human being.
SFV Room 200B: Just like his doctor that doesn’t double-check something and amputates the wrong leg.
SFV Room 200B: Seriously?
SFV Room 200B: Oh, God. So ask, on Zoom, somebody had a comment.
frantzbiamby: Oh yeah, I’d like to ask you, if we’re writing an essay, is there ever a scenario that you could talk about both unjust enrichment and promissory Aristotle?
SFV Room 200B: Absolutely, sir. That’s a very, very good question. Absolutely, of course. Because, look, a promise to estoppel, I said, is what? The very first thing that happens in a promised estoppel is what? There was a promise. There’s no such a thing in, unjust enrichment.
SFV Room 200B: Unjust enrichment is just a mere remedy
SFV Room 200B: To tell the court, wait a second.
SFV Room 200B: Yeah, he didn’t ask me to paint his house, but he could have just walked out and said, stop, he didn’t do it. I’ve spent 5 days painting the entire house.
SFV Room 200B: Then he says, oh, you got the wrong house.
SFV Room 200B: How fair is that? And the just… the court will say, that is unjust enrichment.
SFV Room 200B: You could have easily stopped this fiasco.
SFV Room 200B: Right? So yes, there is absolutely a situation where both of those things may come into play, right? You may not find enough for a promise to stop all, but you may find enough for an unjust enrichment, right?
frantzbiamby: In that situation there, is there a promissory estoppel that you just gave?
SFV Room 200B: No, there was no promise.
frantzbiamby: Right, okay.
SFV Room 200B: wrong house and started painting. Nobody changed in payment except, I guess, the right house, the correct house.
frantzbiamby: God.
SFV Room 200B: But I may end up paying. Now, let me preface this by saying.
SFV Room 200B: When you’re talking about unjust enrichment, we’re talking about what kind of remedy?
SFV Room 200B: Restitution? Restitution, excellent. Equitable remedy. We’re not talking about contract damages.
SFV Room 200B: Got it? So, while the next-door neighbor where the actual painting was supposed to take place, had he done the right house, he would have got his contract damages.
SFV Room 200B: Right? Expectation damages when we get to damages next semester.
SFV Room 200B: Here, he won’t, because there’s no contract with this guy. Do you understand? All he gets is out of pocket.
SFV Room 200B: I spent this much money on paint, and this much money on this, and that much money on this, and whatever it might be. The court will determine what that is. So you basically get out-of-pocket expenses, but you do not get contract damages.
SFV Room 200B: That’s a huge difference, right? Do you get punitive? No, you don’t get punitive. I wish you could. No.
SFV Room 200B: Just because you didn’t come out to say, hey, you’re painting the wrong house. Even though knowingly? Yeah, knowingly. Courts will not give you… punitive is to punish, and we don’t punish for… because, listen, the painter was negligent to begin with.
SFV Room 200B: Right? You shouldn’t have been in my house. You’re trespassing to begin with.
SFV Room 200B: Right? Yeah, I had an opportunity, okay, I didn’t, but…
SFV Room 200B: You’ll never get punitive on that. You get punitive… look, even in a breach of contract, by the way, that the party knows he’s going to breach, you don’t get punitive damages, just so you know.
SFV Room 200B: It’s very rare.
SFV Room 200B: that you get punitive damages. Like, very rare.
SFV Room 200B: that you get punitive damages. I just sued a dentist successfully, and I think I mentioned this in this class. And they demurred on my punitive damage request, and the judge denied it.
SFV Room 200B: So… Professor, when can you get punitive? I really want to know. It’s the… basically, the law enumerates
SFV Room 200B: Like, if I commit negligence as a lawyer, do you get punitive? No. But can you get punitive if I affirmatively, intentionally lied to you, misled you, that caused harm to you?
SFV Room 200B: Absolutely. So, punitive has to do with punishing somebody who knowingly does something wrong.
SFV Room 200B: Right? And again, it’s not breach of contract, but for example, knowingly destroyed the contract, or had false testimony against you, things like that, you know what I mean? Where the court literally wants to punish. In every context, it’s different.
SFV Room 200B: But again, punitive damages are rare, I gotta tell you. Like, you can plead it all you want, it’s just, you won’t get it.
SFV Room 200B: Trust me, I’ve tried. Very hard.
SFV Room 200B: There was a case where my client… my client was… I think I mentioned this in your class, my client was a gardener.
SFV Room 200B: The defendant was a contractor, general contractor. He got brush clearance contracts from
SFV Room 200B: Los Angeles Fire Department, and gave it to these people, mostly undocumented people, To… go clear brush.
SFV Room 200B: This was difficult stuff, not, you know, your backyard. I’m talking about, you know, go down the hill, go up the hill, and some of them got seriously hurt.
SFV Room 200B: And he was supposed to carry malpractice insurance… what is it? Work comp insurance, pay $30 an hour. There were certain rules and requirements that he adhered to, signed a contract with the city.
SFV Room 200B: and the fire department to follow, he didn’t follow any of any of this. He didn’t pay 30 bucks, he didn’t have work comp, he didn’t have protective gear for them, he didn’t have the right truck, he didn’t give a shit, he just sent them up there, barely with gloves, do your thing, paid them under minimum wage.
SFV Room 200B: So, I’m suing on behalf of my own gardener.
SFV Room 200B: Who was leaked by?
SFV Room 200B: And even in that case, the judge did not give me punitive damages. Yeah.
SFV Room 200B: I’m not kidding. But the court gave me, like, a hundred and something thousand dollars in attorney fees.
SFV Room 200B: Which was good enough for me, because our dispute was, like, 10,000 bucks, Swear to God.
SFV Room 200B: I think I mentioned this, didn’t I mention this in his class? He took me all the way to the California Supreme Court.
SFV Room 200B: Supreme Court. Not Court of Appeal. Supreme Court.
SFV Room 200B: a lot.
SFV Room 200B: But even in that case, the court did not give me punitive damages.
SFV Room 200B: He lied to his teeth in court. He literally lied in court.
SFV Room 200B: He committed perjury, and still the court did not give punitive damages. That’s how it is in California. It’s very rare.
SFV Room 200B: He appealed twice. I’m sorry. He appealed twice. He went to the Court of Appeal with a lawyer, lost. It was during COVID, so he never appeared… he appeared by Zoom.
Sarah Downs: Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry.
Sarah Downs: provide a face of consent.
SFV Room 200B: Please mute yourself on Zoom. So when you… when they lost the first round… He lost the first round, and then he lost on appeal, and then he…
SFV Room 200B: Well, that’s what happened. When he lost, money came into his account because he had a car accident or something, $100,000 came into his account, and the collection lawyer took it.
SFV Room 200B: So he found out, he got very pissed off, and he filed an appeal. He lost. What happens to them? I took the money.
SFV Room 200B: It’s in my pocket. Can you, like, actually, like, do you have access to that money if they appeal? Or do you have to wait till the decision happens? Well, he wanted to stop us from collect… getting the money, and the judge said no. The Court of Appeals said no.
SFV Room 200B: The court of law said the collection lawyer gets to keep the money in his trust account until it’s over. And then he took me to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court took…
SFV Room 200B: several months, and summarily denied. So there was no argument before the Supreme Court. But it was the only time I’ve ever been before the Supreme Court. And to appeal, they also have 2 years again? No, you have 30 days to appeal. Oh, no, no, you have 30 days to appeal.
SFV Room 200B: Well, he just didn’t think that a gardener would go hire a collection lawyer, which was me. I mean, I didn’t collect, it was somebody else, but… I’m sure she was. He’ll find you anywhere you are, and your money.
SFV Room 200B: Okay, it’s 7.41, we have 4 minutes, let’s do…
SFV Room 200B: Some problems on page 286, please.
SFV Room 200B: Let’s go to Problem 1 on page 286.
SFV Room 200B: Mrs. V owed $13,500 to each of her two adult sons.
SFV Room 200B: She died without having paid any part of these debts.
SFV Room 200B: Mr. B, the stepfather of Mrs. V’s son, gave each of the stepsons a promissory note, quite an idiot, signed by him in the amount of $13,500. He died without having made any payments on these notes.
SFV Room 200B: The stepsons filed claims against his estate. Should the executor honor the claim? Sir? I think this is kind of, like, one of the examples you said a little earlier, where someone could pay, like, a part of the debt, or, like, sign something that says they are going to. I don’t know, like, how much it’s gonna hold, but I think…
SFV Room 200B: He did shoot himself a little bit in the foot, in terms of honoring it, because of the note.
SFV Room 200B: Okay, so is the answer… is the answer that his estate is going to be… is going to pay, or is not going to pay? And why?
SFV Room 200B: Let’s move on, get tweezers.
frantzbiamby: They’re not gonna pay.
SFV Room 200B: All of the money. I would say maybe there’s no consideration, because what’s the benefit of the stepfather? Oh… A-plus answer.
SFV Room 200B: Very good. Can you say that again?
SFV Room 200B: I think there’s no consideration, because there’s no benefit to the stepfather. Yeah, first of all, there was no consideration, because the stepfather did not materially, or at all, benefit. Even under the restatement second, there’s no evidence that Mr. V received any material benefit.
SFV Room 200B: from the stepson. So… so here’s how you would approach one of these cases.
SFV Room 200B: Only the orthodox view, or the original view, the common law view, any moral obligation to pay the note is not sufficient to make the promise binding, right? Moral obligation is what? Minority of jurisdictions, remember? We talked about it. And be that as it may, she owed the money, not he.
