Inside the Classroom: Contracts With Professor George Cohen

all right so so here reverse in way as I said a very famous case another one of these cases like Lucy versus Zener that almost all law students will read in the first year of law school for reasons that having read the case you may find somewhat difficult to fathom why is this case so famous or it seems like a pretty trivial what kind of game is important to the people who are involved here but it's an old case right and you know the how what relevance does this have to modify this and yet it is a case that everyone is familiar with at least to some to some degree okay so let's see if we can figure out what's going on in in Hamer vs. it way and so let's see mr. Watson how about you so tell us what was what was happening what's going on in Hagar okay that's that's the first weird thing about the case right in case in case it's not confusing enough we got to figure out who Hamer and siddaway are okay so who are these people Marin suddenly if they're not the people who were really involved in the game okay and it's signed that's correct so what does that mean an assignee somebody else take his place right so what's kind of a transfer of whatever you're entitled to under the contract you can transfer it to to someone else you can transfer part of the contract which of course we've already seen in Lucy right because he transfers you know he may he makes the brother doesn't make the contract with tzemre so Lucy makes the contract and then he gives a half interest to the brother so that's an assignment that's another kind of assignment in this case there was a complete assignment of whatever rights that the person who made the assignment had are given to this other person and it turns out that assigning contracts is a very important thing in the commercial world so to go back to and let's say real estate which we were talking about a minute ago and mortgages write mortgages and this is something else that happened in the financial crisis mortgages get assigned by the original bank that makes the loan they assign them and that's one way you get the securitization because you get all these loans assigned to this big pool and then they get cut up and sliced and diced into these different pieces and then sold to to investors so that all comes about because of assignment all right so we have an assign to this person hamer ok so who's the who CID with it well we'll call it testator right so oh I mean that's actually good that you said or right so remember or for me a promise or promise see right you know so same thing with assignment so you have Ashton oars and a Sunni so the a sanur is the person making the assignment the asset E is the person to whom the assignment is made so Hamer is actually at the acid knee to use the technical term all right so you said tested all right so what does it taste test dater brilliant story the older in story right and they were related how uncle and nephew yeah so we'll call them uncle and nephew because it's easier because they're there but their mother the same name otherwise would be Willie the first Willie the second one all right so uncle and nephew all right so we have the article we have the nephew and what's happened to the uncle the uncle dies so what happens when someone dies that's right so someone represents the state in order to give out the money that is owed to other people including maybe people who you have contracts with right and so so the so the person who does that is in charge of the estate is not actually the testator the testator's the person who died and the the testate part is you write a will right so meaning that if you die or I mean you may have heard the phrase die intestate that is without a will right and you learn about this a little bit in property and we have all course on wills and estates and everything all right but so that's the test later but the executor is the person who's in charge of these say and that's sidwich okay so we have Hamer who is basically in the position of which one the the nephew suing siddaway who's in the position of the uncle so even though the dispute is between nephew and uncle it's between the actual suit is between this Hamer person the assignee and the executor of the uncle's estate sittwe okay so now we got all that cleared away well that observe polarity so cleared right so what actually happened in those days smoking gambling bad things yes but smoking and drinking and gambling okay all those things swearing you know when he turned 21 okay so the alcohol makes this promise to the nephew that you know if you if you don't do all these bad things I will give you this money I'll give you five thousand dollars when you turn 21 hundred twenty first birthday okay so that gives rise to this view because the uncle allegedly never pays and now we have the estate the uncle having died and the nephew wants to or the nephews pasady Hamer wants to collect from the estate you know from the uncles pot of money that the uncle had after the the uncle died and the uncle was a relatively rich person obviously and so is this money is worth going after so we have we have this lawsuit okay now let's kind of connect it up before we get to what the court says let's connect it up to what we learned so far we actually learned some things you may not realize all right so you learned a few things so first of all what we learn we learn two different rules or you know depending on how you count them we've learned about capacity it's a contract and we've learned about intent and particularly the objective theory of contract but that's part of the idea that you know you have to have intend to make a contract all right so let's start with capacity do we have a capacity problem here we had a nephew when the nephew and the uncle had this interaction at some family get-together as a party of some sort the nephew was less than 21 right several years less than 21 so we have someone who was a miner we learned something about miners right and capacity and the like so here we'd only had an issue of whether the uncle knew that nephew was a miner or not right it's not