Ridazz Roulette!






The Days of Our Ridazz.


NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.



Topic Box:
 
   1 - 250 of 18636 Topics

The Passage of a Few...   493
I SAW YOU !   841
Lurkers   6
Coaster Brake Challe...   6
PROJECT PHOTO RIDE   12
STREET pLAy   16
SINS and SPROCKETS d...   6
July 2nd-Friday 2014...   7
M.R. 2nd Friday's 2...   114
Missing helmet!   0
I miss MR   45
S K I D Pasadena   0
CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVE...   9
Wolfpack Civic Ctr C...   1
LOS ANGELOPES!   79
Choppercabras 13th a...   14
Velocio   3
ATT: BORFO   7
ONE POST A DAY   103
BMX Tuesday   3
THE DARK CENTURY   120
EDDIEBOYINLA farewel...   10
Atomic Cycles Events...   4
attn Stilline   4
SCUMBAG 2013   38
* THE RIDE WITH NO N...   327
I miss Mandigo   9
Stolen Bike   0
Blackie vs Whitey   45
!-!-!-! PIER PRESSUR...   0
WESTERN RIDAZZ TO RI...   0
CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVE...   31
tagging last night i...   1
River Ride Volunteer...   0
Safari 5.00 $$$   2
Wolfpack Hustle Year...   930
Troops Needed Tonigh...   0
Downey, Bell, Pico, ...   4
New Belgium + Tall B...   9
WESTERN RIDAZZ   0
LAPD saved LACM   10
CM Police Brutality   142
THREE WORDS MAX   1531
14th annual river ri...   0
WESTERN RIDAZZ   4
WESTERN RIDAZZ   0
EXCITED!!!!   15
late night rides (sf...   1
KSHTWN VS. MNR   4
the Bay in May   67
Ask Sexy thread 2014   40
********ALEC BALDWIN...   4
Watch Million Dollor...   0
Louis C.K and Seinfe...   0
TaLl BiKe RiDe!!   26
FOTF Question??   14
The Tallest Bikes in...   0
Sun Chaser The Ride ...   3
ATTN: Tarmonster   41
SOCK THE HOME LESS 2...   11
Union Station Party   0
Watch Amazing Spider...   1
Watch Captain Americ...   0
greetings MNR from S...   1
#MYMR   1
Watch The Grand Buda...   0
Watch Amazing Spider...   1
I USED TO BE SKINNY   16
LSD Bicycle Day   3
TAB - Killer drug on...   0
Borfo's rehab steps   18
Watch Brick Mansions...   1
SPECIALIZED TALLBIKE...   8
Midnight ridaz #124   6
ikea hackers kids bi...   1
OCCUPY MR   1
Bicycle Swapmeet 4/6   0
Cubcamp   926
Bicycle Film Festiva...   1
VEGAS!!   83
Bicycles, Coffee, Lo...   3
46 bike frames   0
Ride in 626 area   1
CANNOT SLEEP.   574
I need roommates! Sw...   2
Kushtown in the news   5
March 2nd Friday Rid...   4
Bomb Squad 2014   2
Casting for Bike Ody...   4
Marathon Mamboo   1
SFV CM   144
Salton Sea -- Lost a...   6
12 O clock boys   3
SYSXSW   3
CRUSS MOB 2   85
Nue Poop Thread   26
Salton SARS   0
Rollin 200   1
February 2nd Friday ...   39
Subway Series BMX Ri...   0
HEY ASSHOLES   3
Glitter Herpes   10
Salton Shopping List   68
park double work sta...   0
park double work sta...   0
Whats your favorite ...   11
Just some hippy bull...   7
SHIT!!!!   3
ATTN: ROADBLOCK   39
RIP LEONARD KNIGHT   1
ride to the sea   3
ATTN: John "Osnap" C...   16
End of an Error? LAC...   25
N. FIG LABAC Meeting   2
The meaning of life   6
RAYRAYRAY   133
NELA Critical Mass   13
Raina   6
BOB'S BIG BOY BIKE C...   4
Coaster Brake Challe...   12
58th B-day ride   6
Ridazz Celebrity Loo...   337
mom ridaz spontaneou...   0
Midnight Runnaz   4
El Sonidito   4
sexism   0
41,336,440 Asteroids...   2
Slim calendar   7
41,336,440 Asteroids...   0
Dirty Hipster/I Walk...   9
P Doggin it!!!!Dista...   9
THE RED BALLOON   13
MR HIPSTER OF THE YE...   11
M.R. JAN. 2014   7
I miss mom rida tues...   18
can i borrow yer ext...   1
MoM Ridaz Appreciate...   4
Dear Midnight Jerkof...   13
The Bicycle Tree OC ...   5
CYCLOCROSS   2
BOGOTA COLOMBIA!   1
BICYCLE BITCHEN   425
LOS ANGELOPES VS NYE   2
TT29 NEW YEARS EVE R...   43
Monday night 6 pack   3
Explanations behind ...   1
!-!-!-! PIER PRESSUR...   2
bike rack   0
SantaCON 2013   30
Missing Bicyclists   2
road bike repair que...   8
Cost for ACTR   11
Wolfpack Hustle: The...   245
Bikers Robbed at Gun...   23
Classic Threads   13
Ask Sexy thread   100
MR App/Bike Club App...   9
ACTR 2013   88
Can You Do Me a Favo...   3
TOY RIDE RSVP!!   1
oh my gaaah!!   0
Attn MOM Ridazz   11
MoM Ridaz 4th Annual...   4
I am the Ninja   4
Austin to LA!   7
West Side Mosey   85
ROTW: Jennygirl   7
Y'all invited to NEL...   5
Lost Backpack with G...   0
dazed & confused???   1
knight riders?   0
Midnight Dinazz   5
The Great LA Walk 20...   0
(ICE) SKATE AND DEST...   10
* THE RIDE WITH NO N...   8
TACO TUESDAYS BICYCL...   486
BICYCLE BITCHEN: PT ...   6
2013 M.R. All City T...   31
Anyone else see this...   2
what do you expect o...   18
ATTN: MIDNIGHT RIDAZ...   3
Which are the best w...   8
ATTN: TALLCANS!!   13
MIDNIGHT RIDAZZ #119...   11
pollution   7
Choppercabras 13th A...   26
HAPPY BIRTHDAY PALUC...   8
120 miles in a day ...   0
Help End Cannabis Pr...   0
WALK the Hyperion Br...   6
Essentials for a goo...   6
ANDRES CAN SUKADIK   8
I EAT FART YUM   1
Stolen Foldie Alert   9
Pasadena Mini Bike K...   1
Have You Been Authen...   135
You know if your a M...   50
Dia de los muertos r...   0
Hyperion Bridge Hear...   7
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT   24
ATTN : coldcut   100
rape   6
BOMBAY BEACH CRITICA...   10
M.I.A. PALUCHA   31
palucha!!!   11
palucha are u online...   2
Missing girl-DTLA   12
CALLING BORFO   8
RIDE TO NOWHERE 201...   6
NEW HAUS   1
HUGGS FOR NORMA   8
HAPPY BIRTHDAY CHYNN...   9
JARED LETO   8
LaHarr, HAPPY BIRTHD...   12
LAPD Liaisons   3
Feeder Ride   0
Mucho Bike Cuture   8
HAPPY BIRTHDAY AKTIV...   2
please check my site   0
nd you believe it's ...   1
Escort Service in De...   76
borfo ride   16
LA Green Fest 2013   1
I LOVE FARTING ON CA...   18
Borfo Trips Out In E...   20
Borfo drives cleanes...   20
Paging Reverend Joe ...   6
ATTN BORFO: Don't st...   13
BORFO IS BACK   31
borfo how art thou?   24
down with 'borfo thr...   13
ROTY5 Years running ...   15
FUCKIN BORFO:   15
Borfo   16
You Might Be Borfo i...   12
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YO...   45
fire bike   1
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ANDR...   5
Stolen CETMA Cargo b...   1
DETROIT IN 2013   45
Macho Bike Culture   92
HIPSTER JOKES   28
2008 MR PUSSIES FOR ...   2
Нас...   0
MR OCT 11 2013 (2nd ...   31
kittens are sooooooo...   13
CicLAvia is seeking ...   29
Im addicted....   10
LA History   52
COACHELLA 2014   9