SFV Room 200B: Right? So why would his estate pay anything?
SFV Room 200B: Especially because he’s not the father, he’s a stepfather, right? Right? But more importantly, you would say, under… even under the restatement, second, there is no evidence that Mr. V received any medical benefit, and therefore.
SFV Room 200B: This is unenforceable. This is actually a case from 1981.
SFV Room 200B: A state of void.
SFV Room 200B: From 1981.
SFV Room 200B: Okay.
SFV Room 200B: Regarding the moral obligation, you said what? There’s no moral obligation? I said regarding the moral obligation, under the orthodox view, there is no, evidence that, this… this is a binding promise, because he never received any benefit.
SFV Room 200B: Remember what you said?
SFV Room 200B: Right.
SFV Room 200B: Okay.
SFV Room 200B: Problem 2.
SFV Room 200B: A is employed by B to repair a vacant house.
SFV Room 200B: By mistake, A repairs the house next door, which belongs to C.
SFV Room 200B: C’s… oh my god, I think we just talked… C subsequently promises to pay a… the value of the repairs. He sees promise binding. This one is different from my version of, you have to come out and object.
SFV Room 200B: This idiot comes out and afterwards he says, I’ll promise to pay you. Now tell me if this promise is enforceable. Yes, it’s enforceable, yeah. Why? Because he literally created a contract when he agreed to it.
SFV Room 200B: he could have just said, oh, stop, I don’t want any repairs, or he… but he said, I’ll pay you for the repairs.
SFV Room 200B: Okay. Anybody else?
SFV Room 200B: Yes, he inferred of… You confer to benefit. So, for the benefit, Okay.
SFV Room 200B: Anybody?
Cameron Smith: I would piggyback on that and say, yeah, it’s… I don’t think it has anything to do with
Cameron Smith: the fact that he didn’t stop, or that he went out and said he would pay or not, I think it’s an unjust enrichment.
SFV Room 200B: What happens if… if he can prove unjust enrichment?
SFV Room 200B: Because remember, this contract that he signed.
SFV Room 200B: It’s… it’s not exactly an offer
SFV Room 200B: acceptance consideration, is there? There is a consideration substitute, best argument. Fair enough?
SFV Room 200B: So, do you recover contract damages?
SFV Room 200B: No. What are you to cover?
SFV Room 200B: Restitutionary damages, perhaps. Let me read you from my notes.
SFV Room 200B: Under the classic view, and after this, I’ll call a break, I’m sorry we’re one minute late, but under the classic view.
SFV Room 200B: The question turns on whether a party who confers a benefit upon another without request is entitled to quasi-contractual recovery. On these facts, A is not so entitled.
SFV Room 200B: Consequently, under the traditional view, the promise is not enforceable. In other words, not as a promise. But under the approach of restatement second.
SFV Room 200B: because there was, material benefit that were conferred upon, which is, I think, what you said.
SFV Room 200B: Help on C…
SFV Room 200B: C would have to pay… what kind of damages? Restitution. Restitutional damages, very good. So that would be enforced.
SFV Room 200B: Right? And the subsequent promise would be enforceable to the extent that he would have to pay.
SFV Room 200B: Restitution of the challenges, right? Okay, very good. Let’s take a break, please, because I don’t want to, you know, blow that company, don’t complain. It’s 7.47, let’s come back at 8.05, please. It’s LA County, everybody complain.
Victoria Briones: Professor?
SFV Room 200B: Yes.
Victoria Briones: Hi, I’m so sorry, I came late today. My name is Victoria Briones, I just wanted to tell you I was here.
SFV Room 200B: What time did you came, did you come and see what’s.
Victoria Briones: I think I came at around 7, or sorry, 6.45, 6.50.
SFV Room 200B: Okay, ma’am. Can you please see if there’s coffee? I have an acre.
Victoria Briones: much.
SFV Room 200B: Are you ready some coffee?
SFV Room 200B: Can you please do so for me? I’m begging you. I’m gonna be honest, I don’t think there’s no more ground coffee, because last week when I came, he literally ran out. Literally. He just doesn’t want to get it. Swerve.
SFV Room 200B: No, I’m kidding. He’s also right about that. Any coffee. Any coffee. Cocaine will do it, too. I drove through Rancho today, because we were in trial. Did you? Yes. Did you? Did you see the pursuit? Yeah, that’s… oh my god. The pursuit was today? Yeah! Can you send me that video, by the way? Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. I don’t… You have my cell? Oh my god. You’re kidding. And then that happened, and everyone’s, like, panicking.
SFV Room 200B: I was coming from that court when my engine blew in the middle of the freeway, so the rancho has something… Yeah, something there’s…
SFV Room 200B: And the thing is that it’s a motorcycle versus auto, and our client was the one on motorcycle, so I’m like, this is not helping our case, Adam. I’m joking. I swear, it’s been a day for me. It was really bad. Sorry. It looked like when you came in, like… Yeah, I… it was to a point I left my laptop at the office.
SFV Room 200B: Yeah, I’m like… Sorry. I just, I’m like, let me make it to class.
SFV Room 200B: It was… it was bad. Sorry about that. Well… I know.
SFV Room 200B: things can be difficult. Do you… people think trials are, like, simple until you get in it, and you’re like, every day, something changes.
SFV Room 200B: I have been doing this for 27 years, it hasn’t got… it hasn’t got simple for me. I was gonna ask, how old are you?
SFV Room 200B: Do you want to ask how old I am? Yeah. I think that’s very personal.
SFV Room 200B: Because of the insecurity I told you last week about, that I wonder about my age, if it’s too late, or if it’s not. It’s never late.
SFV Room 200B: Let’s put it that way. Girl, I’m probably older than you. No, you’re not.
SFV Room 200B: I’m older than her, guaranteed. I’m over 50.
SFV Room 200B: Seriously? Yes. You don’t look overfit. Yes, I do. No, I don’t. What’s your secret? Like, 35, something like that. My secret? I cry. You lost hair. A good wife.
SFV Room 200B: I’m sorry? A good wife I have. I did find coffee. I have it. Cream, please. Cream, no sugar. So scary, no sugar.
SFV Room 200B: More than half negligence or not. We wouldn’t use that. That’s disgusting. Yeah. No, I get it, bro, I just thought that those… that’s how it made sense to me. That’d be insane.
SFV Room 200B: 24 pages total. Can I do the next case? Please, if you insist! I have 20 more volunteers, but I’ll give it to you. Fine. Yeah, everybody on Zoom just said, I want to do it, but we’re going to give it to you, since you insist. You have one of these?
SFV Room 200B: All right, everybody, let’s do problem 3.
SFV Room 200B: On, on 286? Let’s see… Feddies, guys.
SFV Room 200B: Father’s coal company was near bankruptcy.
SFV Room 200B: Owing $18,000 to creditors.
SFV Room 200B: Son contracted with Father to enter the business and assume all of the company’s prior debt. Two years later, Father told Son that by assuming the debt, he had saved the company, and that he could have an option to purchase Father’s stock.
SFV Room 200B: Father then wrote a memorandum to sons stating, upon my death, my son has an irrevocable option to buy all of my stock in the Black’s Coal Company.
SFV Room 200B: Father died and son brought suit to enforce the writing.
SFV Room 200B: What results at common law? What results in New York? Forget about what results in New York, you don’t have to answer that, but tell me what about common law?
SFV Room 200B: Anybody?
SFV Room 200B: Anybody?
Josh Zone: Professor? Yes? I’ll attempt to answer this one for you. So…
SFV Room 200B: So who’s, who’s…
Josh Zone: This is, Josh Zone on Zoom.
SFV Room 200B: Yes, sir. Please.
Josh Zone: So, under the common law, I’m pretty sure for an option contract, there needs to be some sort of additional consideration.
SFV Room 200B: Okay.
SFV Room 200B: I wouldn’t.
Josh Zone: this fact.
SFV Room 200B: Tell me about consideration. That’s actually the key answer to this question.
Josh Zone: So, under the option contracts, under the common law, there needs to be additional consideration to keep the offer opened.
SFV Room 200B: I’m not sure to follow. One more time, please?
Josh Zone: So, under the common law, under option contract, in order to keep the offer open, there needs to be some form of additional consideration.
Josh Zone: Unless there’s a merchant firm offer.
SFV Room 200B: But…
Josh Zone: Again, this looks like this is the UC… this is the common law.
SFV Room 200B: Why would you need to keep the offer open? It says, when I die, Go get it.
SFV Room 200B: He died, he wants to get it.
SFV Room 200B: Right? So it actually is ripe.
SFV Room 200B: If there is an agreement, it came right when he dropped dead.
SFV Room 200B: the fall.
SFV Room 200B: Make sense?
Josh Zone: Right, yeah.
SFV Room 200B: Putting it that way.
SFV Room 200B: But, I mean, he laid dead. For a reasonable time, right? For a reasonable time. Like, shortly after his death, let’s say.
SFV Room 200B: But this is actually a case, believe it or not.
SFV Room 200B: Thank you.
SFV Room 200B: So, let me read you from my notes so we can save a lot of time.
SFV Room 200B: The son joined the business pursuant to what?
SFV Room 200B: A binding agreement. Didn’t they sign a binding agreement? Didn’t they sign an agreement? Contract. Yeah, they signed a contract. Did each of them give up something?
SFV Room 200B: Did each of them give up something when they signed that contract?
SFV Room 200B: The son took on the dead? The son not only took on the dead, he had to do freaking work! Yeah. Right? And the father was gonna lose the business, he didn’t lose the business. He gained something. Both of them gained something. Isn’t that consideration?
SFV Room 200B: There you go. So, if you miss that, and you talk about promissory estoppel or unjust enrichment, I will…
SFV Room 200B: K-O. K-I-L. K-I-L-U. So you first start with… a contract. Yeah.
SFV Room 200B: If that fails, then go to promissory estoppel, the father made a pro… this is to the gentleman that asked the question on Zoom a little earlier. You go to promissory estoppel arguments, if that fails, you go to…
SFV Room 200B: on just enrichment, right? Because the business was failing, and he saved it, but yet you give him nothing?