you know the bearded 14 year old that you have no idea who it is right so the alcohol obviously knows how old the nephew is there's no question about that so what that is that a problem he's learned something okay yes right so in his voice so if the nephew didn't want to go through with it right the nephew could get out of it but if the nephew wants to enforce it or the nephews representative wants to enforce it the nephew can do that now it also turns out that even if there was some kind of issue with the nephew once you turn 21 once you become an adult you can ratify a contract even if it's if it was originally unenforceable and so that's another way you could justify it but but yeah so it's the nephew who is or the nephews assignee who's trying to enforce it so we don't really have a capacity issue okay so so that's one thing good all right so you learned that all right now we also talked a little bit about assent all right so do we have a question of assent here is there a problem so let's start with the uncle did the uncle now that we know how to use the words did he manifest an intent to contract with enough all right so he but he only said so he said it okay he said he would do he actually made the problem so he manifested an intent that if you stop smoking drink you know for some period of time I will pay you this money alright so he manifested an intent okay what about the nephew did the nephew manifest an intent explicitly promised to the expectation all right yeah I keep e manifested the intent fight so I'm not sure if it's a qualified by in the form of actually abiding by the ethical issues over the intervening years okay yeah well I think it does right doesn't it right so one of the ways you can manifest intent is by your actions right you can do it by your words by making an explicit promise or you can do it by your actions or in some cases by your own actions which is what's going on in this case the refraining from smoking and drinking and the and the like so it could be either one right now it turns out the nephew actually at least according to one you know the the way the courts say it's the fact here it says there's an allegation that the nephew actually did say he agreed right so he did seem to say something but he also acted in such a way that the uncle wanted now it turns out and if you if you looked at the notes after the case it turns out that those are actually two different kinds of contracts do you remember what the kinds are no okay so someone yeah unilateral versus bilateral okay so do you have any idea what that means [Music] service or reward and then the other person doesn't have to write their what okay so one person can make a promise and and the reward is kind of a classic example as the casebook author's mentioned right I promise to pay $100 to you if you find my lost cat right and if you find the lost cat then you're entitled to the hundred dollars right so its unilateral in the sense that only one person is making a promise the person who's promising $100 whereas in a bilateral contract we have two people making promises and the key difference between them is what in the unilateral contract if I say I promise to pay $100 if you find my lost cat what happens if you don't find my lost cat nothing nothing right there's no consequence however if I promise to pay you $100 and you promise to find my lost cat and you don't find it then you may have breached the country right so it makes a difference in some cases depending on what's going on whether it's you lateral or bilateral not only because there's one or more promises but because in a unilateral contract you don't actually have to perform it's just that you're not going to be entitled to pay be paid unless you do perform all right so that's unilateral vs. vs. bilateral it also the fact that they there's this idea of you matter of contracts may help explain why the definition to go back to section 1 of the Restatement the definition of contracts why is it defined in terms of a promise that's enforceable as opposed to an agreement so one reason may be if you have a unilateral contract what you have is an enforceable promise the promise becomes enforceable and the other person let's say finds the lost cat as opposed to an agreement where both parties are making a commitment up front and there can be consequences if either one doesn't perform all right so that's unilateral versus violator okay so that's neutral and so we have arguably pretty I would say pretty pretty strong evidence of assent by the uncle he's made the promise by the nephew he's done what he was supposed to do so are we done right is that enough to have a country consideration oh yes consideration the bane of every first-year students existence what the heck is this all right but the first thing to note is this is pretty weird all right so now we have this idea we have two people who want to make a country they want to I mean they've done what they agreed to do they fully assent it there's no joking there's no drink drinking going on here there's no bluffing and they're hearing that stuff they want to make a contract and the court is saying not enough not enough that you people want to make a contract that you want to have an enforceable deal there's some other requirement consideration but what the heck is that all about all right so I mean this is great we were in law school a week right you know you can now call your parents tonight and tell them all right here's what I learned in contract so for my first case we learned that you know courts sometimes enforce contracts that people don't want to make in the second case I read I learned the courts don't enforce promises that people do one of me right what a great system we live this is contract so for this is why I want all right so we have this thing where people the courts will sometimes not enforce promises even though the people intended to make them because of something called consideration right so that's what this case is about that there's this other requirement and here if you took a look at section 17 of the Restatement it actually says this there's two requirements