Thread Box:
OMG
Thread started by la duderina at 05.2.09 - 1:41 am

Except as stated in Section 240, it is a condition of each party's duties to render performances to be exchanged under an exchange of promises that there be no uncured material failure by the other party to render any such performances due at an earlier time


WTF?!





reply


I give up.



la duderina
05.2.09 - 1:42 am

reply


You'll figure it out!!!!

We all do at some point.

YOU WILL MUCH SOONER!!!!!



bentstrider
05.2.09 - 1:47 am

reply


Let's say that I have agreed to do something for you, and you have agreed to do something for me in return. If I have previously promised to do the same thing for you, and failed to do so, and I have not subsequently fixed my failure to do so, then you don't have to do the thing that you promised to do for me.

...except as stated in Section 240, of course.




PC
05.2.09 - 2:14 am

reply


Right?



PC
05.2.09 - 2:14 am

reply


I don't think that's it, PC...it has to do with substantial performance but I'm still not getting this. Let's break it down

we'll ignore the exceptions for now..

It is a condition that

there be no uncured material failure

by the other party

to render any such performance due at an earlier time

----------------------------------------------------

a condition of what?

conditon of each party's REMAINING duties to

render performances to be exchanged

under an exchange of promises.



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:17 am

reply


GTFO!!!!!

hahaha



theladiesman
05.2.09 - 11:18 am

reply


no I'm using the forum to study right now so it's ok. lol



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:20 am

reply


I'm actually pretty sure all it is saying is that you can't breach a K



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:20 am

reply


that's intense



Antranik
05.2.09 - 11:22 am

reply


Our legal system is so fucked up.



toweliesbong
05.2.09 - 11:22 am

reply


ok, so promises create a duty to perform.

so an exchange of promises, we have a contract

so in a contract (K), the promises create a condition that each party perform

oh my fucking god I'm not getting it.

I know it has to do with substantial performance I'm just not seeing that in here.

I have in my notes that it means substantial performance is not enough for express terms, but I don't see that in there!!!!!!???



