Cover image of Lawdibles Audio – Lawdibles
(18)
Education
Courses

Lawdibles Audio – Lawdibles

Updated about 23 hours ago

Education
Courses
Read more

Lawdibles: Your Audio Law Professor. A law professor explaining a narrow area of law understandably and accurately in less than ten minutes.

Read more

Lawdibles: Your Audio Law Professor. A law professor explaining a narrow area of law understandably and accurately in less than ten minutes.

iTunes Ratings

18 Ratings
Average Ratings
10
2
3
2
1

Helpful content but some annoying issues

By annieave - Jul 25 2019
Read more
The content is really helpful, and the examples are clear. But you can't pause or skip back or ahead, and you can't see how long the episode is or how far in are. If you pause, the whole thing starts over. And you can't drag the slide to go back to where you left off. So that's extremely annoying. Also, way less of a thing, but the professor's voice is kind of like the tone you use when you're reading a kids' book, or explaining something to an idiot. I don't mind it that much because I'm kind of an idiot. But it might be annoying.

Fix, please!!

By Lastblues - Apr 12 2016
Read more
Seems like it would be a really valuable resource if it did not have technical issues. Basically it skips and restarts, have yet to find an episode that works the whole way though. Fix it and I'll give you five stars and review love!

iTunes Ratings

18 Ratings
Average Ratings
10
2
3
2
1

Helpful content but some annoying issues

By annieave - Jul 25 2019
Read more
The content is really helpful, and the examples are clear. But you can't pause or skip back or ahead, and you can't see how long the episode is or how far in are. If you pause, the whole thing starts over. And you can't drag the slide to go back to where you left off. So that's extremely annoying. Also, way less of a thing, but the professor's voice is kind of like the tone you use when you're reading a kids' book, or explaining something to an idiot. I don't mind it that much because I'm kind of an idiot. But it might be annoying.

Fix, please!!

By Lastblues - Apr 12 2016
Read more
Seems like it would be a really valuable resource if it did not have technical issues. Basically it skips and restarts, have yet to find an episode that works the whole way though. Fix it and I'll give you five stars and review love!
Cover image of Lawdibles Audio – Lawdibles

Lawdibles Audio – Lawdibles

Latest release on Mar 08, 2018

Read more

Lawdibles: Your Audio Law Professor. A law professor explaining a narrow area of law understandably and accurately in less than ten minutes.

Rank #1: Secured Transactions: Basics

Podcast cover
Read more

This podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin discusses the nature of security interests, as well as some of the basic vocabulary that you will need to understand the concepts, using the rules set forth in the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9. The rules of Article 9 are state statutory law. The primary terms of art associated with security interests are generally defined in either 1-201 or 9-102, though some definitions are contained elsewhere. This podcast primarily focuses on security interests created under Article 9. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to recognize the following vocabulary and use it correctly: security interest, attach, debtor, creditor, obligation, collateral, promissory note, security agreement, financing statement, priority, default, and possession.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/09/CT16P-ST-Vocab-Basics.mp3

Sep 06 2017

Play

Rank #2: Discussions in Contracts: Fraud and Misrepresentation

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to the assent related defenses of fraud and misrepresentation.There are three sets of defenses that might be used to avoid enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid: (i) capacity related defenses; (ii) assent related defenses; and (iii) public policy related defenses.  At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) explain that a misrepresentation is a statement not in accord with the facts, which might be grounds for the victim to avoid the contract; (2) identify the elements of a misrepresentation defense: (i) the misrepresentation; (ii) the misrepresentation is fraudulent or material; (iii) the misrepresentation induced assent; and (iv) the victim relied and was justified in relying on the misrepresentation; and (3) identify fraud in the factum where assent is obtained by fraudulent means whereby the victim did not know they were assenting to a contract making the contract void.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/12/CON19P-Contracts-Fraud.mp3

Dec 30 2017

Play

Rank #3: Discussions in Contracts: Offer

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to offers. In particular, the podcast examines the basic attributes of offers and also looks at the particular types of communications that are typically not offers, such as advertisements and price quotations. Cases discussed include Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (fur coat ad) and Fairmont Glass Works v. Cruden-Martin Woodenware Co. (mason jars). At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify the elements of an offer; (2) identify commitment to the offer; (3) explain the concepts of certainty of terms and communication to the offeree; and (4) determine when an advertisement or catalogue or price quotation is an offer.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/10/CON39P-Offer.mp3