there's two things you need in order to have a contract despite my simplified standing on one leg rule that courts enforce voluntarily agreed upon agreements and lawful and voluntary agreements according to the mutual intentions of the parties that apparently is not enough you need something else right according to the Restatement you need a manifestation of mutual assent which we have here and this other thing called a consideration and that's what we're trying to figure out and that's what hammer versus Sid way is is all about in this in this case okay so that's what we have here so now I just well before we get to the edge okay so I want to talk a little bit about what is this consideration requirement mean how does it connect if at all with the idea of intention and so one possibility is alright what we're talking about here is enforceable promises so maybe it has something to do with the idea that look you know you may intend to make a promise but you're not really thinking about it being enforceable and so maybe this has something to do with the idea that well you need to have an intention to make a promise enforceable before a court will enforce it's not enough just to have an intention to make a promise you have to intend enforceability is that what it's about that yeah is that what this is all about I'm trying to figure this is gonna take us a while to figure out what this all about but is this is this is my first stab mat is this what it's about 50/50 chance right yes let's say you want a phone a friend here let's see there's anything anyone want to have anyone have a guess whether is is this what it's about is is it a requirement to have an enforceable contract that the parties intend that the promise be legally enforceable yeah miss Keach right okay you don't think so you have a source for that or a just your your intuition okay the tzemre case right so how does that support that idea right and he certainly you know so he doesn't think he intended to make the cell deform at all let alone have it be legally enforceable so here we have a court that's enforcing something where there's no discussion of the law that the parties had any clue that this was legal in force I mean maybe they intended to have it be legally enforceable maybe they didn't but it turns out that this is not a requirement which is also kind of interesting and it goes with the objective theory of intent it's actually mentioned in section 21 of the Restatement that you that there is no need to have an intention to have a country promise be legal enforceable if you act and it is kind of consistent with Lucy if you act in such a way that you are manifesting a promise to someone else and the other requirements are satisfied you don't need any further intent to to to be legally bound right although it does say and we'll come back to this that if you sort of manifest an intention not to be bound that can be relevant but you don't have to specifically intend intend or manifest an intention to be legally bound so it's not about that so what is it about is there any kind of intent to which consideration is relevant so if it's not about intent to make a promise it's not about intent to have a promise be legally enforceable is there another kind of intent that consideration is relevant to so do you have any sense after reading this case and the notes after this case is about what consideration is supposed to be doing what is it trying to distinguish just as a general matter before we get into the technical nitty-gritty of benefits and detriments and almost kind of nonsense so what is it trying to do so Ms Brown okay so a gift and well get to the promise a bargain okay so a gift and a bargain right so yeah so the idea seems to be that if you're making a promise of a gift or what we would call a gratuitous promise that somehow is not enforceable because it lacks consideration whereas if you make a promise that's part of a bargain that is enforceable because there is consideration so so really this is all about how do we distinguish between those two things right we have the intention to make a gift for which there's no consideration here's a classic example of an intent to make a gift I promise to pay you five thousand dollars on your 21st birthday that is a - it is promise it's a gift it's a promise to make a gift and for some reason which were we haven't talked about yet but we will get - for some reason courts have decided that's not enforceable all right on the other hand if the intention is to make a bargain such as I promise to pay you five thousand dollars if you paint my house that is considered a bargain for which there is consideration and it is enforceable all right so intention does matter at least to this extent if the parties intended only to have a gift promised be going on it would not be enforceable but if their intention is to have a bargain with each other it is enforceable and the question then becomes alright how do we know the difference how do we tell the difference between a gift promise and a bargain problems and so that's what the that's what the case is is about okay so let us then take a look at what Hamer says about this all right so we have to make this distinction so what is the test what is the rule for consideration here mr. was well let's let's talk about the uncle Luo nephew I like that it's easy I can remember uncle and nephew correct yes I want to get to that in a second but so but what it what is any silly the uncle's lawyer is kind of making use of or or trying to make an argument from the basic rule that everyone that had understood and that the court actually states here so let's just get the basic rule out on the table and then we can talk about what the uncle is saying about okay all right well benefits definitely their benefit is in there somewhere alright so you're definitely on the right track okay so let's start with that say when you said it so it is one of these words you want to be careful about you know it what is it all right so when we're talking about it what are we talking about we're talking about all right we're getting closer all right so you said a