SFV Room 200B: That doesn’t work, right? Yes, ma’am? So, when we say the sun, gained something, the sun gained depth, is that… Not just debt, obviously.
SFV Room 200B: obviously, the business that was fading survived. I’m sure he ate off of it. I mean, it’s logical to assume that he did work. And as further reward, the father said, okay, you can have stock in the company.
SFV Room 200B: Right?
SFV Room 200B: So, they both gave up something. I’m sure the son didn’t do it for the goodness of his heart.
SFV Room 200B: Right?
SFV Room 200B: Yeah, I was gonna say, like, it was hard for me to see what the father, like, what’s the detriment to that, like, to the father.
SFV Room 200B: Father told the son that by his… oh, here, whoa, hold on. Father’s coal company was near bankruptcy, owing $18,000. Son contracted with father to enter the business and assume all, company’s prior debts. In other words, he assumed the debt, but he contracted.
SFV Room 200B: He didn’t say, Daddy, I’m gonna help you.
SFV Room 200B: That’s the language, right?
SFV Room 200B: Both parties gave up something, and now he wants to enforce this contract.
SFV Room 200B: Of course there’s a breach of contract if it’s not enforced. So, he does have a cause of action.
SFV Room 200B: Okay? That is actually a case law, and I’m not going to read the New York law because it’s not relevant to us.
SFV Room 200B: But… but this is… this is actually a case from, I think, 1972.
SFV Room 200B: If I’m not mistaken. Okay.
SFV Room 200B: Let’s do problem 4, and then we’re gonna go to… The next case.
frantzbiamby: Sorry, Professor, to interrupt you. I want to ask you, for problem 3, does that, would we even bring up gratuitous promise at all?
SFV Room 200B: Yeah, I would. In the context of… that’s a very good question.
SFV Room 200B: In the context of family, I think I would. I would bring up that one of them is going to argue, or the state of the father, for example.
SFV Room 200B: is going to argue that the son did this out of the goodness of his heart, and this was a gratuitous promise, it’s unenforceable, etc, etc, there’s no consideration. I would not only do that, I would absolutely get into promissory estoppel, and I would get into unjust enrichment. Just because, why?
frantzbiamby: Because it wouldn’t be fair for the son to assume the debt.
frantzbiamby: And not get any benefit out of it.
SFV Room 200B: Because you want to cover all bases, yes? You want to say that if the professor that is grading your paper
SFV Room 200B: here at the bar, says, wait a second, I don’t see a contract, where the hell is a contract? How did you come up with that?
SFV Room 200B: You want to say, well, if there’s no contract, there are other theories I got.
SFV Room 200B: from Zestapo, and…
frantzbiamby: I’ll dressing room.
SFV Room 200B: Right?
SFV Room 200B: But here, even based on the case itself, this was in fact a promise that was enforceable. It was a contract between the father and son.
SFV Room 200B: He contracted with his father to come and save the company. It wasn’t like, Daddy, I’m gonna help you, and then he joined the company, and then years later, he provided years of gratuitous service. Now he says, give me this stuff by force.
SFV Room 200B: Or there’s a promise afterwards that he’s trying to enforce. That doesn’t sound like this.
SFV Room 200B: it sounds like there was, in fact, an enforceable agreement between the parties. But nevertheless, that’s a very good question. I would definitely, because of the relationship of the parties, get into unjust impeachment and promissory stop, all that stuff.
SFV Room 200B: Okay.
frantzbiamby: Thank you.
SFV Room 200B: You’re welcome. Now, this guy, Caparoso, I think that’s what the name is, the Caporoso family was all about business. Their parents, Trulie and James, owned several real estate development corporations in New York.
SFV Room 200B: Their son, Jimmy, owned a brewery in the Pacono Mountains. Son and daughter Francis and Christina worked
SFV Room 200B: For and were shareholders of their parents’ corporation.
SFV Room 200B: Between 2001 and 2004, Jeannie borrowed money from the corporation to support his brewery and never repaid it.
SFV Room 200B: Typical loser, so…
SFV Room 200B: Judy and James guaranteed these loans in a guarantee and pledge agreement, executed on January 1, 2011.
SFV Room 200B: But the loans have never been repaid. Trudy and James died in a boating accident on Lake Armony in the Paconos in 2014 and 2017. Francis, Christina, and the corporations brought
SFV Room 200B: suit against the estate of Trudy and James to enforce the guarantee. In other words, the children never paid, the parents guaranteed it, the parents died, now they want to enforce that guarantee. What is the likelihood that the suit will be successful?
SFV Room 200B: That’s a mouthful.
SFV Room 200B: Anybody?
SFV Room 200B: Okay, I will read it to you, because I don’t expect… first of all, I don’t think the question is fully…
SFV Room 200B: explain. There is a statute of limitation problem. That’s why there’s so many dates in this question, so I think the drafters should have made that pretty clear. But basically, here’s what the…
SFV Room 200B: Essential facts led to.
SFV Room 200B: This is a problem based on a state of Caprosso, which is a 2017 New York case. The lower court said the underlying debt became unenforceable because the four-year statute of limitation was blown, right? Expired.
SFV Room 200B: But the… Court of Appeal
SFV Room 200B: noted that under New York law, a written promise to pay the debt can revive a time-barred debt. Remember I told you, I tell my clients, tell them to send you another email or something saying, I’m gonna pay you, to revive the statute. And it says.
SFV Room 200B: The appellate court noted that the… under New York law, a written promise to pay the debt of another, or to pay a debt, can revive a time-barred debt, as so long as the written writing is signed by the party to be charged, meaning
SFV Room 200B: the parents, or the estate of the parents. Therefore, this acknowledgement became an enforceable contract.
SFV Room 200B: All right.
SFV Room 200B: Any questions before we jump into Promise Topple?
SFV Room 200B: Anyone.
SFV Room 200B: All right, I think you want to do this first case? Yes, I do. All right, page 289, we have a volunteer already. Feinberg versus Pfeiffer.
SFV Room 200B: So, Feinberg v. Heifer Court of Appeal, 1959. Plaintiff brought an action against the former employee… employer, stating that there was an alleged contract, and the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff the sum of $200 per month upon her retirement.
SFV Room 200B: On 1947, in an annual meeting, the board of directors, decided that
SFV Room 200B: The plaintiff, will be given some benefits, because of her
SFV Room 200B: service to the company, and as a result, it was established that, the firm has obligation, to be available to her whenever she should see fit to retire from active duty, however many years in the future, such retirement may become effective.
SFV Room 200B: And also, the payment of her,
SFV Room 200B: Salary was increased from $350 to $400, and there was,
SFV Room 200B: There was statements that she will be given the privilege of retiring, anytime, and, upon retirement will receive $200 per month for life.
SFV Room 200B: Then, the same day, they informed the plaintiff about this, resolution, and so… and based on the evidence, there was no contract, that the plaintiff, had any obligation for employment, and she could quit anytime.
SFV Room 200B: Or could be discharged. And so, plaintiff, retired in 1949, and initially, she was given the $200,
SFV Room 200B: On the fir- on the first of each month, but then after the…
SFV Room 200B: company executives changed, they paid the money, they fussed about paying the money, and, indicated that these payments are gifts. And so they had two arguments stating that
SFV Room 200B: In the view that the payments to the plaintiff were more gratuitous, rather than amounts due under a contractual obligation.
SFV Room 200B: And so they later, reduced the price to $100, and plaintiff declined,
SFV Room 200B: accept the reduced amount. And the other argument that the defendant brought was that there’s insufficient evidence to support that, the defendant quit, employment, if she had not known, and…
SFV Room 200B: she basically did not rely upon the $200 per month, for quitting. So,
SFV Room 200B: And then, in this case,
SFV Room 200B: Also, she later discovered that she has cancer, and that employment was,
SFV Room 200B: And thereby became unemployable after they discontinued the payment of $200 per month, and she also stated that at the time, she was 57 years old, so she couldn’t, like, possibly work.
SFV Room 200B: And all in all, there was also arguments about, like, whether there is a sufficient concentration here.
SFV Room 200B: And, and this is more of, like, a gift, and, that was denied by the court.
SFV Room 200B: And all in all, the court, decided that the actions on plaintiffs’ points were her retirement from the position, and, the plaintiff relied upon the defendant’s promise.
SFV Room 200B: to pay her, and that… therefore, the judgment was affirmed. Very good, very good, very good. So, this case not only makes clear the… the
SFV Room 200B: theory of Pram Systoppol.
SFV Room 200B: But it basically says, as I think you correctly mentioned, the years of long and faithful service refer to past services provided, so therefore that was not
SFV Room 200B: consideration.
SFV Room 200B: The fact that, Plaintiff, continuation of her employment was not consideration, because that was not bargained.
SFV Room 200B: But the court ultimately says, well, wait a second, you guys made a promise, right? We’re gonna hold you to that promise to her detriment, because she did rely on that promise, right? To retire. But…
SFV Room 200B: That was great. I want to bring something up, and I want you to please pay attention to this, because it’s not mentioned anywhere in the court’s decision.
SFV Room 200B: Initially, she was getting $200, right? Which was what she claimed was owed. Yes. Then they sent her a check for $100, she refused that check, yeah?