Oct 18 2017

Play

Rank #4: Discussions in Contracts: Misunderstanding and Mistake

Podcast cover
Read more

This podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin discusses the basic concepts related to the assent related defense of mistake. There are three sets of defenses that might be used to avoid enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid: (i) capacity related defenses; (ii) assent related defenses; and (iii) public policy related defenses.  This podcast will also distinguish the doctrine of misunderstanding, which sometimes gets confused with mistake. Misunderstanding is not a defense at all, but a doctrine that when used prevents contract formation. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) explain that a mistake is simply a belief that is not in accord with the facts; (2) identify and explain the two types of mistakes, unilateral mistakes by one party and mutual mistakes shared by both parties; (3) identify and explain when each will afford a defense to a contract; and (4) explain when a party might bear the risk of a mistake due to allocation of risk by contract, by “conscious ignorance,” or by other circumstances.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/12/CON18P-Contracts-Misunderstanding-Mistake.mp3

Dec 30 2017

Play

Rank #5: Secured Transactions: Priority: Buyers v. Secured Parties

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is which party will prevail in a competition for collateral as between buyers of the collateral and secured parties. While secured parties might expect to prevail with respect to their collateral most of the time, buyers of goods also have expectations that are protected with respect to their purchases. The rules of Article 9 balance expectations so that buyers get good title to what they buy and have protection from pre-existing security interests in some circumstances.

These rules are commonly tested on law school and bar examinations. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) identify and describe the exceptions that permit a buyer of collateral subject to a security interest to take free of the security interest and prevail over a secured creditor; and (2) apply the rules of common factual presentations concerning buyers.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/09/CT22P-ST-Buyers-versus-Secured-Parties.mp3

Sep 06 2017

Play

Rank #6: Character Evidence for Impeachment of a Witness – Arthur Best

Podcast cover
Read more

Evidence about a person’s character for impeachment purposes gets treated differently from evidence about a person’s character to show how he or she acted out of court. What are these differences and why does the law have them?

When a party wants to show how someone acted out of court, using character evidence for that purpose is generally prohibited. But when a party wants to show that a witness likely lied while testifying, character evidence about the witness’s character trait for truthfulness is allowed.  In the first situation, character evidence to show conduct out-of-court, risks of prejudice against the defendant are high, and the vagueness of character evidence is particularly problematic.

When character evidence is offered to show whether a person lied on the witness stand, the risks of prejudice against the defendant are reduced since the witness may not be the defendant. Also, the probative value of the character evidence is likely to be high, since the trait – truthfulness – is clearer than other traits such as violence, and the conduct to which the trait is linked, testifying, may be less complex than much other conduct in the world.

CALI Lesson Pairings: Impeachment and Rehabilitation of Witnesses and Character Evidence Under Federal Rules.

Here’s Professor Best’s faculty bio.

Apr 27 2010

Play

Rank #7: Discussions in Contracts: Option Contracts and Firm Offers

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is how to determine whether the offeror can terminate the offer or whether the offer is irrevocable. Recall that a contract is a promise or set of promises which the law enforces. Ordinarily, the manifestation of mutual assent takes place by virtue of an offer by the offeror, which is then followed by an acceptance by the offeree. Typically, an offeror can revoke an offer freely at any time prior to acceptance, but at times an offer is irrevocable. An offer may be found to be irrevocable in four situations, discussed in this podcast. This podcast includes several examples explaining when an offer may be found to be irrevocable. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify the four common situations in which an offer will be irrevocable: the formation of an option contract; the formation of an option contract through part performance of an offer for a unilateral contract; a firm offer by statute, such as UCC § 2-205; and an option contract arising because of detrimental reliance; (2) evaluate factual situations to determine whether one of these situations will result in an irrevocable offer.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/11/CON41P-Option-Contracts-Firm-Offers.mp3

Nov 02 2017

Play

Rank #8: Discussions in Contracts: Impossibility, Impracticability and Frustration

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is impossibility, impracticability and frustration. Ordinarily we expect the parties to perform their contracts under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, meaning promises are to be kept. Contract law, though, does provide excuse for non-performance (meaning a party is not in breach) in the event of certain contingencies the nonoccurrence of which are basic assumptions of a contract. This podcast covers the three distinct grounds for excuse provided by contract law: (i) impossibility; (ii) impracticability; and (iii) frustration of purpose. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify the three types of doctrines that apply to excuse performance under a contract due to unforeseen events; (2) determine which type of excuse are raised by a fact pattern; (3) apply the relevant test to conclude whether the excuse might be available to a party; and (4) explain when a party might not be able to claim excuse due to allocation of the risk of the event by contract or custom.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/12/CON77P-Contracts-Impossibility-Impracticability-Frustration.mp3

Dec 19 2017

Play

Rank #9: Character Evidence: Evidence law’s anti-propensity inference rule and its exceptions. – Arthur Best

Podcast cover
Read more

Why does so much evidence about a defendant’s character get admitted, even though the law supposedly rejects the propensity inference? This question highlights a fundamental problem in evidence law – the shaky rationale for the anti-propensity rule, and the complications surrounding the many exceptions to the rule. Professor Arthur Best will address these issues and more in this character evidence Lawdible.