contract it requires benefits to begin to confer all right so as I said you know benefits are in there and then and we are talking about contract is one way to put it but the other way to put it is what so yeah okay the other party all right so we're still like which party the promisee okay so in order to have consideration for what do we have consideration you said contract which is not exactly right we're looking at consideration for what not exactly whose promise the promise the humble is making the promise right and the promise or here is the uncle right because the uncle is the one who is in performing remember promise or when we use that term we're using the term even if most parties made promises which may or may not have been the case here but we're talking about the person who didn't keep their promise which in this case is the uncle okay so the uncle is the promise or so in so the question is is there consideration for the uncle's promise that's the question and in order to have consideration for a promise there are two possible ways to do it two possible ways one is the benefit way right if there is a benefit to whom promise or or the other way then when the mr. Shelton was identifying detriment to the promisee so either one either a benefit to the promise or or a detriment to the promisee and sometimes this is referred to as the benefit detriment test for consideration you can have a promise be enforceable if there's either a benefit to the promise or uncle in this case or a detriment to the promisee the nephew in this case all right so that's some fancy language here benefits detriment since integration all this stuff all right so let's just take the simplest case right we started with the gratuitous right so we know that gratuitous promises are not supposed to be enforceable all right so if the promise is I promise to pay you a $5,000 on your 21st birthday that is not enforceable there is no consideration for it all right so we have the benefit detriment test how under the benefit detriment test does that fail okay so the promise or is not getting any benefit because the problems were is actually giving away money right so they're not getting anything in return for it and if someone just says I promise to give you $5,000 without any requirements that you do anything the person to whom the promise is made is not incurring a detriment is not doing anything in order to get that money or at least that's how we might phrase it and so therefore that is not enforceable under the doctrine of consideration under the benefit detriment test all right everyone got that so far okay yeah I cease nodding heads good all right so as compared to the painting situation all right so the painting situation is a I'll use the Restatement letters okay a and B are so a promises to pay B to paint to pay B to paint a house and B paints the house and then a refuses to pay okay so how does the benefit that whose the promise or in this case very good all right so a has promised to pay and is not paying okay contravene it caught me of course okay so so when you say be fulfilled bees end of the bargain so in other words is there a detriment under if we use the benefit detriment language what's the debt the bit whether what's the detriment to be and you know should be paid because be did this work so a has gotten the benefit of this house and should pay for it because they got the benefit at the same time be has done all this work and should be required to be compensated for for the work that be did all right so under either the benefit or the detriment side that situation is enforceable so we have kind of what we would call the paradigm cases not enforceable and enforceable all right which brings us to Haman okay so what is the alleged consideration for the uncle's promise in Hamer vs. engage in that behavior or on the other end the detriment to the not to engage in this okay so they the refraining or the not engaging in the smoking drinking swearing and all that kind of gambling stuff that is the consideration for the uncle's promise that is the thing that has to be either a detriment to the nephew to the promisee or a benefit to the uncle and you sort of talked about both of those okay so that's the alleged consideration so here's a nice little diagram right you like that okay so here we have the uncle who's the promise or has made the promise of $5,000 to the nephew who is the promise see all right we all get that and the consideration which is running in the other direction is the no drunk no drinking smoking swearing and that kind of stuff all right that has to be either a detriment and I put in parentheses here reliance which is another word the more kind of modernish word that we use to talk about someone who does something in response to a promise they rely on it like in Lucy versus Emer Lucy going out and spending the money on a lawyer to check the title and all that kind of stuff that is a kind of Reliance but the old-fashioned word for that is detriment alright so there's either got to be a detriment to the promisee the nephew or some kind of benefit and here I put in parentheses restitution people will talk about that that restitution is another way of kind of characterizing this idea that that someone who gets a benefit without paying for it you know just should should be required to to pay for the benefit that they've gotten that is sometimes referred to as restitution we'll come back to that as well all right so that's the idea that's the consideration that is alleged in the case in Hamer versus Italy all right so everyone with us so far okay good I don't see any people kind of completely their heads exploding yet alright so that's good all right so now now we're ready for the argument the good the good part so here what is the lawyer for the uncle the clever lawyer for the uncle who looks at this benefit detriment test and says aha I have a way out of this and so what is the lawyers clever argument far from suffering a detriment is better off for not having smoked or drank or swearing alright yeah yeah so you got it backwards the lawyers saying you know it's it's the the the