SFV Room 200B: Think of it this way. What if she had cashed a $100 check? And it’s a… So if somebody just said $100 forks. Who said that? Accordant satisfaction. Very good. Could that be a possible accordance satisfaction argument? Absolutely.
SFV Room 200B: Very good. So you’ve got to keep that in mind.
SFV Room 200B: According to satisfaction, so that could potentially… some people might say.
SFV Room 200B: According to satisfaction is a form of modification, right?
SFV Room 200B: That’s what happens. If… because they fussed about it, I think you said, or something like that.
SFV Room 200B: I guess they… if they legitimately believed that that money was not owed, Make sense?
SFV Room 200B: And they said, to hell with it, let’s just give it 100 bucks.
SFV Room 200B: And she cashes the check. That could potentially act as an accordance satisfaction. If you don’t talk about it in the final, you will definitely lose points.
SFV Room 200B: But if you talk about it, and you conclude that that is not an according satisfaction, no problem. No harm done. We don’t care about your conclusions.
SFV Room 200B: As I said before, nobody cares for my conclusions.
SFV Room 200B: Right?
SFV Room 200B: I’ve concluded that my client tomorrow morning is an idiot, but it doesn’t matter what I conclude. I just have to convince the court that he’s not.
SFV Room 200B: Right? Ventura County.
SFV Room 200B: If the fact is that, the client didn’t cash out the check.
SFV Room 200B: And we still discuss accordance satisfaction? I wouldn’t. Yeah, that would be non-issue, right? Yeah, it’s a non-issue. I would not.
SFV Room 200B: So, I wouldn’t bring up something that is not in the fact patterns, because that… you can run yourself out of time, right? That’s a very good question.
SFV Room 200B: now you may have a day to take your exam, right? But if you get to the bar, and you have an hour.
SFV Room 200B: Why would you want to talk about something that is really not in the facts, right? So, no, only if she cashed a check.
SFV Room 200B: she negotiated the check, I would talk about according satisfaction, otherwise I wouldn’t bring it up. Did I answer your question? Yes, I think I just didn’t hear it correctly. You said you’ll… you lose a point if you don’t… If you don’t bring it up under the theory that… under the question that I just posed to all of you. Had she cashed the check.
SFV Room 200B: You would have to automatically think, oh, wait a second, could that potentially be…
SFV Room 200B: A modification in the form of an accordance satisfaction.
SFV Room 200B: Maybe, maybe not, but I need to talk about it.
SFV Room 200B: Right? You, of course.
SFV Room 200B: Okay, there you go, excellent job.
SFV Room 200B: So, next case, please.
SFV Room 200B: Oh my god, I have so much, so many writings on this one. Goldfar versus… Solomon?
SFV Room 200B: 2021.
SFV Room 200B: Now we’re in the neighborhood in New Jersey instead of New York. So, somebody wants to take this one.
SFV Room 200B: Let’s see if we can find a new volunteer. Anybody? Jed Goldford. How about somebody on Zoom?
SFV Room 200B: To grace us with their knowledge.
Karia Salazar: Please.
SFV Room 200B: I mean it.
SFV Room 200B: Anybody on Zoom?
SFV Room 200B: Do I need to go to my list?
SFV Room 200B: Someone’s immersive.
SFV Room 200B: Wanna do it? We’ll go like this? I’m doing that. Okay.
SFV Room 200B: Gavtion. Oh, that’s you. It’s me. Let me go to Zoom. I’m gonna go to Zoom. Okay, is, Paul Gonzalez here?
SFV Room 200B: on Zoom?
SFV Room 200B: You’re up, Paul.
Paul Gonzalez: Sounds good, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Thank you, sir.
Paul Gonzalez: You mind just, what was the case again?
SFV Room 200B: Goldfar.
SFV Room 200B: On 294.
SFV Room 200B: Jeez.
SFV Room 200B: If you’re not ready, it’s okay, you just have to call somebody else’s name, and pass on to that person.
SFV Room 200B: And then it’s between the two groups.
SFV Room 200B: Cool, sir.
Paul Gonzalez: I think I have it right here.
SFV Room 200B: Okay.
Paul Gonzalez: Alright, so the facts are, Gophar wanted to buy property from Virginia and needed a lawyer to check the title.
Paul Gonzalez: The first lawyer they talked to, said he would charge at least the minimum fee set by the local bar association.
Paul Gonzalez: The Gopher couldn’t find any lawyer who would charge less than the minimum fee.
Paul Gonzalez: So they sued the state and the county bar associations, stating the minimum fee would be a legal price fixed under the Sherman Act.
Paul Gonzalez: The lower court sided with the Bar Association, but the GOFARB asked at the Supreme Court to review the case.
Paul Gonzalez: The issue at hand, at least the one I said, was, whether a minimum legal fee set by a bar association could be seen as an unfair practice that violates that act.
SFV Room 200B: So sorry, I don’t want to stop you, but I think you’re on the wrong case. Goldfarb v. Solomon. This is Goldfarp v. Solomon on page 294.
Paul Gonzalez: We’re on the right one, yeah.
SFV Room 200B: I love that State Bar, but not today. No, I’m kidding.
Paul Gonzalez: Sorry, one sec…
SFV Room 200B: It’s the 2021 year. It’s a New Jersey case from 2021.
Paul Gonzalez: I don’t know why.
Paul Gonzalez: Both for our sips.
Paul Gonzalez: Yeah, I think I… I don’t think I have that one. I think I did the wrong gauge then.
SFV Room 200B: So, pick somebody. Follow the name.
Armen Bashian: I’ll do it, Professor. I’ll do it. I’ll do it.
Armen Bashian: Who’s doing it?
Paul Gonzalez: Thank you, Diamond.
SFV Room 200B: Okay, go ahead.
Armen Bashian: So, facts in this case is, Jet, Goldfarb was offered a job by Solomonine to manage the family’s investment portfolio.
Armen Bashian: promised Goldfarb a base salary and a percentage of profits. However, Solomon never provided a written agreement. Goldfarb quit his job and started giving Solomon financial advice. Later, Solomon decided not to employ Goldfarb.
Armen Bashian: And then he… then sued SoulMine for promissory estoppel.
Armen Bashian: The jury found 4 Goldfarb, and the Appellate Division affirmed
Armen Bashian: He appealed, arguing that Goldfarb didn’t have a valid claim because the agreement wasn’t in writing as required by New Jersey security law. The issue in this case was whether a breach of contract or promissory stopped are different legal actions. The court ultimately held that,
Armen Bashian: they are different. For breach of contract, plaintiff needs to prove
Armen Bashian: that contract was made, broken, causing a loss, and for promissory estoppel, separately, a plaintiff needs to show a clear promise was made. Promissor, expected the promisee to rely on it. Promisee did rely on it, and this caused a significant loss. So, Goldford’s claim…
Armen Bashian: It was based on promissory to stop, not a contract. So, it wasn’t barred by the securities law requiring a written agreement. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate division.
SFV Room 200B: Thank you. So… So, what’s up with Promise Estoppol not being part of this New Jersey law?
SFV Room 200B: Why?
SFV Room 200B: Why is that?
SFV Room 200B: Yes, is it because they view it as a different cause of action on its own? They didn’t view it as a contract.
SFV Room 200B: Remedy.
SFV Room 200B: It’s not a contract remedy.
SFV Room 200B: So they’re like, we don’t care what the law says. The law’s talking about a contract that has to be in writing. We’re not talking about contract. We’re trying to enforce a promissory stop.
SFV Room 200B: And I think on page, 298, the court says, Stop.
SFV Room 200B: To prevail on a claim of breach of contract, it says our law imposes on the plaintiff the burden to prove
SFV Room 200B: four elements, and then it goes… the court goes through those elements, which I love. I mean, this case, I truly love because it sets out everything you need to know about promissory estoppel, everything you need to know about bridge contract, it’s all here on page 298, honestly.
SFV Room 200B: Not only that, on page 299, the court talks about the damages that you can get under each theory. So let’s… the contract here is the court goes through that, then the court says on item 2, B2, bottom of page 298, the court says, promise to estoppel is different
SFV Room 200B: Promise to stoppel is made up of four elements, a clear and definite promise, made with the expectation that the promisee will rely on it.
SFV Room 200B: Three, reasonable reliance on the part of the promisee, and definite and substantial detriment.
SFV Room 200B: Right?
SFV Room 200B: We say detriment. Definite and substantial is not part of our definition.
SFV Room 200B: Any detriment will work for promises fell. Okay, now.
SFV Room 200B: The court says, this Court has long emphasized that the promise of estoppel is a departure from the classic doctrine of consideration, that the promise and the consideration must be… must purport to be a motive, each for the other.
SFV Room 200B: Isn’t that amazing? So, literally, the court says, hey, we understand, Promise Gustavo is a departure. We’re not even talking about
SFV Room 200B: contract issues. We’re talking about a promise that is not kept.
SFV Room 200B: The promise that you know that if you don’t keep, somebody’s gonna get hurt, and that somebody that you knew is gonna rely on your promise did actually rely on your promise, and did get hurt.
SFV Room 200B: That’s promissory stop, essentially, right?
SFV Room 200B: Then on 299, under 3, the court says, what are contract dodges? If a party prevails on this claim.
SFV Room 200B: The party is entitled to expectation damages. These are contract damages, right?
SFV Room 200B: Expectation damages in order to recover the benefit of the bargain.
SFV Room 200B: Benefit of the bargain.
SFV Room 200B: But, look at promises topple. The promisee may be awarded reliance damages.
SFV Room 200B: So as to restore him or her to the position he or she was before the parties met. In other words, what came out of his pocket, what she lost, will be returned to her. But no more.
SFV Room 200B: Got it? In other words, restitution.
SFV Room 200B: That’s why I like that case.
SFV Room 200B: Any questions?
SFV Room 200B: Well, one of the, dissenting justices, Alden.
