02/12/2010 10:41:00

← 1. Generally write answer as if you were a judge . . . the dispute

← a) Come to conclusion on Question’s presented
← b) Provide arguments/analysis in support of conclusion
← When you have TWO competing doctrines, choose 1, and explain
why one is better than the other [public justification, what they put on
paper]
• Apply this to Assignment/Sublease issue.
← Policy reasons for favoring the minority opinion:
← i. Lease as a conveyance of a leasehold interest:
← ii. Nature of a lease as a K has a implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing: commercially reasonable to deny consent, and cannot use
consent as a way to get what the party did not bargain for: raising rent,
etc.
←
←
←
← 2. Be explicit in the presentation.
← a) Avoid telling the long story (ineffective) w/o explicitly explaining
relevancy of the facts. [Fact 1 is imp. b/c Judgment 1…] If you only
present F1, F2, F3, you’re wasting time.
← b) Avoid long, extended presentations of doctrine where you are not
explicitly explaining the relevancy of the doctrine. [Matsumoto’s
idiosyncratic demand] How the doctrine resolve the dispute. S/t
you want to provide some preliminary explication of the doctrine by
setting the framework of how you will analyze the dispute. Take the
general judgments of the doctrine, and how
• Are we expected to
← e
 02/12/2010 10:41:00
←
 02/12/2010 10:41:00
←