form Introduction to law

1.4 câu true false loanh quanh phần common law

2.vài câu True False
4.5 câu hỏi tình huống:
a.mua 1 cái xe đạp, biết nó là đồ ăn cắp mà vẫn mua, đến lúc chủ nó đòi lại thì
có phải trả lại ko
b.A làm cho 1 ngân hàng, hàng tháng trả bảo hiểm cho người thất nghiệp. A là
con gái của C. sau đó A chết. Các legal relations nao dc hinh thanh, thay doi hay
ket thuc? và đó là các qhe gì?
(6 điểm@@)
c. A có cái đài, đêm bật to gây ảnh hưởng đến hàng xóm thì có phải là vi phạm
luật ko
d.lấy ví dụ khi quyền sử dụng tài sản của 1 người ko còn thuộc về người ấy
e.A dùng nhà của mình để vay tiền ngân hàng C. A đang cho B thuê nhà đó. Hỏi
lợi tức từ tiền thuê nhà có tính vào phần mà A thế chấp ở ngân hàng k
f.the court found Susan guilty ò breaking j j đó hình như là the contract (hỏi là
sai chỗ nào
thì trong civil law ko nói là guilty hay not guilty mà là proven /not proven)
( cảm ơn các bạn clc tcnh và ktđn giúp sức ^^ mình ko public tên các bạn ở đây
kẻo lại có mệnh hệ gì sau này cho các bạn thì ko hay :-s)

Đáp án topic 2,3 của course book Intro 2 law:

Topic 3:1T.2d.3c.4e.5d.6a.7a.8b.9a.10.11b.12a.13a.14d.15a.
Topic 2: 1.Article336 If there is agreement, belong to B;If not, not belong to B.
2.A359 No,Id card is not a valuable paper. 3.A365 If...agree,A or B pay is ok or
pay partially;If not, C can request A/B to pay. 4.A393,391, Sec b,c yes. 5. No
contract. 6.a393 wwithdraw go after=> impossible,still have a contract. 7.A397
sec1 If..agree, pay;If not, not pay. 8.A390 not obliged to sell;no
damages(breach;loss(direct+actual: evidence is contracts of 3 clients))
gốc rễ cho IRAC ( của môn Introduction to law)
Extracting the Rule
There are three steps in rule extraction.
Step 1: Identify the rule in case law.
Step 2: State the rule in your own words and list each element that needs to be
proven.
Step 3: State the public policy behind the rule.
Step One: Identify the Rule
Look for a declarative sentence that addresses the issue the court is trying to
resolve.

Some language that identifies the rule:

"As a matter of common law...."
"In this jurisdiction..."
"The more modern rule is..."
"Contracts are void when..."
"The present case is controlled by..."