Apparently, even though there are big risks of prejudice and imprecision when we admit character evidence to show action in conformity with that character, some common-sense feelings about that evidence support the use of some major exceptions to the prohibition.

A defendant may introduce evidence of his or her own good character and may introduce evidence about an alleged victim’s character for aggressiveness, for example. The prosecution may respond with additional character evidence.  The combination of a general prohibition and a variety of exceptions suggests that the law may have only moderate allegiance to the basic anti-propensity rule.

CALI Lesson pairing: Character Evidence Under Federal Rules

Professor Best’s faculty profile is here.

Apr 20 2010

Play

Rank #10: Discussions in Contracts: Acceptance

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to acceptance of an offer. Acceptance is simply the name given to the action of an offeree in making the offeror’s promise enforceable. This podcast will look at the basic attributes of acceptance, as well as specific issues related to the mirror image rule, the permitted method and manner of acceptance, and acceptance by silence. At the conclusion of this podcast you will be able to (1) explain that acceptance is the promise given in response to an offer; and (2) identify and apply the criteria for an acceptance: (i) commitment to the terms of the offer, (ii) in the method and manner invited or required by the offer; and (iii) made by a person to whom the offer is directed while the offer is still open.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/10/CON61P-Acceptance.mp3

Oct 23 2017

Play

Rank #11: Impeaching a Hearsay Declarant Who Does Not Appear in Court – Arthur Best

Podcast cover
Read more

How can an opponent impeach a hearsay declarant, when the declarant does not appear in court? Find out in this Lawdible.

When hearsay is introduced against a party, that party may impeach the Declarant using any techniques that could be used against a witness who testifies live in court. For example, evidence of past convictions related to truth-telling may be introduced, to show that jury that the declarant has a character trait of untruthfulness. Similarly, opinion and reputation evidence about that character are admissible.  Proof of bias in any form can be introduced to show that the declarant may have had a motive to shade his or her statements in a particular direction.

With regard to inquiring about past bad acts relevant to truth-telling, that technique can be used against a live-in-court witness, but probably cannot be used where a hearsay declarant is sought to be impeached, since the declarant is not on the witness stand to hear and answer a question about his or her past acts.

Here’s Professor Best’s faculty bio.

May 04 2010

Play

Rank #12: Secured Transactions: Scope of Article 9

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is to summarize and evaluate the nature of security interests covered by Article 9. It will also cover transactions that are within the scope of UCC Article 9 even though the parties may not have intended to create a security interest. The primary code section associated with this inquiry is 9-109. This podcast primarily focuses on security interests created under Article 9, with tips for the type of question often asked on bar exams. At the conclusion of the podcast you should be able to (1) recognize transactions that are governed by Article 9; (2) recognize transactions such as sales of accounts and promissory notes that are likewise governed by Article 9; and (3) identify transactions that are not governed by Article 9 because they do not fit within our traditional construct of the security interest or are specifically excluded transactions.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/09/CT11_04P-ST-Scope-Article9.mp3

Sep 06 2017

Play

Rank #13: Payment Systems: Negotiable Instruments Vocabulary

Podcast cover
Read more

In this podcast Professor Jennifer Martin introduces you to the different basic vocabulary and parties you may see when considering a negotiable instrument under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Article 3 is tested on a number of bar examinations. It is always important to correctly identify the transaction and its parties when considering an instrument. An understanding of the basic vocabulary and parties will help you not only use the correct terminology, but also to understand the role of the parties. This podcast will introduce the following terminology: instrument, draft, order, note, promise, check, promissory note, cashier’s check, teller’s check, money order, drawer, drawee, payee, issuer, remitter, maker, instrument, bearer, holder, indorser, and negotiate. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) identify some of the vocabulary ordinarily associated with instruments under Article 3; and (2) identify how they may come up in transactions.