SFV Room 200B: Wasn’t implied in favor of that judgment, because Lee’s advisor, who was the employer, should have known better.
SFV Room 200B: At the bottom.
SFV Room 200B: Yeah, I mean, I get it, but that is, in fact, the prevailing view, by the way. That is the majority view, this promisual theory. So, yeah, I get it. I’m sure some people would say, yeah, you should have known, would have known.
SFV Room 200B: Should some… some courts say, you have a duty to read. You didn’t read? Too bad. So sad.
SFV Room 200B: But some courts would say, even with that duty to read, if the contract is totally one-sided, we’re not going to hold the party against it, right? Even if, though you had the duty to read, we will not enforce a totally one-sided contract, right? So…
SFV Room 200B: there’s… there’s…
SFV Room 200B: Back and forth, which means that… yes. I have a question. So, if I understood correctly, for primary stoppeople, we don’t necessarily… Primary stoppull. Primary stoppal, we don’t necessarily need a contract, is that correct? You absolutely don’t need a contract.
SFV Room 200B: In fact, a lot of times when you’re suing under promissory estoppel, it’s because your contract theory either is not there or failed.
SFV Room 200B: Rescue. Okay.
SFV Room 200B: And you’re basically saying, yeah, I know I don’t have a contract, but at least I have a promise.
SFV Room 200B: He knew I’m going to rely on the promise, I relied on the promise, I lost this much money.
SFV Room 200B: Make sense? Yes, fair.
Armen Bashian: Professor, since, my question is, can my name go on your notebook now?
SFV Room 200B: It is, it is. Thank you very much. By Black Hook, you mean? Yes, it’s there. Alright. Salisbury versus Northwestern.
Paul Gonzalez: I could do this one to try to redeem myself.
Paul Gonzalez: Thank you, sir.
Paul Gonzalez: Alright.
SFV Room 200B: Two. Go ahead.
Paul Gonzalez: So, this happened, in Iowa in 1974. The facts are, John Stilesberg raised money to start a,
Paul Gonzalez: start, Charles City College. He asked Northwestern Bell Telephone Company to donate $15,000 over 3 years, and the company agreed in a letter without any conditions. Later,
Paul Gonzalez: North Bell… Northwestern Bell refused to pay, and Siber sued to enforce the promise. The trial court ruled for favor of the plaintiff, and northwestern Bell appealed.
Paul Gonzalez: The issue I put was, can a promise be given?
Paul Gonzalez: Can a promise give money to a charity be enforced even if the charity didn’t give anything in return or rely on the promise? A promise to give money to a charity can only be enforced without
Paul Gonzalez: Consideration or, reliance.
Paul Gonzalez: The court said that the enforceable charitable Promise supports public policies because it helps charities depend on donations. Even though there was no direct exchange or proof of reliance, the promise was clear and meant to be kept.
Paul Gonzalez: The court followed the second of contract… the reinstatement, second of contracts, which states
Paul Gonzalez: Such promises should be binded. So, the conclusion is yes. The defendant promised to donate the $15,000 to the City College is enforceable without consideration or reliance. The lower court’s decision was affirmed.
SFV Room 200B: Excellent, thank you. Short and sweet. The bottom line with this case is that there are policy reasons sometimes where the court might enforce a promise that is otherwise unenforceable.
SFV Room 200B: Right? And in this case, the charitable promise because, look, a lot of people want to feel charitable, right? In front of their girlfriends or whatever, and they’re like, oh yeah, I’ll give $50,000. I’m not doing it, I’m just saying it.
SFV Room 200B: And then it becomes enforceable because for the reasons that… Sorry? I was just saying it was a promise that they would… Yeah, because, look, charitable organizations, as the court says, would rely on this promise, right, to expand or do whatever. I did represent
SFV Room 200B: I did represent a client that… I don’t know if I mentioned, stole $4 million from St. Joseph Hospital? No. Did I tell you about that? Yeah. His brother stole $3 million. He stole $4.
SFV Room 200B: And, yeah. Well, now they’re… now we know why they’re brothers. They all got… the sad part is that all the money that they stole was actually charity money.
SFV Room 200B: it was donated money so that St. John would… St. Joseph, sorry, would open a
SFV Room 200B: Children’s Wing. I mean, it couldn’t get worse for us, criminal defense people. Like, charitable money for Children’s wing to do cancer research and treatment. Can’t get worse for me. Like, it should be now.
SFV Room 200B: Right? I mean, if this case goes before the jury, so how the hell do you explain this? Justifying. I’m sorry? To justify that. To justify that.
SFV Room 200B: So they all got picked up by the FBI, you know, all at the same time, multiple defendants here in San Francisco, whatever. Were they part of the charity? My client was employed by the hospital, and he was managing the money
SFV Room 200B: That was supposed to go into this huge contract to build
SFV Room 200B: He was literally in charge of…
SFV Room 200B: And when my client got fired a year later, or 2 years later, he complained.
SFV Room 200B: That’s when they found out that he stole the money. They didn’t even know that he took the money. That’s how much money they had.
SFV Room 200B: Sorry.
frantzbiamby: Professor.
SFV Room 200B: One moment. So they, the,
SFV Room 200B: the, I learned in that case that a couple of donors that had
SFV Room 200B: promised charity money to be paid, but they never paid. When they actually put the microscope onto all the charitable money that, you know, traced it and tracked it, they went after those people and collected those monies, too. So my client not only
SFV Room 200B: stole this money, but… but… but at least he helped the hospital collect some of the charity money that was…
SFV Room 200B: Promised, but never delivered.
SFV Room 200B: Somebody had a question on Zoom.
frantzbiamby: Yeah, I wanted to ask you about, charitable… charitable donations.
frantzbiamby: I don’t know, this case kind of confusing, because I thought that, it’s not Biden, like, it’s not…
frantzbiamby: Required that the person donating the money
frantzbiamby: It’s not… it’s not enforceable, basically.
SFV Room 200B: You are thinking correct. That’s why this case is in the books, to tell you that there are exceptions to every rule.
SFV Room 200B: That’s why we’re lawyers, right? You get the big bucks to find the exceptions, however that helps your client, right? So, I know in one case where somebody who made a sizable donation promise
SFV Room 200B: to USC, USC immediately, I mean, immediately, started developing the plans and whatever for the billing. Why?
SFV Room 200B: Right.
frantzbiamby: That’s a visual life.
SFV Room 200B: Based on that reliance, we already started performing. The beginning of performance does what? Irrevocable. Irrevocable promise. Now you gotta pay.
SFV Room 200B: Yeah, I heard about that from another lawyer who actually represented USC, and he was even telling me that USC was… they knew ahead of time, they’re like, let’s get on board with bullshit plan, whatever, let’s do it, so that they can bind the guy.
SFV Room 200B: So they can collect. Yeah, the general rule is that a gift promise is unenforceable.
SFV Room 200B: That’s why the case is here to tell us, and hopefully in your final, if you ever see that this is a charitable donation, is that certain… some ports, some jurisdictions do enforce charitable,
SFV Room 200B: donations because of policy reasons. And the policy reason behind it is they rely on these promises to expand, right? To get bigger, to do more. And that’s the policy reason behind it, yes. Do we skip the Conrad versus Fields case?
SFV Room 200B: I have the old book, I don’t know if you have it. I have the old book. I don’t have the old book. Oh, okay, never mind.
Karia Salazar: It was replaced with the other…
SFV Room 200B: It may have been… Yeah, I haven’t skipped anything yet, but I’m about to. It’s coming up.
SFV Room 200B: Okay.
SFV Room 200B: By the way, on the, the FBI pickup case.
SFV Room 200B: I had told the FBI that my client’s wife was pregnant. I begged them not to
SFV Room 200B: raid the house.
SFV Room 200B: So, they called me at… I think it was a 6 AM, I’m not kidding. And I… as soon as I picked up my cell phone, it fell to the ground, and…
SFV Room 200B: I broke. Oh, shoot. Swear to God. And the phone was just like that, completely like that. I was able to swipe and answer the call.
SFV Room 200B: And he said, this is Special Agent… whatever.
SFV Room 200B: Tell… your client has 5 minutes to surrender. Otherwise, we’re breaking the door. They were outside.
SFV Room 200B: So…
SFV Room 200B: I was able to… I… this is all easy to me now, but I was able to think that where the hell is his phone? On my iPad, it was on the iPad. Used a house phone, which I never used in my life, it was for alarm purposes, to call him and say.
SFV Room 200B: Take off all of your clothes, except your shorts.
SFV Room 200B: Put your hands up.
SFV Room 200B: walk outside. If you don’t take off all of your clothes, you may get shot, because they hated him. He really did. So he let, you know, raised his arms and walked out of the house in his shorts, and he said, Michael, I swear to God, I thought the U.S. Army was there.
SFV Room 200B: There were so many, so many FBI and ATF agents, I rethought the entire army.
SFV Room 200B: is present at my house. All the way up the street. This was in LA? His brother got arrested in San Francisco, same scenario. He said there were probably 50, 80 agents, 100 agents, outside. St. Joseph? Sorry? Is that the one in Burbank? St. Joseph? No. I think it was in Santa Monica, I think it’s St. John or St. Joseph. One of the…
SFV Room 200B: It was in Santa Monica, for sure.
SFV Room 200B: Anyway, so that’s… that was a very, very interesting case.
SFV Room 200B: And he ended up being,
SFV Room 200B: He ended up doing not much.
SFV Room 200B: I just don’t want to go through that more. Why didn’t he not so much? What’s the reason behind, like, to take off all the clothes? Is it so they don’t search him, or… No, I really think that they… everybody despised them.