Sometimes, however, it's not so easy. There are two situations that give first
year students difficulty. In the first situation, the judge doesn't explicitly state
the rule. In the second situation, the judge gives so many different rules that it's
hard to know which rule applies. In this second situation, the judge often traces
the development of rule from the common law and talks at length about how
other jurisdictions differ in the application of the rule.
The solution in either situation is to ferret out the rule as implied by the holding.
You identify the rule by looking at how the court resolves the issue. You
generalize and form a rule that takes into account the facts of the case by making
an inference from the holding of the case.
EXAMPLE
Facts: Two dogs were fighting, and a man tries to separate the dogs with a stick.
He is seriously hurt in the process and sues the owner of the dogs for negligence.
Holding: The court rules that "no reasonable person in those circumstances
would have assumed the risk of separating the dogs without knowing that he
might be hurt. Thus the owner of the dogs is not liable."
Extracting the Rule: The court has not stated a rule but has given you a holding
or judgment of the case. You can infer several principles from that holding.
Such cases are judged by the following principles: 1) the circumstances, 2) what
a reasonable person would do and 3) assuming a known risk means you can't
hold another party liable for damages.
Step Two: Restate the rule.
Most students just copy the rule from the casebook verbatim into their notes.
The more astute student restates the rule in her own words in order to get a
clearer sense of what has to be proven in order to apply the rule.
Stating the rule is a two-part process.
Part 1: Restate the rule in your own words in order to clarify that you understand
it and remember it better.
As with any course of study or in any form of communication, when you restate
what someone else has said in your own words, you are making sure that you
understand the nuances of everything they have said. In a way, you are creating
your own mini-Restatement of the law in the words of a 21st century lawyer.
You can then compare what you have said with the case law to see whether you
have understood all of the elements correctly.
Part 2: Break the rule into elements that must be satisfied in order for the rule to
apply.
Breaking the rule into elements makes it easier for you to analyze the rule in a
given set of circumstances. This is a crucial step in organizing your analysis and
in outlining. By breaking the rule into elements - i.e. its terms of art - you will be
better able to scan your notes easily to get the gist of the principle when
studying for an exam.
Formatting the Rule
When breaking the rule into elements, put each element on a separate line. This
helps you to visually absorb the rule. For some people, this type of formatting
appears awkward and interferes with learning the law. They prefer to see the
rule written out as a sentence. If you do write the rule as a sentence then be sure
to highlight the elements by underlining or italicizing the key elements.
I prefer to take rule extraction a step further. I use a computer programming
approach and break the rule into its logical components in order to see the flow.
The old computer programming language BASIC uses logical commands to
construct rules that the program would then follow. In the same way, you can
program legal rules into a neat sequence of logical statements that are
constructed as IF-THEN statements.
IF-THEN Structure
EXAMPLE
IF (condition is true)
IF you run a stop sign
THEN (result is true)
THEN you've violated a traffic law.
However, if there's one truism in the law, it's that the law is seldom as simple as
an IF-THEN statement. There are nearly always multiple conditions that have to
be met and exceptions to the rule for unusual circumstances.
Consequently, the simple IF-THEN statement also needs lots of other
commands. One of the mind-boggling aspects of the law is how easily rules
seem to contradict themselves.
The IF-THEN statement is made more complex with the operators AND, OR,
BUT, NOT, UNLESS. These are known as Boolean operators and are familiar
to anyone who has searched for information in a database (such as Lexis or
WestLaw) or used one of the Internet search engines.
Boolean operators can be used with the traditional IF-THEN statement or can be
combined with declarative rules with similar results. Use the technique that
seems most understandable to you.

IF-THEN Structure with conditions

Declarative Structure with conditions
IF (condition)
AND (condition)
OR (condition)
UNLESS (condition)
THEN (result is true).
(Result is true) IF
(condition)
AND (condition)
OR (condition)
UNLESS (condition)
The UNLESS operator can be used in this system of stating the rule to list
defenses to a particular rule when one party might be liable or guilty.
EXAMPLE of Declarative Rule with Conditions
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress exists IF the defendant
acted with either extreme OR outrageous conduct
AND intended to cause severe emotional distress to plaintiff
OR behaved with reckless disregard to emotional state of plaintiff
AND the acts were the actual or proximate cause of the distress
AND severe emotional distress actually occurred.
You can see that there are four conditions that have to be proven in order to find
a defendant liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
CAPITAL letters are used with conjunctions (AND/OR), conditions (IF) or
exception (UNLESS) in order to signal a connection between ideas. Use italics,
underlining or boldface on key words to help identify key concepts and ideas
quickly in an exam. We'll see in the next chapter how highlighting terms of art
in the rule helps organize the next step of analysis.

