Welcome to Part II of my "Misinformation from Contract Class" series. Today's installment revolves around the legal theory of rewards. In essence, a reward is simply a unilateral contract -- meaning there is an agreement to pay for a service. Let me give a quick hypo to illustrate what we were told in class:Doggy in the Window Hypo:Jack is out enjoying a walk in Central Park when he sees a cute Terrier puppy that he recognizes -- it looks exactly like a puppy that he has seen in the window of a building on his way to work. Jack picks up the puppy and carries it to the building and knocks on the door. A woman with red eyes and a tissue in her hands opens the door, then exclaims, "PRINCESS!" while grabbing the puppy from Jack's hands. While the woman plays with her puppy, Jack looks through the door and sees a giant stack of REWARD posters. Apparently, the woman had been advertising a $5000 reward for Princess. Jack asks the woman for the money and she refuses.My professor indicated that Jack would be entitled to recover. His rationale was that "motive doesn't matter." This stuck me as off ...

I was sitting in my contracts class yesterday, listening to one of my erudite classmates discuss ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), which deals with shrink-wrap licensing in software purchases. I was happily following along with the conversation until the professor began discussing why he felt the court erred in considering the Uniform Commercial Code to be applicable to the case. His contention is that the UCC's definition of "goods" specifically pertains to tangible objects, and because a computer database is intangible, software purchased in a store such as Best Buy should not be considered a "good."Here is the definition of "good" from the UCC:(1) "Goods" means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities ( Article 8 ) and things in action. "Goods" also includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed from realty (Section 2-107).U.C.C. § 2-105I decided to try to clear up my confusion by asking a question in class, ...

Let's talk about internet gambling for a moment. You do know that it's illegal in the US, right? I only ask because apparently a significant number of people that gamble online don't realize that it is against the law (my ex-roommate, who was a compulsive online gambler, for instance).1 I sat through my cyberlaw class the other day where several students put forth the argument that online gambling should be legal because the user is "virtually sitting in" the jurisdiction where gambling is legal.  That argument really baffles me. Anybody that has been to a casino recently knows that a significant portion of the gambling is done on computers. Essentially, when you execute the code on your computer, you're sitting in front of the exact same type of terminal that you would be sitting in front of in a casino. In essence, it's tantamount to renting a "gambling terminal" from a casino, taking it home, and expecting to legally be able to cash in on your winnings by bringing it back to the casino when you're done gambling. Thoughts? 1 "Vince" brought to my attention 31 USCS § 5362(10), which definitely allows for some legal internet gambling. See my professor's comments on this entry ...

Adam Liptak published this article at the New York Times today. I find the topic of digital privacy to be exceptionally interesting. While I don't particularly have a problem with customs stopping me to look through my luggage, I don't particularly like the idea of them flipping through my journal. Imagine how ridiculous this conversation would be: Customs Agent: What's this? Me: My journal... it's very persona... * Customs Agent opens up the journal and begins reading it, making faces as he reads. * Customs Agent: I see that you let your little sister have some champagne on New Years. Me: Well, yes, but... Customs Agent: Hah! So you admit it? You're under arrest. Essentially, that's what happened in the cases to which Mr. Liptak is referring. So why does the government have the right to do this? What happened to the Fourth Amendment? The answer is that the government relaxed the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, mostly to fight drug smuggling. In 1977, the Supreme Court stated that a standard of "reasonable cause" to conduct a warrantless search of someone attempting to cross the U.S. border -- later reinterpreted in some circuits to include an airport terminal where the destination is the United States. United States v. Okafor, ...

I'm back from Tennessee, and realizing how much I have to do before next semester begins. Most noteworthy, I have to become certified for the Volunteer Incoming Tax Assistance Program, and finish sending out my summer associate applications. In my search for firms in the Boston area, I came across this series of advertisements on the Choate Hall & Stewart website. The idea is definitely amusing. The firm has apparently enabled comments on the video, which is impressively bold. They had to foresee comments like the following:     Back to the hunt!