Legal English Spring 2023 KPI
Organizers:
- Organized by
-
7.3 Reaction to Lefkowitz
7.3 Reaction to Lefkowitz
a. In which law school class do you think you would read this case?
b. How difficult was reading the case? Easy? Hard? Were some parts more difficult than others?
c. Do you think you understand the law after reading this case?
d. What element of contract formation was at issue in this case?
- 5 Replies
I’m not sure about especially this case, but I would read such kind of cases in Contract Law classes of law schools from the USA, England, Canada, New Sealand, Australia, some insular territories and other countries of common law. Reading this text was rather difficult for me. It is hard readable text. Particularly sentences 1, 8-10, 20, 28, 31. Hard words are “dispose the objection”, “sufficient mutuality of obligation”, :court was correct in holding that:, withdrawn without notice, items of merchandise for sale, disallowed, at the appropriate counter, finding, house rule. I think such expressions are elements of court’s language, some kind of clericalism. Several sentenses consist of many parts and it is hard to catch connection each to another. There are 10-20 rarely used words with multiplied meaning, and it is hard to guess definite sense from the context. But second time reading was easier, since I knew those words. I’m not sure if I understand the law,, because the only law I found is called “test”. If that “test” is law or rule – I may say, thatt I understand law in that case. The law is .
Thanks for these comments. Your questions are always so helpful. I’ll get back to you regarding these points. Meanwhile, I hope if your colleagues see your questions that they might be able to respond, too.
Unfortunately, my colleagues are rather lazy, as it seems to me) Thus they don’t read my replies. Might be they believe that language studying is a fairytale game, but not a hard work)
The law is simple, but very generally. For example words “promised in positive terms” are undefined. It is not so law but what justice think about law.
The offer was at issue in that case. The court has found that in thas particularly case advertisement is an offer. But grounds of such finding look like casuistic.