benefit if you're talking about the benefits I agree we have to be talking about a benefit to the promise or here where there's got to be a detriment to the promisee here you've got it exactly the reverse there was a benefit to the promisee and so it doesn't really satisfy the test right there is no detriment here to the nephew to the promisee but rather a benefit because the nephew became this wonderful person right he doesn't smoke he doesn't drink he doesn't swear he doesn't gamble and all this kind of thing you know what a great thing for him you know and so how could you possibly call that a detriment so that's the uncle's argument to which the court says what oh I love that it's a detriment in a legal sense okay yeah we're going to talk about that so yes the court says it is a detriment in a legal sense which is one of these things where you say we're you you don't know what to say it's a legal detriment okay anything else does it say anything else besides that that it's a detriment in a legal sense any other language yet mr. Wyatt what the nephew restricted his freedom of action so he could have okay so he could have done it legally but he didn't do it and so that does count as a detriment so the court does say that and I want to talk about that anything else that they say they don't say very much is actually pretty short opinion so yes well it was easy didn't you just didn't do it it was easy okay yeah so it's not the court we're not getting into that we're not going to make these kind of value judgments or judgments about how easy or hard it was for you to do it was enough that the nephew just follow the instructions and didn't didn't do it okay yeah so that's what they say right very good so that's what they say about the benefits line so I want to talk about that but I want to put that to one side for a second and focus on the detriment because this argument was about the debt the main Oregon was about the detriment and we'll get to the benefit but the court does say that so so alright so let's let's take a look at these in a little bit more detail so the courts analysis is and I want to start with this one which is sometimes referred to as the peppercorn theory or the adequacy of consideration doctrine and you know so this is one thing that that you refer to right so courts are not going to ask whether the thing which forms the consideration actually benefits the promisee which is the argument that the uncles lawyer is trying to make we're not going to ask that question we're not going to get into that discussion or is of any substantial value to any more we don't care whether what the nephew did was a value what benefited the nephew or didn't benefit the nephew we don't care about that so which is kind of an interesting idea right so they also talked about the fact that we don't have to speculate on the effort in this mr. Lall mention this right we ought to spec it on any effort which may have been required to give up the use of the stimulants right drinking and smoking and those are those guys we don't have to ask that question that's sort of off the table all right so now this is kind of an interesting idea to start with and do you have a sense so if we go back to our stories of contracts remember the two stories what does this sound like what is the courts philosophy here if you want to put it or ideology if you want to be a little bit more perhaps pointed about it what what what is reflected what view of the world is reflected in this idea that we're not going to get into this when we were thinking about whether or not contract should be enforceable or promises should be enforceable we're not going to get into this question of well did this person really suffer a detriment or get a benefit in in any kind of actual sense we're just not going to get into those why not what are they trying to promote yep yeah freedom of contract in our society in our economic and political system we let people do what they want right we give people the freedom to write the contracts that they want to make the deals that they want we don't require them we don't tell them what to do that's what makes our system so wonderful right and and leads to all these great outcomes and so we're not going to do that here we're not going to ask those questions because we believe in freedom of contract right so that story seems to be reflected in this in this idea and it also shows up in the Restatement as well if you took a look at section 79 for example it says if you satisfy the requirement of consideration we're not going to ask about the equivalence of the values exchange so go back for a minute to Lucy versus Emer and specific performance where the court says well this was a fair price now we're not kidding we don't care about that we don't care whether there's a good price a bit price we don't care whether things that were exchanged or equivalent in any meaningful sense we're just not going to get into that kind of discussion because we believe in in freedom of contract here's another statement of a similar kind of thing in the comment section 79 right the parties are free to fix their own valuations right again freedom of contract we let people do what they want to do there's only one problem with that in this context here anyone see something of a problem with the idea that we believe in a freedom of contract we let people do what they want to do which is what is reflected in this adequacy of consideration doctrine anyone see a problem with that existing at the same time as the doctrine of consideration yes mr. Watson right yeah the whole idea of consideration is inconsistent with freedom of contract right because you know we where the courts are just deciding on their own that gratuitous promise you should not be enforceable not because people don't want them to be enforceable right because we don't care about whether people intended legal enforceability or not but because the courts in their infinite wisdom have just decided for one reason or another that gratuitous promises should not be enforceable completely inconsistent with freedom of contract and yet and yet here the quarter