SFV Room 200B: So I thought that if he is not literally in his shorts walking outside, he may get hurt.
SFV Room 200B: And because he was just becoming a father, I… I felt…
SFV Room 200B: bad for the child, and I knew better to say, oh, just walk outside.
SFV Room 200B: Right? But if you’re in your shorts, they see you have no weapon, your hands are off, they’re not gonna touch you. In fact, the Attorney General in the afternoon of that day, when you… oh, the phone, of course, shattered, and I…
SFV Room 200B: I… I went to my morning court
SFV Room 200B: And then I went to Apple Store in Century City.
SFV Room 200B: And I said, whatever money you want, I’ll give you. Give me a phone right now. I don’t care how much I charge me.
SFV Room 200B: And she went in the back, she came back 10 minutes later, she says, we’re not going to charge you, the phone is under warranty. Here’s a brand new phone for you, sir. Because she saw that I was so distressed, court was in the afternoon. She gave me a brand new Apple phone, and I was able to put everything back. By 1.30, everything was back on my phone, as if nothing happened.
SFV Room 200B: It was a very stressful day, I’ll never forget it.
SFV Room 200B: But, why didn’t they serve much time?
SFV Room 200B: Maybe it’s not… Let’s just say he suffered from a condition that shaved off about a year from his prison time, so he did less than 3. They’re released now, obviously? Oh, yeah, long time ago. Oh, yeah.
SFV Room 200B: I think his brother did more. 4 million, they only did 3 years? Well, they got a lot of the money back. A lot of the money was free. Is that the reason why the sentence was short? No, it wasn’t. It was because the judge was too kind. If it was literally the next door, all the lawyers agreed he would have got 12 years. Just next door.
SFV Room 200B: Yeah. Wow. At least, even with the return of the money. Wow. Okay.
Armen Bashian: Professor, isn’t that similar to… I just… it just brings it up, the Amber Heard Johnny Depp situation, where she pledged $7 million to CHLA.
Armen Bashian: Isn’t that very similar to that? I mean…
SFV Room 200B: photos.
Armen Bashian: Besides the money, right? So…
SFV Room 200B: think about those facts, about that case.
SFV Room 200B: I don’t know anything about that case.
Armen Bashian: Okay.
SFV Room 200B: This was a case where the guy basically had
SFV Room 200B: opportunity and got greedy. He was making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
SFV Room 200B: Doing his job.
SFV Room 200B: Hundreds, like two or three hundred thousand. Regular job. Yes, and that wasn’t enough.
SFV Room 200B: Yes, think about that.
SFV Room 200B: Anyway… Salisbury. Oh, I think we just did that one, right? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. We just did that. Sorry. And by the way, if you want the ruling, it’s on the bottom of 303.
SFV Room 200B: Okay, subcontractors. Oh, this is… this is a case that will surely will come up
SFV Room 200B: Both in the final, but definitely in the board. This case will be… this case has been tested so many times, you’d be surprised. Subcontractors.
SFV Room 200B: offering bids, And contractors being able to hold them to it.
SFV Room 200B: Okay? Anybody wants to take this case?
Ruben Hunanyan: do this one.
SFV Room 200B: Drennan, who… what is your name?
Ruben Hunanyan: This is Ruben Hunanian.
SFV Room 200B: Mr. Honanian, please.
Ruben Hunanyan: Drennan v. Star Paving Co, 1958, Supreme Court of California.
Ruben Hunanyan: Star Paving, a subcontractor, submitted a $7,131 telephone bid for paving in a school project.
Ruben Hunanyan: Drennan, who was the general contractor, relied on this lowest bid in his overall bid for the school job, which was accepted.
Ruben Hunanyan: The next day, Star Paving revoked its bid due to claims of a calculation error and refused to perform.
Ruben Hunanyan: Drennan eventually hired another subcontractor for $10,948.
Ruben Hunanyan: Drennan sued Star Paving Company for breach after it revoked the subcontract bid. The trial court awarded Drennan damages for the cost difference. Star Paving appealed to the California Supreme Court. The issue?
Ruben Hunanyan: Can a subcontractor’s bid be enforced under promissory estoppel when a general contractor relies on it in submitting their own bid?
Ruben Hunanyan: Under promissory estoppel, a bid similar to a promise is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement, where the promisor reasonably expected reliance and substantial reliance occurred.
Ruben Hunanyan: The court’s reasoning? The court held no bilateral contract was formed, as Drennan’s use of the bid was not accepted, creating power of revocation. However, the court stated that promissory estoppel applied
Ruben Hunanyan: Our Star Paving’s bid was a promise to perform on specified terms, reasonably expecting Drennan’s reliance in bidding. Drennan’s reliance was definite.
Ruben Hunanyan: and substantial.
Ruben Hunanyan: Revocation caused injustice, as Drennan could not retract his bid.
Ruben Hunanyan: The court compared this to option contracts on their UCC2-205, treating the bid as an irrevocable… treating the bid as irrevocable for a reasonable time. The court argued that the project’s general…
Ruben Hunanyan: That this protects general contractors from bid shopping while holding subs accountable, balancing construction industry practices, the court affirmed.
SFV Room 200B: Very, very good. Some important facts, or important observations, I should say, based on these facts.
SFV Room 200B: First of all.
SFV Room 200B: The restatement second, Section 87, Sub 2, has adopted this view, this approach. Number one. What was that again? I’m sorry, can you repeat? Restatement second, section 87, Sub 2.
SFV Room 200B: has adopted this approach from the court. Now, the more important thing that I want to mention is, is the contractor bound to the subcontract?
SFV Room 200B: What was that again? Is the contractor bound as well?
SFV Room 200B: Or is it just the subcontractor that is out?
frantzbiamby: Both of them are balanced.
SFV Room 200B: No, it’s not, I would say no. Who? Who is not bound? Because the contractor is not bound to the subcontractor, because probably the contractor has got bid from so many subs, so he has not, like, accepted, like, any bid for, like.
SFV Room 200B: Why would the contractor… you’re correct. Why would the contractor not be bound under these facts?
SFV Room 200B: They ask for a bid from a subcontractor. Subcontractor submits a bid.
frantzbiamby: Is it because the…
SFV Room 200B: You’re not bound. They have to accept. Exactly! They have to accept
SFV Room 200B: But they can rely on it because the court says it’s part of the requirement of a subcontractor to rely on the subcontractor to present his or her own bill.
SFV Room 200B: Make sense? Contractor is not bound… I’m a general contractor.
SFV Room 200B: Until he or she accepts
SFV Room 200B: It’s just like going to the car dealership and saying, how much are you willing to sell this car to me for?
SFV Room 200B: And he says, $100,000, right now.
SFV Room 200B: Are you bound?
SFV Room 200B: No. Is he bound? Oh, hell yes. Well, if you say I accept, he’s screwed, right? You can’t say, I’m joking.
SFV Room 200B: Right?
SFV Room 200B: I make the stupid mistake
SFV Room 200B: by the way, of calling Porsche on the phone, telling the salesperson, I’m paying X dollar for the car, not one anymore.
SFV Room 200B: That X dollar is exactly what they wanted to sell it at. Oh my gosh. And when I came to the dealership, the whole contract was ready, because I’d been a previous customer. He put it in front of me. I couldn’t negotiate again. I tried, and he said, Michael, you said this much. Don’t be an… Oh, I said, okay. So I probably…
SFV Room 200B: School by survival of 10 grand, at least.
SFV Room 200B: But I did it, because owner is more important, right?
SFV Room 200B: We’ll lemon it later. I think you’ll lemon it later. No, this one I didn’t hope it won’t be… What was it, a GT3RS? It’s a Cayennees.
SFV Room 200B: Okay. It’s just a regular Porsche Camry. I don’t have GT3. It was a Porsche Camry! Porsche Camry? That’s a suit inside! I have one of those. You gave me 35 miles to the gallon. Oh my god. It was a Porsche Camry.
SFV Room 200B: You’re so stupid. Hey, after I was almost carjacked, I decided to buy a Camry.
SFV Room 200B: What do you mean? I came out of Compton Court. Audible. In a 500SL convertible. And I put the top down, 9 o’clock in the morning. Just saw a guy running right behind my car, in the middle of the street, running to jump into my car. I swear to God, I’m not kidding.
SFV Room 200B: I just ran the right. I didn’t even look to see if a car is coming. Could have been dead. I just ran the light, and the next day, I bought a Camry. I said, that’s it. I’m going to this beautiful car. And I drove to Cambri for, like, a couple years until I got tired of it. But it probably saved me, yes.
SFV Room 200B: Can you confirm if this is true or not? I’ve heard from lawyers saying they have, like, a court card, like a cheap one, so when they show up… Many lawyers have cheap quotes. I don’t know about jury, because, you know, yeah, it’s possible…
SFV Room 200B: Lee, I really… there’s… there’s definitely a strategy to how you dress and what type of watch you use, depending on which court you’re in and what type of jewel you’re going to deal with, for sure. Even the tie.
SFV Room 200B: is different for those days. The suit is different. The watch is going to be an Apple Watch, or whatever. I’m not kid… yes, way. 100%. Wei. Absolutely. You have to read… you don’t want to look like you’re above anybody else, because they may
SFV Room 200B: perceive you as that, and that is going to hurt your client. So you want to play the part.
SFV Room 200B: I literally have 2 or 3 different briefcases, even. No joke.
SFV Room 200B: I have a shitty briefcase that is almost falling apart, you know, and I play the part if I have to. And why do you have it again? I’m sorry? Why do you have the three… Depending on where I’m going, which kind of… what type of trial, what kind of jury, if that happens ever, next Friday I’m going to start a trial. I guarantee you I’m going to be…
SFV Room 200B: In a different suit, in a different tie, for sure, different…