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:25 am

reply


I'm pretty sure all it is saying that if you expressly promised to do something, even substantial performance will count as a breach (but only if the failure to perform is MATERIAL)


ok moving on


you wanna see Section 240? That one's a real party



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:37 am

reply


What it's saying is that your obligation to perform as promised is conditional on the other party's not having materially failed to perform (when she had promised to do so at an earlier time...in other words, on the other party's not having already breached the contract. She breaches the contract first, you're off the hook. That's how it reads to me. You really think that's not it?

Also, if there's substantial performance then there is no material breach, and vice versa. No?



PC
05.2.09 - 12:41 pm

reply


I Am Not A Lawyer.



PC
05.2.09 - 12:44 pm

reply


I actually do think that is what it is saying

What is confusing me is that on my Professor's cut sheet he labeled this as having something to do with substantial performance and it is throwing me off big time.

For express terms (terms written in the K and agreed to by the parties), substantial performance is NOT enough and ONLY substantially performing can constitute a breach...

no whether that breach relieves the other party of the duty to perform depends on whether the breach is material and total



la duderina
05.2.09 - 2:36 pm

reply


now let's throw in Section 240

If the performances to be exchanged under an exchange of promises can be apportioned into corresponding pairs of part performances so that the parts of each pair are properly regarded as agreed equivalents, a party's performance of his part of such a pair has the same effect on the other's duties to render performance of the agreed equivalent as it would have if only that pair of performances had been promised.


umm Riiiiiiiight



la duderina
05.2.09 - 2:40 pm

reply


so this is saying that when there are corresponding pairs of part performance, performing one part of this exchange has the same effect on the other side's duty to render performance as it would be if that is the whole K



la duderina
05.2.09 - 2:43 pm

reply


I think I'm just going to re-read the caselaw see if old Justice Cardozo can straighten this out for me.

But I do think you are right, PC, I think it is just saying that in a K where both sides promise to do something, one party's duty to perform is conditional on the other side NOT materially failing to do what they promised



la duderina
05.2.09 - 2:47 pm

reply


I feel for you la duderina, so glad Contracts and 1L are behind me.



Gais
05.2.09 - 5:46 pm

reply


performing one part of this exchange has the same effect on the other side's duty to render performance as it would be if that is the whole K

...it has the same effect on the other side's duty to render performance of the equivalent part. Only. So if a contract can be separated out into little sets of equivalent pairs, then they can kinda-sorta be treated like modules--like mini-contracts--with one side's previous performance being a condition of the other side's duty to perform only within the module. Right?

I Am Not A Lawyer.



PC
05.2.09 - 9:29 pm

reply


I am not a lawyer either, for the record.



la duderina
05.2.09 - 9:45 pm

reply


For express terms (terms written in the K and agreed to by the parties), substantial performance is NOT enough and ONLY substantially performing can constitute a breach...

no whether that breach relieves the other party of the duty to perform depends on whether the breach is material and total


That's why I said "material breach." Substantial performance is not a material breach. It's a breach, but not a material breach. An "uncured material failure by the other party" by definition involves performance short of substantial performance. Right?

I Am Not A Lawyer.



PC
05.2.09 - 9:46 pm

reply


substantial performance CAN be a material breach, though, depending on the circumstances.

there's factors for determining what is material and what isn't. and the only way the other side can get out of performing is if the breach is material and total.

UNLESS the term is a constructive condition, which substantial performance of a constructive condition is enough



la duderina
05.2.09 - 9:50 pm

reply


fuck the fuck off!

I'm not a lawyer



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 9:52 pm

reply


which throws a whole new twist in there....

so each party's performance is a constructive condition of the other party's performance...but what if the performance is an express term of the K?

can something be an express term and a constructive condition at the same time?

rendering substantial performance both enough and not enough at the same time?






la duderina
05.2.09 - 9:52 pm

reply


Fuck it, dude. Let's go bowling.



animal
05.2.09 - 9:54 pm

reply


Donny you are out of your element




you don't have to be a damn lawyer to understand a damn paragraph!


look at Presumptively Corruptible here! he got it faster than I did



la duderina
05.2.09 - 9:54 pm

reply


+1 animal.

My thoughts exactly



la duderina
05.2.09 - 9:55 pm

reply


substantial performance CAN be a material breach, though, depending on the circumstances.

Please give me an example.



PC
05.2.09 - 9:56 pm

reply


Ok...let me think hang on



la duderina
05.2.09 - 9:57 pm

reply


OK got one.

Let's say we form a K that I will build you a house.

I build the house, do the whole thing plumbing, electricity, and everything, it is a complete entire house, except one thing is missing..

the ROOF.





la duderina
05.2.09 - 9:59 pm

reply


If it is an express term, it MUST be perfect performance. to the T



la duderina
05.2.09 - 9:59 pm

reply


If you didn't give me a roof, that's not substantial performance. And neither is your example. Try again.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:07 pm

reply


yes it is substantial performance, actually. If I built the roof that would be perfect performance, I would have completed the K. Substantial is MOST, not all.

or let's say I build 75% of the roof and live a big gaping hole, that is still substantial performance, but it is not perfect performance and therefore breach.