A transcript for this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/09/NP23P-PS-Negotiable-Instruments-Vocab.mp3

Sep 11 2017

Play

Rank #14: Discussions in Contracts: Statute of Frauds under UCC § 2-201

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related Article 2’s statute of frauds. More particularly, we will look at when a contract is governed by § 2-201, the exceptions to the writing requirement of § 2-201, and what type of writing when required is satisfactory. Section 2-201 only applies when there’s a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more and has many exceptions, such that many contracts can be concluded without a writing. At the conclusion of this podcast you should (1) be able to explain and apply the statute of frauds under § 2-201, in particular that: (i) it applies to contracts for the sale of goods of $500 or more; (ii) when applicable, it requires a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought; and (iii) the writing is sufficient to make the contract enforceable even if it has omissions or misstatements, but not beyond the quantity stated; and (2) be able to articulate the four exceptions to the writing requirement of § 2-201: (i) merchant confirmations; (ii) specially manufactured goods; (iii) admissions; and (iv) goods paid for or received and accepted.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/11/CON11_2P-Contracts-Statute-Frauds-2-201.mp3

Nov 21 2017

Play

Rank #15: Secured Transactions: Priority: Purchase Money Security Interests (PMSI)

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is which party will prevail in a competition for collateral as between sellers or lenders having a purchase money security interest (“PMSI”) and other creditors with a security interest in the debtor’s assets. While secured parties might expect to prevail with respect to their collateral most of the time, those sellers and lenders that have a purchase money security interest also have expectations.

This podcast will examine the nature of a PMSI and the rules that come into play to determine which creditor has priority under § 9-324. These rules are commonly tested on law school and bar examinations. A PMSI is simply a specific type of security interest. In order to attach the interest, the attachment rules of § 9-203 still apply, At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) identify and describe what a PMSI is; (2) describe how a secured party can create and perfect a security interest in purchase money collateral; (3) explain the rules governing priority of PMSIs; and (4) apply the rules related to purchase money security interests, including those related to proceeds.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/09/CT20P-ST-Purchase-Money-Security-Interest.mp3

Sep 06 2017

Play

Rank #16: Discussions in Contracts: Incapacity Defenses

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to incapacity defenses to enforcement of a contract, which includes infancy, mental illness, and intoxication. The incapacity defenses seek to protect vulnerable people in society (children, those suffering from mental illness or intoxication) from exploitation by others in the contracting process. At the conclusion of this podcast, (1) you should be able to identify the three defenses related to incapacity: (i) infancy; (ii) mental illness; and (iii) intoxication; and (2) you should be able to describe how and when these defenses can be used to enable a party to rescind a contract otherwise validly entered into.

A transcript of this podcast is here

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/11/CON15P-Contracts-Incapacity-Defenses.mp3

Nov 27 2017

Play

Rank #17: Causation: Criminal Law vs. Torts – Leslie Yalof Garfield

Podcast cover
Read more

In this Lawdible, Prof. Leslie Yalof Garfield of Pace Law School discusses the principles of causation, a concept addressed in several first year courses. Professor Garfield points out the difference and similarities between proving causation in Tort and proving causation in Criminal Law.

The discussion clearly highlights how the two concepts should be treated in each class.

CALI Lesson pairings: Causation in Fact (Torts) and Causation (Criminal Law)

Here’s Professor Garfield’s faculty profile.

Apr 22 2010

Play

Rank #18: Secured Transactions: Possession, Control, and Automatic Perfection

Podcast cover
Read more

This podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin explains how a secured creditor that does not file a financing statement goes about perfecting its security interest in order to prevail against others who might claim the same collateral, and  includes tips about the type of questions that might appear in the bar exam. This topic primarily requires a careful reading of UCC § 9-309 through § 9-314 and a basic understanding of how a secured party attaches its security interest in the first place. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) describe the alternatives of perfecting a security interest by possession or control; and (2) describe when a security interest is automatically perfected because it is a PMSI in consumer goods.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/09/CT13P_ST-PosessionControl.mp3

Sep 06 2017

Play

Rank #19: Discussions in Contracts: Duration of Offers

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is how to determine the duration of the power of acceptance in the offeree and whether that power of acceptance has been terminated. Recall that a contract is a promise or set of promises which the law enforces. Ordinarily, the manifestation of mutual assent takes place by virtue of an offer by the offeror, which is then followed by an acceptance by the offeree. Once an offer is terminated, the power of acceptance is no longer present unless the offeror revives the offer at a later time. Remember that in contracts we use an objective test to evaluate the facts of the situation to determine whether the power of acceptance is still present. That is, what a reasonable person would believe in the circumstances.