SFV Room 200B: Watch different… whatever, right? I’m just telling you, this is a life lesson. You will find out. These are important things. I’ve heard it myself.
SFV Room 200B: I’ve heard it from jurors literally saying that to a lawyer. Heard it, like, maybe 16, 17 years ago in Downey.
SFV Room 200B: And I was like, oh my god, they were watching the lawyer’s suit the whole time. Wow, that’s crazy. They didn’t like it, because he was so nicely dressed. Oh, wow. That’s so wrong. No kidding, I’m serious. And they thought he’s above the law because he dressed so nice.
SFV Room 200B: So think about that. Well, Zan always says, if you give 12 dumb jurors bad Chinese food, you’ll have your result. Oh, I’m sorry. By the way, he’s the one who just kept me, so he said, if anything… But he’s not wrong! But this is a lesson for lawyers to learn, seriously.
SFV Room 200B: I wasn’t trying to waste time. It becomes very, very important.
SFV Room 200B: It’s real life lessons. So, yeah, sometimes you do park your car somewhere else, sometimes you do drive a different car. I tell my clients exactly how to dress when it comes to trial.
SFV Room 200B: Okay, to Z.
SFV Room 200B: I have them come on the weekend prior to my office with the suit that they’re gonna wear. Wow. To show me. No kidding. Oh, yeah, they look at all the signs. They look at everything, especially your client, for sure. Absolutely. Yeah. If your client is a doctor or a professional.
SFV Room 200B: You don’t want him to look like a dummy.
SFV Room 200B: You know, you want them to look their best!
SFV Room 200B: Best everything best.
SFV Room 200B: Because the jury wants to know, this is the doctor I want to rely on. Look at how rich he is.
SFV Room 200B: How wealthy he is, or she is.
SFV Room 200B: What’s the psychology that we all study this? Yeah, of course it does. When do you want to dress up your client? That’s why the day before, they have to come and show me, and it’s not just me. Bridge County, great. LA, they hate stuff like that. They do. When do you want to have your client dressed like a bum, or a…
SFV Room 200B: Stress very poorly. Give me a bit more. Oh, never mind then.
Armen Bashian: Not to overshare, but in judicial assistant overview training, they did… I mean, attend… I mean, attire was a huge topic, huge. So, just sharing is very important.
SFV Room 200B: Does any of what I said make sense to you?
Armen Bashian: Absolutely.
SFV Room 200B: How’s the ego.
Armen Bashian: Creating neutral and everything.
SFV Room 200B: Interesting.
Ruben Hunanyan: Is that also true about how you articulate yourself as, like, the lawyer, or how you talk?
SFV Room 200B: I mean, oh, absolutely. There’s no ques… I told you guys, did I tell you about the first trial that I… was it the first trial? It was the very first trial. Remember? The jury gave my client money, and I was like, wait a second, I’m gonna get this part over here. And the jury foreman said, because the lawyer was such an asshole on your client, who was uneducated.
SFV Room 200B: We wanted to punish him.
SFV Room 200B: That was the reason they gave money to my client. They wanted to punish the other lawyers. Not because of anything. We should have lost. 100%.
SFV Room 200B: So you just never know. It’s not what you learn in law school, it’s everything after.
SFV Room 200B: There’s no question, I’ve been doing this for 27 years, I still sometimes go, wait a second, should he wear a tie or not? I swear to God, I’m not kidding.
SFV Room 200B: should you wear a tie or not? Wow. Last week, I stood in front of Judge… I won’t mention the judge’s name. I said, Your Honor, my client is in a double-breasted suit today.
SFV Room 200B: He bought it for you.
SFV Room 200B: After the so-called victim took all of his clothing, kicked him out of his own home.
SFV Room 200B: illegally kicked him out of his own home, and bagged everything, and threw them away. In other words, he self-evicted this guy. He had no money, he came up with $140, which was all true, to buy a suit so that he can tell you that he respects this court.
SFV Room 200B: You know what the judge said? Anco monitor off, right now. He doesn’t need it.
SFV Room 200B: I’m sure that statement had something to do with it.
SFV Room 200B: Another time, I left my jacket at home.
SFV Room 200B: Or in the cars. No, at home.
SFV Room 200B: We go to court, I told my client, you look like my size, take off your jacket. He said, what? I said, take off your jacket. Trust me.
SFV Room 200B: I put his jacket on. As soon as we got to the court, I said, Your Honor.
SFV Room 200B: I want to apologize for my client not having a jacket on. This is his jacket.
SFV Room 200B: He did have his jacket on. I took it, because I’m a lawyer, I’m supposed to be in a suit. I left my jacket at home. I apologize. Everybody started laughing.
SFV Room 200B: Except the judge. Wow. They care, nobody… The judge? No, he… she said sidebar.
SFV Room 200B: And she said, I really appreciate what you said. This was a good lesson for everybody that was sitting in the courtroom.
SFV Room 200B: And you know what? She was so easy with the client and me that… and I know they appreciate. These things don’t… do matter. I took his jacket, of course.
SFV Room 200B: You know, he didn’t like that. Did you buy him any one? No, I just gave it back to him. He had a family, a judge in family court that would continue our cases if the attorney wasn’t wearing a tie. Oh, there’s a judge in downtown. He’s no longer alive, unfortunately. But there’s a judge in downtown that, when you would show up in his court, ask your… they will tell you.
SFV Room 200B: the legal assistant, the judicial assistant, who was Asian.
SFV Room 200B: would literally say, if he liked you, he would say, counsel, come outside, come outside.
SFV Room 200B: And the first time, I was like, what the hell is wrong with him? I came outside, he says, your tie is not perfect. If it’s not perfect, it’s a $200 sanction. Sanction, yeah, he’ll sanction. Sanction. Meaning it has to be perfect. Or he would… the moment he would come off on the bench, he would sanction, sanction, sanction, sanction, and then go.
SFV Room 200B: There’s no way, bro.
Armen Bashian: I’ve heard the same stories as well as, like… Now’s worst person.
SFV Room 200B: I was in downtown, and if I had to remember his name, I would tell you, I just don’t remember his name. Yeah.
SFV Room 200B: True. Okay.
SFV Room 200B: Back to business. All of this is business. All of this is for you to know.
SFV Room 200B: Don’t look like a bum as a lawyer. That’s gonna hurt you.
SFV Room 200B: The judge may not say anything, but I, you know, in Orange County, there was a… this hip lawyer, very good-looking guy.
SFV Room 200B: Shows up in a beautiful $3,000 suit. I mean, I’m telling you, the suit was magnificent. The shirt was… wow! Like, you’re like, I want that shirt. He had no tie. And he thought, this is the… this is the new thing.
SFV Room 200B: He literally told me that. You know why he told me that? Because he was a student of this… this school. And he told me, Professor, I learned so much from you. I’m like, who are you? He goes, I’m so-and-so. I was in your class, like, 5 years ago.
SFV Room 200B: He’s a criminal defense lawyer. Very good lawyer. Very good lawyer.
SFV Room 200B: And I was like, you don’t have a tie-on, bro. And he goes, oh, no, this is the new thing, Professor. I said, oh, is it? Okay. Sorry, didn’t know that. I’m old, you’re young, obviously, so… As soon as the judge comes on the bench… Where’s your guy? Yeah, he says, you, in the galley.
SFV Room 200B: In the what galley? Go sit back there. He said, what? Go sit in the back. I’ll talk to you later. He kept him until almost 12 o’clock when he called his case.
SFV Room 200B: Oh my god, because he wasn’t… And then he told me that the judge called him on sidebar and told him, where is your tide? I want to embarrass you in front of your client. Don’t ever come to my courtroom like that again. Just… he thought he can just…
SFV Room 200B: It’s after COVID, I’ll do what I want.
SFV Room 200B: - don’t do that.
SFV Room 200B: Don’t get too creative. It’s gonna hurt you.
SFV Room 200B: Okay? And everybody will talk about you. Ask the judicial assistant. I swear to God, it’s true. Everybody will know who you are, for the wrong reasons.
SFV Room 200B: What about women?
SFV Room 200B: I’m sorry? What about the woman? Nobody cares. I swear to you, they come in the nightgown. I swear to you, my wife always complained. She was like, I dress up, I put makeup on, I do my, you know, high heels, whatever. I go in, and somebody just show up, and she just jogged in a jogging clothes, she just…
SFV Room 200B: Shows up in court.
SFV Room 200B: And you know what it is? Honestly, judges don’t have… they’re afraid to say that.
SFV Room 200B: That’s my… I’m being completely honest with you. You know how that you’re saying that? We’re in jury trial, and all the guys were in suits, women, everyone was in, like, sneakers and, like, workout clothing. And I’m looking, I’m like… I appreciate that. I don’t think so. Even as a jury, you’re still in the courthouse. When I’m in pro tem, I never say anything. Never. I want to say something, but I won’t.
SFV Room 200B: Because I’m sure somebody’s gonna complain, and then they’re gonna say, you’re off the bench. It’s a medical issue, and they can’t wear high heels. Yes, look, I have medical issue.
SFV Room 200B: I can’t wear every type of shoe that I want to wear. I understand that, but there’s no reason why you don’t need workout clothes, right, or your nightgown, to show up in court. That’s just unacceptable.
SFV Room 200B: That is disrespectful. It’s totally dis… it’s disrespectful, first of all, to yourself. Exactly!
SFV Room 200B: You kept mentioning about psychology, that’s the very… the famous, case with not only Johnny Depp, but also the, Moscow, Idaho kill… Ryan Krowberger, his defense, his,
SFV Room 200B: Yeah, defense attorney was a woman, and they did it on purpose, and so was the prosecution. And I think everybody in the courtroom was, like, a woman, and they did that on purpose, actually. Almost everyone. To make a point. Okay, I get it, if they want to do that. If it’s strategy, no problem. Yeah, strategy. You know, no problem. But if you…