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:09 pm

reply


If we were in a contractual situation and you had promised to give me an example of substantial performance being a material breach, your example would be a material breach. Hahahahahaha.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:09 pm

reply


why does this thread piss me off so much?



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:10 pm

reply


fucking tell me about it





la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:11 pm

reply


PC, you are not a lawyer.and that is perfect performance of an example of substantial performance.

Here is an example the PROFESSOR gave us

You promise me to build a bridge to Hawaii, you build it 3/4s of the way there. That is substantial performance, but not perfect, and there for Breach. and material at that.



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:13 pm

reply


You're wrong, kiddo. Substantial performance does not mean "most." Substantial performance is performance that does not meet the express conditions of the contract, but is so close that it would be unreasonable to deny payment. That's why it's called substantial performance.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:13 pm

reply


Because it's a perfect example of how the legal industry has created an environment that makes lawyers more needed than they really are.



toweliesbong
05.2.09 - 10:14 pm

reply


hahahaha



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:15 pm

reply


exactly towelie, they try to keep it the good ole boys club. it's quite annoying.

but if substantial performance is enough that denying payment would be unreasonable, then how does it constitute breach, which would in effect deny the obligor payment?



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:19 pm

reply


Lindsey, your professor is out of his or her tiny little mind. No way is 3/4 of a bridge to Hawaii substantial performance. If the purpose of the contract is frustrated by the defects in the work, you don't have substantial performance. The purpose of the contract here is a usable bridge between Hawaii and the mainland. Three quarters of a bridge is unusable.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:19 pm

reply


depends on the definition of "substantial" is.

if ya promise to build a bridge and you only build 75% of it then you should only get paid 50% of the money due because it will cost at least twice as much to seek out a firm to complete the rest due to inflation.

bammo



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:21 pm

reply


it's also economically oppressive, too. That's the worst part. You either have to be super rich or get yourself buried in debt. It's fucking bullshit.

Check it - $30,000 a YEAR for 3 years (JUST tuition)

plus cost of books and living

all to prepare you for the Bar exam

and THEN they tell you that you can't even PASS THE BAR if you don't take a $10,000 bar review course!!!!

(not to mention the freaking LSAT and the $1000 courses you have to take if you want to do good on THAT thing)


at least I know when I'm getting fucked in the ass





la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:22 pm

reply


always wondered if that feels like taking a shit rapidly over and over....



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:24 pm

reply


OK, so what if I built the house in it's entirety, roof and all, but the house was not up to code? Like, windows leak water when it rains, the electricity doesnt work, etc?



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:24 pm

reply


Not very nice at all, Don. Not very nice at all.

But at least my farts are always silent.



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:25 pm

reply


A minor breach doesn't deny the obligor payment. When there is substantial performance, the other party is limited to collecting damages (the difference in value between what was promised and what was delivered) in court after the fact. Right?





PC
05.2.09 - 10:25 pm

reply


you'd be fucking cold and pissed off. like I am at this thread!



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:25 pm

reply


"A minor breach doesn't deny the obligor payment. When there is substantial performance, the other party is limited to collecting damages (the difference in value between what was promised and what was delivered) in court after the fact. Right? "


depends on what the definition of "damages" is.



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:26 pm

reply


oh god, I haven't got into damages yet



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:26 pm

reply


a breach is only material if:

it will prevent the victim from receiving what they reasonably expected under the K

the loss cannot be easily remedied

to what extent the breaching party will suffer forfeiture

whether the breaching party will cure

" " acted in good faith


if these factors show that it is material, THEN you have to look at whether it was TOTAL...only then can you get past and future damages and be relieved of performance



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:29 pm

reply


but yes, PC, I believe that is correct.



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:29 pm

reply


I would like to relieve myself right now.



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:32 pm

reply


...actually, in some cases pro rata payment may be acceptable for substantial performance. I'm not sure.

And the example of a house that is complete, but not up to code, is an interesting one. I think that whether the contractor has rendered substantial performance would depend upon how much of the substandard electrical (etc.) work could have been reasonably prevented, and also upon how much of it there is. Is the house riddled with code violations, or are there just a few? That's why we have judges and juries. If it were always cut and dried, we wouldn't need finders of fact.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:32 pm

reply


@towlie and RB: This shit isn't that complicated. If I can get it, so can you.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:33 pm

reply


that's why you need to define "damages"



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:35 pm

reply


we actually read a case like that, these people paid a contractor to build them a home and the house turned out to be a brand new version of The Money Pit



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:35 pm

reply


well I guess I might as well get into damages lets see what I have here



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:35 pm

reply


expectation damages

consequential damages

restitutionary damages

specific performance



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:37 pm

reply


and agreed remedies


So for the house not up to code, you could theoretically get expectation and consequential damages, yeah?



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:38 pm

reply


In the Money Pit case, Tom Hanks sued for emotional distress because of all the problems with the house. No dice though. For Ks anyway, only get emotional distress in tort



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:39 pm

reply


repratory damages is prolly what you need to assess the house situation



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:39 pm

reply


and what the hell is a "K"?



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:39 pm

reply


contract.



coldcut
05.2.09 - 10:41 pm

reply


All houses are money pits. That's why homeowners are advised to budget money every month to build a fund for the maintenance and repairs that are inevitable. The question here is which repairs are a natural and expected part of owning a house, and which could and should have been prevented by better workmanship by a contractor. That's where damages come in.