At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) define the four methods of terminating an offer prior to acceptance: (i) by rejection or counteroffer by the offeree, (ii) by lapse of the offer, (iii) by revocation by the offeror; or (iv) by death or incapacity of the offeror or the offeree; and (2) evaluate factual situations to determine when a reasonable person would conclude that the power of acceptance is no longer present such that an offeree cannot accept the offer.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/10/CON40P-Contracts-duration.mp3

Oct 24 2017

Play

Rank #20: Payment Systems: Imposters and Fictitious Payees

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast, by Professor Jennifer Martin, is who has responsibility for losses involving imposters and fictitious payees. This topic deals with instruments, typically paper checks and promissory notes. Most individuals don’t use paper checks very often, but checks and promissory notes are still used in many transactions, particularly larger ones. Moreover, financial fraud remains a problem. Not only is this a practice issue, but imposters and fictitious payees are covered in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is tested by a number of states on the bar examination. These loss shifting rules are favorites on bar exams. The primary rule at play here is 3-404. It is important to try and use the correct terminology so in this podcast be on the lookout for the following: imposter, issuer, indorsement, payee, fictitious persons, person whose intent determines to whom an instrument is payable, holder, indorsement, and person entitled to enforce (or sometimes called a PETE). At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to identify when the imposter and fictitious payee rules apply to leave responsibility of losses on issuers and account holders.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/09/NP20P-PS-Imposters-Fictitious-Payees.mp3

Sep 11 2017

Play

Warranties: Discussions in Contracts

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is a basic overview of when warranties are given for the sales of goods under Article 2 of the UCC. An additional podcast will discuss how warranties can be disclaimed or limited. The primary issue in warranty law is what is the level of quality that a buyer can expect in a contract for goods. This podcast will introduce you to express warranties (§ 2-313), implied warranties (§ 2-312), warranty of merchantability (§ 2-314), and implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (§ 2-315). At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify the various warranties that are given by the Code in transactions involving the sale of goods; and (2) explain the remedy the buyer is entitled to when there is a breach of warranty.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2018/03/CON28P-Warranties.mp3

Mar 08 2018

Play

Parol Evidence Rule: Discussions in Contracts

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is the Parol Evidence Rule. In general, there is no probem with oral agreements. There are a few exceptions where the agreement has to be evidenced by a writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, but by and large oral agreements are perfectly valid.

The Parol Evidence Rule is applied where there is both a written agreement and an oral agreement. The Rule doesn’t say that once the parties have reduced their agreement to writing, no evidence of oral understandings is permitted. That would go too far, because there is nothing wrong with an agreement that is partly written and partly oral, which the Restatement of Contracts calls a “partial integration.” The evidence is only excluded when they intend the writing to be the entire agreement, which the Restatement calls a “full integration.” That is where the difficulties come up with applying the parol evidence rule — How do you determine the parties’ intention? That is, how do you determine whether they intended their agreement to be found entirely in the writing?

At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) state the Parol Evidence Rule and determine whether it applies in a particular fact situation, and (2) analyze whether a court will admit the evidence or not if the Parol Evidence Rule does apply.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2018/03/CON06_2-Parol-Evidence-Rule.mp3

Mar 08 2018

Play

U.C.C. § 2-207: Part 1 – Formation of the Contract: Discussions in Contracts

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is formation of the contract under U.C.C. § 2-207. This is the first in a series of three podcasts covering the Battle of the Forms. The second podcast covers Finding the Terms of the Contract. The third covers Written Confirmations. It is best to listen to the podcasts in sequence. This podcasts discuses the “mirror image” and “last shot” rules. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify when forms have different essential terms and explain the different theories for resolving that situation; (2) identify language that makes acceptance expressly conditional; and (3) where the language makes acceptance expressly conditional and the parties create a contract by conduct, you should be able to determine what the terms of the contract are under subsection (3).