SFV Room 200B: I just think that we all have to respect the courts. Then why should anybody else? And who enforces the court rules? I don’t do this now, but I’ve been a pro tem for 20 years.
SFV Room 200B: That’s a long time.
SFV Room 200B: A long time ago, I would send people out to go put on pants.
SFV Room 200B: Instead of shorts.
SFV Room 200B: Yeah, long time ago.
SFV Room 200B: But then I realized I’m probably wrong, because maybe they don’t have a pants. And I… it’s wrong for me to assume that everybody should have a pants.
SFV Room 200B: So I stopped that.
SFV Room 200B: Nonsense. I get it, but for a lawyer to say.
SFV Room 200B: You only have a jogging clothes? I mean, come on.
SFV Room 200B: Okay, grouse.
SFV Room 200B: On, 309. Anybody? I have a question. Yes, ma’am. If, in the case, for example, if it’s a contractor that has bid for a work, so there’s not a subcontractor, the contractor has bid, and then they take… they withdraw the bid.
SFV Room 200B: Before it’s accepted. Before the acceptance. Okay. Is there an issue again? Is there a promissory stopper? Promissory stoppal? No, if you withdraw your bid, meaning that you made an offer, you withdraw your offer.
SFV Room 200B: So the client can come back and say, like… They can try, but it probably will not fly, because you made an offer, you revoked your own offer in a timely manner, before it was accepted, right? Yeah. Now.
SFV Room 200B: Mr. Stoppo’s argument will come up only if the other party justifiably relied on that promise. It would be hard-pressed, because usually these bids are very detailed, how you can accept, when you can accept, down payment, this, that, whatever, right? So…
SFV Room 200B: it would be very hard to prove promissory stop, but that’s a good question.
SFV Room 200B: Any other questions?
SFV Room 200B: Alright, let’s do grouts. Anybody wants to do grouts?
SFV Room 200B: on 309.
SFV Room 200B: Anybody?
SFV Room 200B: Supreme Court of Minnesota, relying on race… Yes, sir. Thank you so much. Carouse, a group health plan incorporated. So, Kraus was a pharmacist, and he was offered a job by
SFV Room 200B: and resigned from his current position at Richter Drug based on that offer that he got. He also declined another job offer.
SFV Room 200B: Essentially relying on Group Health’s assurance of employment. But before he could start, Group Health hired someone else after failing to obtain favorable references for grouse.
SFV Room 200B: Grouse, sued them… sued Group Health for lost wages. The trial court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, and Grouse appealed. And for the issue here, I wrote, is whether he can recover for the lost wages from losing out on the job that he was initially offered.
SFV Room 200B: And I wrote, the court ruled that he is entitled to those wages since he left that job for them, which the company should have anticipated when he told them that he would literally resign from his old job, and judgment was reversed in his favor. Very good. He accepted the offer.
SFV Room 200B: And even declined another one. Yeah, and he literally accepted this offer, and then he’s given the book.
SFV Room 200B: And the court says, not so fast, right? Clearly, a case of promise or estoppel, to say the least.
SFV Room 200B: Okay.
SFV Room 200B: I’m, bottom of page… sorry, middle of page 310, it’s… it says a group?
SFV Room 200B: Health knew that the… to accept its offer, Grouse would have to resign his employment at the other place that he was working, or… So, in other words, it was important for the court to note that they… not only they should have known, but they actually knew.
SFV Room 200B: that this is going to happen. And then the court says, under these circumstances, it would be unjust not to hold group health to its promise.
SFV Room 200B: And bottom of 310, the court says, when a promise is enforced pursuant to Section 90, the remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires. Relief may be limited to damages measured by the promisee’s reliance. In other words, what we said before.
SFV Room 200B: Reliance damages. Something you don’t have to know right now, this year.
SFV Room 200B: I mean, next semester, sorry, not this year.
SFV Room 200B: You’re not going to get an F, right? No.
SFV Room 200B: Alright, we are skipping.
SFV Room 200B: The next case…
SFV Room 200B: even the drafters of the people that wrote this book claim that this is a confusing case that makes little sense, so I don’t want to go through it. So, Schmidt, we,
SFV Room 200B: we skip.
SFV Room 200B: We are going to do Problem 1 on page 314, please.
SFV Room 200B: I promise to let you go in about 5 minutes. Just hang in there, and please don’t fall asleep.
SFV Room 200B: Problem 1 on page 314.
SFV Room 200B: What does the grouse court mean when it says that the effect of promissory estoppel is to imply a contract in law where none exists in fact?
SFV Room 200B: Does that mean Group Health Plan could have sued Mr. Grouse for breach of contract if he failed to show up? Oh.
Ruben Hunanyan: I could try this one, Professor.
SFV Room 200B: Okay, so you said no, let’s go to Zoom. No, you tell me because, and then we’ll go to Zoom. No, because, I mean, it’s basically what we’ve been talking this whole time about is promissory stop loss, not a contract.
SFV Room 200B: It’s just a form of remedy as if it was a contract. Okay. But not as… you won’t get contract damages. Okay, so are you saying the court is using a metaphor, not literally saying that there is, in fact, a contract?
SFV Room 200B: Is that what you’re saying?
SFV Room 200B: On Zoom, yes? Is that what you’re saying?
Ruben Hunanyan: I would piggyback off that and say that since there was no acceptance, it can’t be a contract, I think they’re just trying to say because of the detrimental alliance part.
SFV Room 200B: Yeah, very good. So the court basically is literally using a metaphor. They’re not saying, you know, take us literally.
SFV Room 200B: They’re basically saying, look, we’re just going to assume there’s a contract, In law, to… what?
SFV Room 200B: to avoid
SFV Room 200B: the guy from getting away with the promise, right? You made a promise, he relied on that promise, you knew he was going to rely on the promise, we’re going to hold you to it.
SFV Room 200B: But it’s not really a contract contract, right? Can he sue? No, he can’t.
SFV Room 200B: Right? He doesn’t have any contract rights against
SFV Room 200B: Neither party. Okay, neither party has contract rights against the other.
SFV Room 200B: Alright, let’s see which one I want to do…
SFV Room 200B: Problem 3, because I think it’s based on a real case.
SFV Room 200B: The Coos Brewing Company decided to market its product in Missouri, where it had previously refrained from marketing.
SFV Room 200B: In publicly solicited applicants for distributorship.
SFV Room 200B: Dividing the state into districts. Plaintiff was one of the 35 applicants for district number 10.
SFV Room 200B: He was the only such applicant selected for an in-house interview. Coos determined that none of the applicants was satisfactory and took over distribution in District 10 through a subsidiary.
SFV Room 200B: About a year later, Coors awarded the distributorship to a company that was not one of the original 35 applicants. Plaintiff seeks to prove that he relied on obtaining the distributorship at a heavy cost to himself.
SFV Room 200B: Has the plaintiff stated the case?
SFV Room 200B: Nope.
Karia Salazar: No?
SFV Room 200B: Okay, no one.
SFV Room 200B: know the… plaintiff…
SFV Room 200B: has not stated a case. Why? What did push do, and what does it mean, yes? I mean…
SFV Room 200B: To me, it just doesn’t sound like there’s an actual contract with that, one of the original 35 applicants for one. Let’s not even go to contract. Let’s talk about… let’s talk about what did course do.
SFV Room 200B: It was an invitation to offer, there was no offer. Another A-plus student answered. That’s what I meant. She got… she got two of that today, right? Good for you.
SFV Room 200B: Of course, nearly had an invitation to apply.
SFV Room 200B: It was not a promise, bless you. It was not a promise, it was merely an invitation to apply. So, there is no cause of action. Yeah, that’s what this reliance thing would know. Yeah. Plaintiff’s reliance, even though he spent a lot of money, that was too bad, so sad.
SFV Room 200B: Of course, it does not say.
SFV Room 200B: We’re definitely gonna take one of you, or we’re gonna take you.
SFV Room 200B: Who said, you come for an interview, and they decided none of them are qualified.
SFV Room 200B: Right? Something like that.
SFV Room 200B: Make sense?
Ruben Hunanyan: Is this, like, is this, like, the general contractor and the subcontractor one? I think it’s similar to that, where the general contractor might not be,
Ruben Hunanyan: held…
SFV Room 200B: For the subcontractor, but the subcontractor might be held to the general contractor?
SFV Room 200B: Not for the same reasons, but the general contractor not being liable to the subcontractors, because he made no such promise.
SFV Room 200B: He is allowed, as I said, based on policy reasons, to rely on the subcontractor’s bid to make his own bidding. Otherwise, it would never happen. Nothing would ever be built. Nobody can do every aspect of a serial contract, right? A building contract, for example, or building a bridge.
SFV Room 200B: Right? Subcontractor. Subcontractor may be a sales place selling steel. The contractor relies on the company to give them a bid for buying steel to build a bridge. It happens all the time.
SFV Room 200B: Right? They should be able to rely on that, but that is the essence of… of that. Thank you for staying awake. For those of you that will be almost…
SFV Room 200B: Please watch your face before we leave. 916. See you next week.
frantzbiamby: Thank you, Professor.
Cameron Smith: Thank you.
Karia Salazar: Thank you.
Jasmine Pourzanjani: Thank you.
Yessenia Soria: Thank you, Professor.
Fatima Razavi: Professor.
Joseph Kejejian: Thank you, Professor.

Main

Outlines

Class Notes

Class Transcripts

Session 11

Contracts - Session 11

Transcript

Main

Outlines

Class Notes

Class Transcripts

​Contracts - Session 11

​Transcript

Contracts - Session 11

Transcript