But I'm guessing that in general, if the house is delivered in such a condition that you can move into it, and it doesn't have an outrageous number of defects or code violations, the contractor has rendered at least substantial performance. There's a big difference between that and three quarters of a motherfucking bridge.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:42 pm

reply


Roadblock, what the frack are you talking about?



PC
05.2.09 - 10:44 pm

reply


I have no fucking idea. I'm just pissed about this thread.



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:45 pm

reply


If it's not complicated than why are you arguing with la duderina and her professor???



toweliesbong
05.2.09 - 10:46 pm

reply


Because her professor is misunderstanding something that is not complicated.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:48 pm

reply


look up the case

Erlich v. Menezes

house was able to be lived in, but there were GROSS code violations...I mean it was unbelievable



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:48 pm

reply


"There's a big difference between that and three quarters of a motherfucking bridge."

actually. lets say the 3/4 of the bridge is up to code and perfectly use-able up until it ends. then it would not be as substantial to hire another contractor to continue the building process.

however if a house is completed but not up to code it may be a complete loss depending on what exactly is not up to code. for example if the foundation is not built correctly then it would be un-repairable. thus you would be awarded repratory damages



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:49 pm

reply


repairatory damages, Roadblock?

that would fall under the consequential damages --- as a consequence of code violations you have to pay so much $$$ to get everything fixed


and I don't think he is misunderstanding, Pedantic Corruptor, he just simplifies...

what is the difference btw building the best bridge possible, but not putting that one last piece that finishes it, and finishing the bridge but it not being usable because the contractor used the wrong materials? either way it cann't be used, how is the former not substantial performance and the latter is?



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:51 pm

reply


Dude...no.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:51 pm

reply


"Pedantic Corruptor"

oh, that's a hella good one. i'm filing that one, too.



toweliesbong
05.2.09 - 10:52 pm

reply


the difference is that a bridge that is built up to code but i missing the last piece can be resumed by another contractor whereas a bridge that is not up to code at all - depending on how severe - may actually have to be torn down and rebuilt which would cost a shit ton more than just paying for the final piece.




Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:53 pm

reply


idk, PC, he is the law professor....



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:53 pm

reply


If it can't be used, it's not substantial performance. Three quarters of a bridge is not substantial performance. An entire bridge made of marshmallows is not substantial performance. An entire usable bridge painted the wrong color is substantial performance. An entire usable bridge painted the right color but with minor defects that don't affect its structural integrity is substantial performance.

Substantial. Equivalent in substance, but not correct "to a T," as you put it.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:55 pm

reply


RB, right, that is where materiality of the breach comes in!

the last piece of the bridge is material, but not so material as to constitute a total breach

now the one that has to be torn apart...that would be a material, total breach relieving the obligee of having to pay and possibly forcing the obligor to pay expectation and consequential damages




la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:55 pm

reply


a partially build bridge CAN be used. it can be completed with more funding.



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 10:57 pm

reply


so does the entire bridge with minor defects, not to a T...that constitutes a breach of an express term?

I guess we'd have to run it through our materiality and totality factors



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:57 pm

reply


and I don't think he is misunderstanding, Pedantic Corruptor, he just simplifies...

Misstatement is not simplification. If you hire me to build you a bridge to carry vehicular traffic to Hawaii and I build you three quarters of a bridge and then walk away, I have frustrated the purpose of our contract. What I've given you is not equivalent or near-equivalent in substance to what I promised to give you.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:57 pm

reply


a partially build bridge CAN be used

Dude...no. Like I said, this shit isn't complicated, but you have to actually do some reading.



PC
05.2.09 - 10:59 pm

reply


RB is right. I think what would happen in that case is that, depending on the materiality and the totality of the breach, the person paying for the bridge to be built would still have to pay for the portion of the bridge that WAS in fact built.....



la duderina
05.2.09 - 10:59 pm

reply


I understand what you are saying PC, but I think substantial performance may come in all shapes and sizes

I have read cases with these exact scenarios and it was considered performance, and the party had to be paid for what they performed



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:00 pm

reply


that bridge shit happens all the time. a contractor (paid by the city) building a piece of infrastructure over a period of a year, runs out of money. it's not like no one got paid and it's not like the work didnt have value. consider a subway that goes way over budget. the city then ends up paying more money to complete the project using what was already built and then completing it by either hiring another ocntractor (not likely) or bilking the taxpayers for more money (likely) to finish the project.



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:01 pm

reply


...using the same contractor possibly with penalties (not likely)



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:02 pm

reply


If there's a delay and the contractor is making a good faith effort to complete the work, sure. But building three quarters of a bridge and then walking away is not substantial performance, regardless of whether the breach is material and total.



PC
05.2.09 - 11:03 pm

reply


OK HERE WE GO

SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE BLACK'S LAW DEFINITION

substantial performance. Performance of the primary, necessary terms of an agreement.





la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:04 pm

reply


Delays and cost overruns are usually addressed in the contract. So when la dude gives me the example of a house without a roof, it's reasonable to assume that she means the contractor essentially said "voila, there's your house."