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2018/02/CON64_1P-Formation-Contracts.mp3

Feb 23 2018

Play

U.C.C. § 2-207: Part 2 – Finding the Terms of the Contract: Discussions in Contracts

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is U.C.C. § 2-207 Finding the Terms of the Contract. This podcast is the second in a series of three podcasts about § 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a section often referred to as the Battle of the Forms. The first podcast covered Formation of the Contract. It would probably be helpful to listen to that one before listening to this one. The third podcast covers Written Confirmations. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify which form comes from the offeror and which from the offeree; (2) identify the additional and different terms in the offeree’s form; (3) analyze whether an additional term is part of the contract under subsection (2), and if there is a different term, you should be able to explain the three rules that different jurisdictions use to determine the terms of the contract.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2018/02/CON64_2P-UCC-2-207-FindingTerms.mp3

Feb 23 2018

Play

U.C.C. § 2-207: Part 3 – Written Confirmations: Discussions in Contracts

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is written confirmations under § 2-207 of the U.C.C., a section often referred to as the Battle of the Forms. This is the third in a series of podcasts about § 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The first podcast covered Formation of the Contract. The second covered Finding the Terms of the Contract. You might want to listen to those podcasts before undertaking this one. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) analyze the situation when both parties send a confirmation after the parties have formed a contract and the confirmations contain additional or different terms; (2) explain the theory of the “rolling contract” under which the terms become part of the contract when only one party send a contract; and (3) explain and contrast this approach with the approach that applies § 2-207 to this situation, and explain what happens to the additional terms in the confirmation.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2018/02/CON64_3P-UCC-2-207-Confirmation.mp3

Feb 23 2018

Play

Federal Jurisdiction: Discussions in Contracts

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is federal jurisdiction in contracts cases, specifically how the case got to federal court, and what law the federal court will look to in deciding the case. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) determine how that a federal court gets jurisdiction for a case and what law that court will use in deciding the issue; and (2) explain how this information is useful when conducting legal research.sue; and (2) explain how this information is useful when conducting legal research.

A transcript of this podcast is here

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2018/02/CON82P-Federal-Jurisdiction.mp3

Feb 13 2018

Play

Disclaimer of Warranty and Limitation of Remedies: Discussions in Contracts

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott Burnham is Disclaimer of Warranty and Limitation of Remedies. Warranties provided by the default rules of Article 2 are covered in a different podcast. This podcast will provide a basic overview of how the seller may disclaim warranties or limit the remedies for their breach. Topics covered include express warranties, the implied warranty of merchantability,  and disclaiming liability for consequential damages. Examples include an analysis of sections 2-312 and 2-316. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify the various warranties that may be given in a transaction involving the sale of goods, and (2) determine whether a seller has effectively disclaimed those warranties or limited the remedy for breach of warranty.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2018/01/CON83P-Disclaimer-Warranty.mp3

Jan 30 2018

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Fraud and Misrepresentation

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to the assent related defenses of fraud and misrepresentation.There are three sets of defenses that might be used to avoid enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid: (i) capacity related defenses; (ii) assent related defenses; and (iii) public policy related defenses.  At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) explain that a misrepresentation is a statement not in accord with the facts, which might be grounds for the victim to avoid the contract; (2) identify the elements of a misrepresentation defense: (i) the misrepresentation; (ii) the misrepresentation is fraudulent or material; (iii) the misrepresentation induced assent; and (iv) the victim relied and was justified in relying on the misrepresentation; and (3) identify fraud in the factum where assent is obtained by fraudulent means whereby the victim did not know they were assenting to a contract making the contract void.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/12/CON19P-Contracts-Fraud.mp3

Dec 30 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Misunderstanding and Mistake

Podcast cover
Read more

This podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin discusses the basic concepts related to the assent related defense of mistake. There are three sets of defenses that might be used to avoid enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid: (i) capacity related defenses; (ii) assent related defenses; and (iii) public policy related defenses.  This podcast will also distinguish the doctrine of misunderstanding, which sometimes gets confused with mistake. Misunderstanding is not a defense at all, but a doctrine that when used prevents contract formation. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) explain that a mistake is simply a belief that is not in accord with the facts; (2) identify and explain the two types of mistakes, unilateral mistakes by one party and mutual mistakes shared by both parties; (3) identify and explain when each will afford a defense to a contract; and (4) explain when a party might bear the risk of a mistake due to allocation of risk by contract, by “conscious ignorance,” or by other circumstances.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/12/CON18P-Contracts-Misunderstanding-Mistake.mp3

Dec 30 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Duress and Undue Influence

Podcast cover
Read more

There are three sets of defenses that might be used to avoid enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid. The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to two of the assent related defenses, duress and undue influence. The defense of duress exists to protect against contracts that are obtained by some type of threat or coercion. The defense of undue influence exists for a more specialized role, to protect against assent obtained by unfair persuasion. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) distinguish between duress (an improper threat) and undue influence (unfair persuasion); (2) identify which types of threats are improper and distinguish between cases of duress involving physical compulsion making a contract void and other cases where the threat makes a contract voidable; (3) identify relationships that might lead to a claim of undue influence; and (4) describe how and when these defenses can be used to enable a party to rescind a contract otherwise validly entered into (or where the contract might be void as a result of duress resulting from physical compulsion).

