Who is sick of studying?  I hear ya.  My sister just took her last final today for pharmacy school (at Campbell).  Lucky lucky lucky.

A lot of you are probably familiar with this tune.  Dave Barnes (shout out to the other much cooler David Barnes in Section 4!) the singer/songwriter wrote this song ("God Gave Me You") and it was recently redone by Blake Shelton.  I think Dave Barnes does it better, but that's neither here nor there.  I bet he never in a million years thought it would be rewritten with lyrics about defenses to torts.  Ha.

Enjoy...

The Torts Defenses (sorry for the lame title)

Defenses are everywhere in tort liability

There’s 9 that are privileges, but negligence has just three

Consent and the three defenses – of self, others, property

With more to come…

Use them to stop liability

Like superman they have flexibility

When lawyers are representing D’s

Defenses reduce culpability

It’s true…I’m telling you

Recovery of property, Authority (of Law), Necessity

Justification, Discipline –you prove them and you will see

No matter the harm or foul, the D has a straight shot out

Of course, the jury decides

Use them to stop liability

Like superman they have flexibility

When lawyers are representing D’s

Defenses reduce culpability

It’s true…I’m telling you

Contrib and Comparative –how do we tell them apart?

Contrib is when P contributes to his or her final harm

Comparative: there are three types – pure and 2 modifieds

“Not-as-great-as” and “Not-greater-than”

AoR (Assumption of Risk) is last: Express and Implied

Consent to the risk of the harm

Contracts show express, conduct shows implied

Courts typically do not take implied’s side

Use them to stop liability

Like superman they have flexibility

When lawyers are representing D’s

Defenses reduce culpability

It’s true…I’m telling you

Don't you just love proximate cause?  Right.  In any event, here is a jingle we all know and love with the info we need to know about proximate cause.  Sorry no guitar this time.  Merry finals.

Proximate Cause Remix (to the tune of Walking in a Winter Wonderland)

Proximate Cause is puzzling

Hence this song that we can all sing

Ask three little things

To see if it brings

A proximate cause liability

First what was the conduct of the D?

What was the risk (forseeable) of it?

What was the harm that actually happened?

If the harm that was foreseeable is the harm that occurred then there is cause!

Oh proximate cause is puzzling

Hence this song that we can all sing

Ask 3 little things

To see if it brings

A proximate cause liability

Lukasik taught and this I do concur

If the risk you take is the risk that does occur

Liability will flow for sure!

Even if it’s not the way you would prefer

Oh proximate cause is puzzling

Hence this song that we can all sing

Ask 3 little things

To see if it brings

A proximate cause liability

Intervening Causes there are five

For criminals and drunks and rescuers

Also generations (&) suiciders

Go with the majority rule and you’ll be fine

Oh proximate cause we beat you

On the test we know you’ll come through

We’ll hum this fun song

As we go along

It’s all about causation, we agree

Last night I had a nightmare that seemed to last all night.  No joke.  I was in some old fashioned exam hall with wood paneling on the walls (bizarre detail, I know) and I was taking the Contracts final.  Worst part was that there were 3 (THREE!) essays.  The first one I couldn't remember a single thing.  I just kept trying to remember what consideration was.  I turned it in and before I started on the second essay Osborn returned the first (super-human powers of grading I suppose) and I got one point.  ONE POINT.  Out of 72 total points.  I honestly have no clue why the essay was out of 72 points, but that's what I remember.

On the second essay the same thing happened and when I got it back I got one point again.  It was seriously horrifying because everyone around me got either 43 points (again, it's weird I remember that detail) or 72 points.

Right before I started the third essay I asked Professor Osborn, "What is going on?  Can I even pass the class now?!"

What he said next will be forever seared in my brain...

"You clearly just don't understand Contracts."

I woke up at that point, looked at my clock and it was 6:22 am.  I felt like the dream lasted all night.  I was SO grateful it was just a dream.  It's amazing what your subconscious will reveal in times of stress...

Ok, on to the point of the story: Back when we were studying UCC 2-207 in Contracts (Battle of the Forms section) I thought to myself how I should really write a song to remember this beast.  This morning, after my contracts nightmare, I did just that.  Talk about motivation.

It is sung to the tune of Ben Rector's "Loving You is Easy." (He is really great...definitely check him out when you have a life after finals.)  It's kind of hard to hear since there are a lot of words, so lyrics are here as well.

"Loving 2-207's Easy"

Loving 2-207’s easy

It’s easier than one two three

We’re in law school so consequently

It’s coming so naturally

The mirror image rule is replaced by it

Additional and different terms are surely legit

It’s still an acceptance under subsection ONE

With one easy exception:

If acceptance is conditional

on assent of offeror, it’s traditional

And if it is not definite or seasonable

There’s no acceptance, sorry!

It’s easy

It’s easy

It’s easy

2-207’s easy

Let’s say offerees acceptance

Is not conditional at all

Then we go to subsection 2

With the added terms here’s what you do

They’re called proposals meaning they’re not part of the K

Unless they are accepted by the parties that way

If both parties are merchants they ARE part of the K

Of course with some exceptions!

1) Acceptance is limited to terms of the offer

2) the terms materially alter the K

3) Notice of objection to the terms comes today

2-207’s easy

It’s easy

It’s easy

It’s easy

2-207’s easy

The hardest part- subsection 3

Proviso’s evoked….you’ll see

If writing doesn’t form a K but conduct does

The conduct will make the K and that is because

The UCC will fill the gaps by adding some terms

Why kill the K completely?

For example if no time is specified

For delivery it’s just a reasonable time

The UCC  subsection 3 is only for when

Acceptance is conditional

It’s easy

It’s easy

It’s easy

2-207’s easy…

This is an overview of my semester 1 Torts class with Professor Lukasik.  It covers the seven intentional torts and negligence.  Enjoy!

Chances are if you're here right now you are either a law student or have heard through the grapevine that I study my way through law school by coming up with (hopefully) catchy tunes to remember tricky legal concepts.  Either way, I hope you'll find something useful or entertaining.

I love to sing.  Join the club, I know.  I feel like everyone and their brother says that.  I've been writing songs for awhile and about halfway through my first semester in law school realized I could probably use song writing as a study tool.  I gave it a try and it has worked relatively well for me.  The first song I wrote was in preparation for a midterm in Tort Law, and although I didn't share it with any of my classmates at the time, due to insistence from my sister I figured I might as well pass it along since we are now in the midst of finals season.  Hopefully someone will benefit, but the jury is still out on that (no pun intended).  It might prove more entertaining (i.e. comical) than helpful, and that is fine by me.  I try not to take myself too seriously.  So don't feel bad for laughing at (or with) me.  Things can get pretty corny when you're singing about the "law."

Thanks for stopping by.