University of Virginia School of Law professors Molly Shadel and Anne Coughlin instruct new law students on how to analyze and understand cases during a fall 2014 event.
I like how you guys explained the topics of the cases and briefs. Although I don’t inspire to be a philosopher, and it doesn’t necessary mean a person who is a philosopher will be a very good talented lawyer because they are considered a philosopher. But when it comes to reading cases, I consider myself an analytical person. And I’m very passionate about the analytical part of cases because I enjoy taking apart the facts of the topic of cases, and figure out which parts of the issues would be the material facts that can be supported by admissible evidence. Nonetheless, your teachings are most enjoyable. Thanks for sharing! 👍🏾😊
Lol dude who brought the whiskey did so deliberately and with intent to defraud the other guy out of real property. Did he get away with that?? I hope not.
Hi. Thank you for your wonderful explanations. I have a question. How about Matthews v Baxter 1873? If one party knew the other party was intoxicated, the contract is voidable. When the party was sober, he or she can choose to repudiate the contract or enforce the contract. Is it because in Lucy v Zehmer, the party was not intoxicated enough so the contract is enforceable?
indeed, advocates apply the law in their respective cases looking at the fact and evidence. Once judge in satisfied that yes apply of law relevant to material fact, he gives his decision or judgement. JUDGE IS ONLY UPHOLD THE LAW OR NO MISUSE OF LAW. SO, YOUR ANSWER LIES TO ADVOCATES POINT OF VIEW , NOTE: THATS WAHT I UNDERSTTOD OR INTERPRETED.
I thought the pace was fine. Of course, I am an attorney and teach Lawyering at a law school. So the material was not entirely new. I also personally hate speakers who speak to slowly. It’s hard for me to pay attention when the speaker speaks too slowly. I will usually play the video at 1.5 x or 2x speed.