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/12/CON16P-Contracts-Duress-Undue-Influence.mp3

Dec 20 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Impossibility, Impracticability and Frustration

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is impossibility, impracticability and frustration. Ordinarily we expect the parties to perform their contracts under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, meaning promises are to be kept. Contract law, though, does provide excuse for non-performance (meaning a party is not in breach) in the event of certain contingencies the nonoccurrence of which are basic assumptions of a contract. This podcast covers the three distinct grounds for excuse provided by contract law: (i) impossibility; (ii) impracticability; and (iii) frustration of purpose. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify the three types of doctrines that apply to excuse performance under a contract due to unforeseen events; (2) determine which type of excuse are raised by a fact pattern; (3) apply the relevant test to conclude whether the excuse might be available to a party; and (4) explain when a party might not be able to claim excuse due to allocation of the risk of the event by contract or custom.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/12/CON77P-Contracts-Impossibility-Impracticability-Frustration.mp3

Dec 19 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Overview and Sources of Contract Law

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the identification of the elements of a claim for breach of contract and the primary sources of contract law. From a legal perspective, the word contract refers to a promise or set of promises for which the law gives a remedy. The primary sources of contract law include the common law and statutory law. The common law is represented first by the decisions of courts. Second, the common law also includes, with a lesser status than court decisions, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and books and articles written about contract law. The statute most often applicable in the area of contracts is Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (sometimes called the UCC). At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) explain the basic issues involved in a contract claim; (2) identify the primary sources of contract law, the common law and Article 2 of the UCC; and (3) explain which law applies to what types of basic transactions.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/12/CON60P-Contract-Overview-Sources.mp3

Dec 08 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Mailbox Rule

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to communications in the contracting process governed by the Mailbox Rule. More particularly, we will look at the rules governing the effect of an offeree’s response by mail or an offeror’s attempt to revoke an offer using the mail. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) explain and apply the mailbox rule, in particular: (i) acceptances are effective upon dispatch and (ii) rejections and revocations of offers are effective upon receipt; and (2) apply the rule in the cases of multiple or overlapping communications.

A transcript of this podcast is here

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/12/CON62P-Contracts-Mailbox.mp3

Dec 07 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Mutual Assent

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to mutual assent to a contract. In particular, we will look at the requirements for contract formation, particularly the promises that indicate assent. We will also look at what is a sufficient manifestation of assent. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) describe the objective “reasonable person” standard applied to determine whether parties have manifested assent to a contract, particularly where a party has a different subjective intent, or social engagement is intended.

A transcript of this podcast is here

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/11/CON37P-Contracts-Mutual-Assent.mp3

Nov 30 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Defenses Overview

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is an introduction to defenses to enforcement of a contract based upon defects in the bargaining process, capacity of one of the parties, or public policy. There are three sets of defenses to enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid. The first set of defenses relate to capacity to contract. There are three capacity related defenses: (i) infancy (where a party is a minor, meaning below the age of majority), (ii) mental illness or defect; and (iii) intoxication. The second set of defenses involves circumstances where a party might argue that their assent to contract was flawed such that enforcement should not be had against them. There are five assent related defenses: (i) mistake; (ii) misrepresentation; (iii) duress; (iv) undue influence; and (v) unconscionability. The last set of defenses relates to contracts that violate societal norms, including illegality and public policy. Each of these defenses have their own elements that dictate whether a party can avoid the contract or whether the contract is simply void.

This podcast introduces the defenses, but an in-depth review of the defenses and their elements are left to other podcasts. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) identify the defenses related to incapacity, assent and public policy; and (2) describe how defenses might render a contract void or might be used to enable a party to rescind a contract otherwise validly entered into.

A transcript of this podcast is here

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/11/CON12P-Contracts-Defenses-Overview.mp3

Nov 30 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Incapacity Defenses

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to incapacity defenses to enforcement of a contract, which includes infancy, mental illness, and intoxication. The incapacity defenses seek to protect vulnerable people in society (children, those suffering from mental illness or intoxication) from exploitation by others in the contracting process. At the conclusion of this podcast, (1) you should be able to identify the three defenses related to incapacity: (i) infancy; (ii) mental illness; and (iii) intoxication; and (2) you should be able to describe how and when these defenses can be used to enable a party to rescind a contract otherwise validly entered into.