PC
05.2.09 - 11:05 pm

reply


perfect performance is

The successful completion of a contractual duty, usu. resulting in the performer's release from any past or future liability;



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:06 pm

reply


candy....I'm going to need candy here.



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:07 pm

reply


Y'all are giving me a headache. I don't know how you do it. If I was a lawyer I'd sure as hell be avoiding contract law. Heh.



toweliesbong
05.2.09 - 11:08 pm

reply


you should see property law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

omg I almost blew my brains out.



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:08 pm

reply


Performance of the primary, necessary terms of an agreement.

Bingo. A house without a roof doesn't satisfy the primary, necessary terms of an agreement to build me a house.



PC
05.2.09 - 11:09 pm

reply


Ok try this on for size



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:11 pm

reply


but it may be substantial enough to bring to completion.



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:11 pm

reply


A brick manufacturer contracted with a builder to deliver 1000 bricks per week for 5 weeks, at a price of $500 per shipment. After the first shipment was made and accepted, the brick manufacturer called the builder and explained that he was retiring and would not be able to finish out the contract. Builder said, ďBut I need those shipments on time to complete the house Iím building. If you donít continue to ship me bricks as you promised to do, I will not pay you for the first shipment, even though there was nothing wrong with that one.Ē The manufacturer then sued the builder for $500. Does he win?




la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:11 pm

reply


maybe

depending on what the definition of "brick shipment" is



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:13 pm

reply


that's why you always gotta go with half up front half upon completion folks



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:14 pm

reply


right! divisible performances!

see?! you DON'T have to be a lawyer to get this crap!



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:15 pm

reply


why did you change your yes answer to maybe?

you were right he wins because it is a divisible performances K, each part is treated like its own K.



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:15 pm

reply


because there may have been a clause stating that "if not all then none"



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:16 pm

reply


he did complete, though. He delivered the bricks so dude owes him the $500 for the bricks that were delivered.

even though he repudiated, he is still entitled to payment for what he did perform



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:17 pm

reply


you gotta go with the facts you are given RB.

and btw, i think its pretty fucking fascist that you get to amend things you say, fix your typos, etc. and the rest of us are forced to look like idiots.

just saying. lol



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:18 pm

reply


There was no "yes answer." You're high.



PC
05.2.09 - 11:18 pm

reply


that's true in this case because bricks are a commodity. but what if the contractor was the only person who could perform the duty of the contract?



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:18 pm

reply


Oh, OK, he changed it. I missed that. Never mind. Man, I wish I could change shit that I wrote here.



PC
05.2.09 - 11:19 pm

reply


I meant to put "maybe"

and yes it is facist. but this thread is facist so gtfo



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:19 pm

reply


The ringer is $500 PER DELIVERY...and the first delivery was made and accepted.

Now if this was a flat $50,000 K, then it might be a different story...but I think the dude would still have to pay him for the services rendered, no?

then again with the materiality and totality factors



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:19 pm

reply


He's entitled to payment for what he performed because the contract is divisible. Shipments of bricks are divisible. A house isn't, and neither is a bridge.



PC
05.2.09 - 11:20 pm

reply


but what about if the service or delivered goods are unique to that one contractor? what is the shipment is a certain type of adobe brick for which the contractor held an exclusive world rights patent?



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:21 pm

reply


If he was the ONLY one who could do it, then that makes it more of a material breach and although he would still have to be paid for the bricks delivered, he might have to pay consequential damages or expectation damages or both...so the services rendered would be subtracted from the damages he would have to pay


I think



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:21 pm

reply


this fucking thread makes me want to throw a brick at it.



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:23 pm

reply


OR if there was no other remedy available, the court could order specific performance -- basically force the adobe brick maker to perform


and Presuming Cantaloupe, I am not high thank you very much. I haven't smoked all day. as a matter of fact yesterday after the meeting was the only time I smoked all week thank you!



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:24 pm

reply


I think you're right. ^^^



PC
05.2.09 - 11:24 pm

reply


RB, of all threads that have ever been made on MR this one deserves to be deleted. It gave me one helluva headache which no other MR thread has ever done.

PLEASE DELETE ME!





toweliesbong
05.2.09 - 11:25 pm

reply


"force adobe brick maker to perform"

lmao. laying adobe bricks!



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:25 pm

reply


hahaha, hey I am having fun here!!

you guys aren't?



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:26 pm

reply


That was directed at your earlier post...the brick maker being entitled to his $500 less damages. I have a hard time believing that a court would force a retiring brick maker to stay in business and keep making bricks just to satisfy a contract--even a contract that he should have known better than to make.



PC
05.2.09 - 11:26 pm

reply


I'm having fun.



PC
05.2.09 - 11:27 pm

reply


the problem is in the title of the thread. what do they call it in the law when something promises to be something it is not? false implication?



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:27 pm

reply


well it would depend on the circumstances whether a court would require specific performance....

justice and equity are always factors to be considered, as is reliance



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:28 pm

reply


I'm secretly having fun too, but I'm pissed because I didnt get anything done today which is a total breach of implied contract with my client who is expecting a website and shirt designs by monday.