all we care a lot and the Restatement we care a lot about freedom of contract we care so much that we're not gonna even ask the question about that so there's a little bit of a kind of interesting you know kind of two contradictory things going on at the same time we believe in it but we don't really believe in it okay so how do we sort of how do we serve so there's the first problem you want to see why you're white consideration is so confusing how do we figure this out and you know very smart people philosophers have kind of struggled with this idea you know how do we make sense of this idea of consideration given the commitment to freedom of contract how do we how do we do it all right so we'll come back to that question but that's that's where this is coming from okay so so now the other thing that the court says so the first thing the court says is we're not going to get into this question of whether the nephew really got a benefit out of this because that's not our job you know that's inconsistent with the idea that party should be able to do what they want but the court also gives this other explanation which is okay well but the nephew was actually giving up something he did encourage detriment the detriment was he gave up a legal right he had a legal right to do the things that he was doing and he gave that up and that is enough of a detriment regardless of how much it was valued or whether there was some kind of benefit in some natural sense to the to the nephew right so there here's the language from the court's opinion it is sufficient that the nephew restricted his lawful freedom of action within certain prescribed limits upon the faith of the uncle's agreement so he restricted his lawful freedom of action that is enough of a detriment to satisfy the detriment side of the benefit detriment test okay so now the court is not making this up either the court is relying on prior cases that had hell that in some cases in some situations if you give up a legal right that can count as a detriment and can count as consideration for a promise so so the question I want to ask here is alright where did this come from this idea that giving up a legal right can create an enforceable contract so again we're not knowing that much about contracts can we think of a kind of category of contracts where this has to be the case that is you make a contract in which you give up some legal right that you have all right well you give up some legal right that you have and that's enforceable what are the most common contracts where the whole purpose of them is to give up your legal rights you have a cook yes mr. Wilson yes well employees where you often do give them lots of legal rights and we're to talk about them so yes but any other any other examples yeah moves left okay yeah that's true so yeah and lots of those kinds of contracts like employment or Veiler tenant you are giving up certain kinds of legal rights but what kind of contract is the whole point of it is to give up legal so there's lots of other things going on and landlord tenant or in employment contracts besides giving up legal rights but what kind of contract the whole idea of it is to give up your legal rights yes liability waiver or suppose you have a lawsuit right what's the most common resolution of a lawsuit oh very good yeah yeah it's a procedure all right yeah a settlement what is a settlement it's a contract it's an agreement right between two people what happens in a settlement agreement the parties are giving up their legal rights right or their you know one side is good the plaintiff let's say says I give up my legal right to continue with this lawsuit against you and in return you pay me money that is a settlement and the whole point that that is you give up your legal rights so of course it was the case in the law that if you give up your legal rights to something that can count as consideration otherwise settlement agreements wouldn't be enforceable right and of course the settlement agreements hadn't been enforceable forever and that's how we that's how we resolve most of the legal that's what we resolved most of legal suits alright so I mean we're we're pretty much out of time but let me just leave you with this one question so okay this is mentioned in the book all right so you're giving up a legal right suppose that it's illegal for the nephew to drink before he's 21 which it may very very well have been right does that make a difference right now the court says you know the main thing is if you're giving up a legal right to do something well suppose you don't have the legal right to do it right so is it necessary to to give up your legal right in order for it to be a detriment and a kind of consideration and I'll put on one thing just to finish up this the slide the other question is and we can come back to these tomorrow this sufficiency question right so what if the OCO promises the nephew that I'll give you five thousand dollars if you refrain from eating spiders between now and your 21st birthday right here you do have a legal right but with that be enforceable would that make a promise by the uncle enforceable because the nephew is giving up a legal right to eat spiders all right all right so if you give up that legal right then it's an enforceable promise all right so I want to start tomorrow with those two questions and we'll talk a little bit about some of the other interesting difficulties with the the court's opinion and then we will see how the Restatement and its wonderful wisdom resolve this question and clears up all difficulties with section 71 all right so if you haven't read section 71 and then the comments and the illustrations we will talk about section 71 tomorrow as well we won't get past a hammer but we will try to finish it up tomorrow all right see you then you

Channel: University of Virginia School of Law

Views: 18,831

Rating: 4.927536 out of 5

Keywords: George Cohen, UVA Law, contracts, contract law, Hamer v. Sidway, law school, Law school class, University of Virginia, Cohen, UVA, sample class

Id: iUQhRXuoRSM

Length: 41min 17sec (2477 seconds)

Published: Mon Oct 29 2018