A transcript of this podcast is here

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/11/CON15P-Contracts-Incapacity-Defenses.mp3

Nov 27 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Statute of Frauds

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to the types of contracts governed by the statute of frauds — that is, statutes that require evidence of the contract in writing. More particularly, we will look at the categories of contracts governed by the statute, what type of writing satisfies the statute, and exceptions to the statute where a writing is not required. This podcast will introduce the statute of frauds related to sales of goods, but greater discussion of sales contracts will be taken up in a separate podcast. Analysis of a defense based upon the statute of frauds consists of three questions: first, is the contract within a category subject to the statute of frauds that requires evidence of the contract in writing; second, if so, does the contract fall within an exception to the statute of frauds that eliminates the requirement of a writing; and third, if no exception exists, is there a writing evidencing the contract sufficient to satisfy the statute? At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to explain and apply the statute of frauds, in particular: (i) identifying the categories of contracts covered by the statute of frauds; (ii) identifying the common exceptions to the statute of frauds; and (iii) determining whether a writing or writings are sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/11/CON11_1P-Contracts-Statute-Frauds.mp3

Nov 21 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Statute of Frauds under UCC § 2-201

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related Article 2’s statute of frauds. More particularly, we will look at when a contract is governed by § 2-201, the exceptions to the writing requirement of § 2-201, and what type of writing when required is satisfactory. Section 2-201 only applies when there’s a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more and has many exceptions, such that many contracts can be concluded without a writing. At the conclusion of this podcast you should (1) be able to explain and apply the statute of frauds under § 2-201, in particular that: (i) it applies to contracts for the sale of goods of $500 or more; (ii) when applicable, it requires a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought; and (iii) the writing is sufficient to make the contract enforceable even if it has omissions or misstatements, but not beyond the quantity stated; and (2) be able to articulate the four exceptions to the writing requirement of § 2-201: (i) merchant confirmations; (ii) specially manufactured goods; (iii) admissions; and (iv) goods paid for or received and accepted.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/11/CON11_2P-Contracts-Statute-Frauds-2-201.mp3

Nov 21 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Invitations to Negotiate

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast, by Professor Jennifer Martin,  is the basic concepts related to invitations to negotiate or preliminary negotiations and other types of communications that are not offers. In particular, we will look at the basic attributes of advertisements, price quotations, invitations to bid, and auction sales. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify the four types of communications that are typically not offers, but rather invitations to negotiate: (i) advertisements; (ii) catalogs and price quotations; (iii) requests for bids; and (iv) an auctioneer beginning an auction, and (2) describe when an offer might be made in response to one of these types of communications.

A transcript of this podcast is here

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/11/CON38P-Contracts-invitations-negotiate.mp3

Nov 17 2017

Play

Discussions in Contracts: Option Contracts and Firm Offers

Podcast cover
Read more

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is how to determine whether the offeror can terminate the offer or whether the offer is irrevocable. Recall that a contract is a promise or set of promises which the law enforces. Ordinarily, the manifestation of mutual assent takes place by virtue of an offer by the offeror, which is then followed by an acceptance by the offeree. Typically, an offeror can revoke an offer freely at any time prior to acceptance, but at times an offer is irrevocable. An offer may be found to be irrevocable in four situations, discussed in this podcast. This podcast includes several examples explaining when an offer may be found to be irrevocable. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify the four common situations in which an offer will be irrevocable: the formation of an option contract; the formation of an option contract through part performance of an offer for a unilateral contract; a firm offer by statute, such as UCC § 2-205; and an option contract arising because of detrimental reliance; (2) evaluate factual situations to determine whether one of these situations will result in an irrevocable offer.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

http://lawdibles.classcaster.net/files/2017/11/CON41P-Option-Contracts-Firm-Offers.mp3

Nov 02 2017

Play

iTunes Ratings

18 Ratings
Average Ratings
10
2
3
2
1

Helpful content but some annoying issues

By annieave - Jul 25 2019
Read more
The content is really helpful, and the examples are clear. But you can't pause or skip back or ahead, and you can't see how long the episode is or how far in are. If you pause, the whole thing starts over. And you can't drag the slide to go back to where you left off. So that's extremely annoying. Also, way less of a thing, but the professor's voice is kind of like the tone you use when you're reading a kids' book, or explaining something to an idiot. I don't mind it that much because I'm kind of an idiot. But it might be annoying.

Fix, please!!

By Lastblues - Apr 12 2016
Read more
Seems like it would be a really valuable resource if it did not have technical issues. Basically it skips and restarts, have yet to find an episode that works the whole way though. Fix it and I'll give you five stars and review love!