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:29 pm

reply


I think false representation..

but that was exactly what I was thinking when I posted this thread, OH MY GOOOOOOODDDDD!!!!!!!!!


you can retitle it if you want, fascist. Call it La Duderina's Study Thread.

ha



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:29 pm

reply


shouldn't you not be posting in the name of work?



steph
05.2.09 - 11:31 pm

reply


oohh ohh don! a real life hypothetical!! tell me more!

implied K, yes? what are the terms give me something I can ANALYZE


let us see if substantial performance of these designs will constitute a breach!

come on due et



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:31 pm

reply


Substantial performance, absent specific performance, is always a breach, I thought. No?



PC
05.2.09 - 11:33 pm

reply


I already got paid half and one of it is in writing and there is no specific definition of what they will get. AND I have no developer who can commit that I can sub contract to. is there a legal term for "you're fucked"?



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:33 pm

reply


I'm having a sssssssssssssssssmokin' Saturday night on the Internet.



PC
05.2.09 - 11:34 pm

reply


is there a legal term for dickin around on the web?



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:34 pm

reply


Fucx yeah!



toweliesbong
05.2.09 - 11:34 pm

reply


ok here is a question: lets say I build a website half way, then I disappear off the side of the earth what is that called?





Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:36 pm

reply


Answer = "typical web designer"



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:36 pm

reply


well there if there is no specific term that requires you to finish the job then it doesn't matter



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:38 pm

reply


lmao @ PC

lmfao.

I'm used to it. You're way too likely to die going out on a saturday night in LA anyways. drunk drivers, ppl with guns, jesus



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:39 pm

reply


actually I sent a text saying I would have some shit done. however I lost the text and do not remember specifically what I promised. I hope my client is not going to find this thread.



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:40 pm

reply


is there a legal term for dickin around on the web?

Roadblock
05.3.09 - 2:34 am


AVOIDING PERFORMANCE



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:40 pm

reply


"some shit"

well that does not imply completion of that is the exact term you used


are they expecting total completion by Monday?



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:41 pm

reply


fortunately no. they were expecting that about a month ago



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:42 pm

reply


I'm doing exactly what I wanted to do today and tonight, i.e. nothing. Making up for all the sleep I haven't gotten in the last two months because you dickheads keep making me do stuff and go places.

Tomorrow's plan: same thing.

Why are we not arguing about substantial performance anymore? I think we are still pretty far apart on that definition.



PC
05.2.09 - 11:44 pm

reply


FIRST, let me ask this:

Don, did you sign anything?


hmm...well the text may constitute a signed writing, which falls under the statute of frauds...which means you could be fucked

but if there is no specific term for what you are required to have done on Monday than there is nothing you have to specifically perform

and the design part is awesome (we talked about this in class), is the design subject to their approval?



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:45 pm

reply


fortunately no. they were expecting that about a month ago

Roadblock
05.3.09 - 2:42 am



dude...you just need to get off yo lazy ass



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:46 pm

reply


if it is subject to their approval (I'm assuming it is) then they must be reasonable about it. If they are super finicky, you can sue them



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:46 pm

reply


I'm going to go to sleep and wake up later around 4 am to think about just how fucked I am. then I will check facebook and try to sleep again after I twitter about how fucked I am.



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:47 pm

reply


it's not that I'm lazy... it's that I'm addicted to doing nothing.



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:48 pm

reply


that'll solve it!



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:49 pm

reply


ok I'm leaving you all now. sorry PC I know you were actually having a real debate about material and substantial breach.... I'll let you get back to your saturday night



Roadblock
05.2.09 - 11:51 pm

reply


personally, I'm going to make a pot of black tea, pour tons of sugar in it, and get my ass back to making flash cards

thank you all for your help, really, it really helped. I'm serious. Spending your saturday night talking law with me here on ole MR. I love you all. seriously guys. seriously.



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:51 pm

reply


substantial performance is performance of the necessary terms of the K, is it not?



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:52 pm

reply


performance of necessary, but not ALL terms does constitute breach, but whether you get damages and are relieved of performing your side of the bargain depends on HOW material and total the breach is



la duderina
05.2.09 - 11:53 pm

reply


Correct, but I still don't see how three quarters of a bridge or a roofless house can constitute substantial performance in any case. But never mind. You need to study; you don't need to argue with me. GTFO.

(But also, chew on this.)



PC
05.3.09 - 12:01 am

reply


because I performed building the house, I performed building the bridge, I just didnt COMPLETE the performance, but I DID perform



la duderina
05.3.09 - 12:04 am

reply


You performed, but you didn't substantially perform. The word "substantially" is in there for a reason.

GTFO. Go study.



PC
05.3.09 - 12:07 am

reply


I think there is a difference between substantial completion and substantial performance

That TX case talks about the building being substantially completed, but the contractor could have substantially performed prior to the substantial completion.



la duderina
05.3.09 - 12:07 am

reply


ok bye



la duderina
05.3.09 - 12:08 am

reply


"Substantial," not "substantially." GTFO, Russell.



PC
05.3.09 - 12:08 am

reply


The Texas case talks about whether the doctrine of substantial performance excuses the contractor from complying with an express condition of the contract, namely submitting an all-bills-paid affadavit (whatever the fuck that is).

Bye.



PC
05.3.09 - 12:11 am

reply


This is by far the best plain-English explanation that I have found of the paragraph that we were originally discussing. Check it out. And then GTFO.

(You'll also want to study Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, if you haven't already, to get an idea of the spirit of the doctrine of substantial performance...which is basically to prevent the unjust enrichment of building contractors' counterparties just because the contractors haven't performed right down to the last little minutia of the contract.)



PC
05.3.09 - 2:31 am

reply


haha..Jacob Youngs is the case we were assigned. Cardozo laid it out pretty well, let me check out that link though



la duderina
05.3.09 - 2:46 am

reply


ohhh that's good. that's really good

THANKS PC!!!!!





Who needs lawyers when you have the interwebz?





la duderina
05.3.09 - 2:49 am

reply


basically 2 parties promise each other something. the performance of the second promise is conditioned on performance of the promise that is due first. The second promise is only relieved of a duty to perform if there is a material failure to perform the promise due first, and if that failure is not remedied.

makes total fuckin sense.



la duderina
05.3.09 - 2:52 am

reply


I need help making mnemonic devices

AT??!! Acronym writer extraordinaire?

M M E U M N UP


and

M C I F M



la duderina
05.4.09 - 2:57 am

reply


M M E U M N UP

Make Me Ejaculate Upon My New UnderPants


and

M C I F M


My Crotch Is For Molesting

...hey, you should have known better than to ask that here.

Now GTFO.



PC
05.4.09 - 4:37 am

reply


oh where would Professor Copyright be when I need him?



la duderina
12.16.09 - 1:12 am

reply


how cute.



coldcut
responding to a comment by la duderina
12.16.09 - 12:49 pm

reply


la duderina DO I KNOW YOU?

I CANT BELIEVE I MISSED THIS THREAD.

MUSTA BEEN WHEN I HAD NO INTERNETS AT HOME.



eddieboyinla
12.16.09 - 12:55 pm

reply


I'm right here. What?



PC
responding to a comment by la duderina
12.16.09 - 12:56 pm

reply


haha. I've been on a couple rides with you and I don't know if you remember this but I introduced myself to you in a metro station once.


@PC

day late, dolla short brother.



la duderina
responding to a comment by eddieboyinla
12.16.09 - 1:06 pm

reply


On the Internet, nobody can see you shrug.



PC
responding to a comment by la duderina
12.16.09 - 1:08 pm

reply


turns out Copyright isn't all that confusing. Until you get a work that was created between 1978 and 1989 and published without notice.



la duderina
responding to a comment by PC
12.16.09 - 1:12 pm

reply


What does section 420 say?



Joe Borfo
12.16.09 - 1:21 pm

reply


hang on let me look it up...




it says, "Fuck it."



la duderina
responding to a comment by Joe Borfo
12.16.09 - 1:23 pm

reply


nice.



coldcut
responding to a comment by la duderina
12.16.09 - 1:38 pm

reply


2 weeks into business law and I'm already like

OMFG





shotgunBOOMBOOM
01.25.10 - 3:08 pm

reply


Call it a no-flake clause. If You contract with Somebody to, say, create a clothing line for the next three months, and after the second month the Somebody stops returning your calls or stops paying you or doesn't send in any more specs, Somebody won't have much luck in court if Somebody sues you for not finishing the job. With the exceptions as listed in Section 240, say for example Somebody saying Somebody will be in Mexico for a week during the second month, so You can't pretend you didn't know that.

/not a lawyer



Yellow_Bike
01.25.10 - 3:24 pm

reply






shotgunBOOMBOOM
responding to a comment by Yellow_Bike
01.25.10 - 4:53 pm

reply


PC be advised. It's that time again!



shotgunBOOMBOOM
04.13.10 - 2:13 pm

reply


I can't wait to see what your professors are wrong about this time.



PC
responding to a comment by shotgunBOOMBOOM
04.14.10 - 3:23 am

reply


What do you know about valuation? (ie, stocks)



shotgunBOOMBOOM
responding to a comment by PC
04.28.10 - 12:39 pm

reply


don't lawyers have their own forums?



_iJunes
responding to a comment by shotgunBOOMBOOM
04.28.10 - 2:36 pm

reply


valuation is hardly a legal question, and yet I have to fucking learn it anyway.

the fuck is up with THAT?!



shotgunBOOMBOOM
responding to a comment by _iJunes
04.28.10 - 5:17 pm

reply


supplementary education is supplemental



_iJunes
responding to a comment by shotgunBOOMBOOM
04.28.10 - 5:31 pm

reply


OMMFG





shotgunBOOMBOOM
05.9.10 - 1:30 pm

reply






Huey555
01.27.11 - 5:38 pm

reply


http://midnightridazz.com/viewStory.php?storyId=6263



Sham-Wow
01.27.11 - 6:05 pm

reply


OMG!!

WE RIDE TOMORROW!!



SnapperS
01.28.11 - 10:01 am

reply


none of this was in vain.



shotgunBOOMBOOM
11.18.11 - 6:54 pm

reply

Reply


Who's been here recently...

mastsum66 | watson5858 | alies22 | espiti310 | ^olsko*jr7 | andres84 | theroyalacademy | tom822 | StudlyStead | phaeugeg01