Operators that help create a rule

IF - THEN
AND, OR
BUT NOT
UNLESS
HOWEVER
WHILE
WHENEVER
EXCEPT
EXCEPTIONS

As you can see, this type of flowcharting can quickly get out of hand. So much
of the law is interrelated, you can quickly start a long flowchart that becomes
incomprehensible because there are so many conditions that have to be met. It is
important to break off the rule at some point that makes sense so that you have
discrete chunks of rules to follow that are easily grasped and then put together.
Sometimes you won't need the Boolean operators to make sense of a rule.
However, you will still want to separate each element that needs to be proven in
order to easily and visually see that each condition must be satisfied in order to
apply the rule.
EXAMPLE: BURGLARY
A party is guilty of common law burglary IF there was
a breaking
and entering
of a dwelling
at night
with the intent to commit a felony therein.
Here, it's unnecessary to add the word "AND" to every line. It messes with the
flow of the rule and would be visually unattractive. Use the Boolean operator
with discretion in order to facilitate your understanding of the rule and to
indicate a logical change in the conditions.
Step Three: State the Public Policy behind the Rule
The final step is to state the underlying public policy or doctrine behind the rule.
Answer the question: Why does this rule exist? What societal goals, if any, are
furthered by this rule? Is the rule merely one of fairness or equity or is there
some economic justification for the rule?
Policy plays a key role in analysis. Sometimes, the particular facts of a case may
satisfy the elements of the rule but the result is not consistent with the
underlying doctrine. It's likely that the court would then consider that particular
set of circumstances as an exception to the rule. By noting the policy, you
integrate the policy into the rule as a condition that must be satisfied. In general,
a rule will be true only if it's policy is furthered by the application of the rule.
(http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/rules.html#TheRuleofLaw)
http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/rules.html?
fbclid=IwAR1GIeiJCqQjnj6wmFTRJHV7cmiJXtadGgevQshCPbHbsRwORBC
DTRmKTAw#TheRuleofLaw
IRAC Examples
In each one of these examples, a hypothetical fact pattern is broken into IRAC
elements by using the three steps of the IRAC Triad.
Contracts Hypothetical
Facts:
An old man who is very ill and near death makes an oral contract with his
nephew. The terms of the contract are that the uncle will immediately give his
nephew all of his life savings - $100,000 - in return for the nephew's promise to
provide food and shelter for the old man until the man dies. The nephew takes
the money and supports the old man at a cost of $10,000 a year. The old man
lives longer than expected and is still alive after fifteen years, at which point the
nephew cuts the old man off without further support.
Issue:
Is an oral contract valid after fifteen years?
Note that the issue is stated in the form of a question and uses key facts to
illustrate the problem. Don't be alarmed if you didn't see the issue right away.
By reading case law in contracts, you will learn that these sorts of factual
situations give rise to issues surrounding whether a contract is valid.
Rule:
A contract must be in writing if it is not possible to perform the contract within
one year. - Statute of Frauds
The issue immediately triggers the appropriate rule. Again, the appropriate rules
are something that you will learn in your first year of contract law.
Analysis:
The Statute of Frauds does not state that the contract must be performed within
one year. It only states that it must be possible to complete the contract within a
year. Since a very ill, old man could have died within one year, it is possible that
the contract could have been completed.
This analysis shows how closely you must pay attention to the wording of a rule.
The words "not possible" indicate that a remote possibility of being able to
complete the contract means the rule does not apply.
Conclusion:
The Statute of Frauds probably does not apply in these circumstances, and the
oral contract is not invalid even though it was not completed within one year.
Conclusions should be short and put in terms of a probability.
Civil Procedure Hypothetical
Facts:
1. Patricia sues Daniel in federal district court over money that she says he owes
her.
2. She wins her case.
3. Daniel appeals the decision in the federal appellate court, which overturns the
lower court's decision on a technical error.
4. Patricia appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the court refuses to hear the
case.
5. Patricia attempts to sue Daniel a second time in the state court system over the
same issue of the money she says he owes her.
Issue:
Does the fact that Patricia took her case to the highest federal court and lost
prevent her from starting the same case in a state court?
Civil Procedure questions quite naturally focus on whether a plaintiff or
defendant has correctly followed the rules in bringing a case to court. Civil
Procedure generally does not focus on the substance of the dispute - i.e. whether
the plaintiff or defendant wins.
Rule:
The principle of res judicata states that once a final judgment on the merits has
been made on a particular case, the plaintiff is barred from bringing that same
case against the same defendant in the same or different court.
Analysis:
Since Patricia appealed the case to the highest court, a final judgment is
considered to have been made on the matter. She has exhausted all of the
potential appeals by going to the highest court which has ruled on her case. If
she attempts to bring the same cause of action (i.e. the same particular facts and
controversy) in state court, then Daniel can argue to have the case thrown out of
court using the principle of res judicata.
Conclusion:
Patricia cannot bring the case in state court.
Criminal Law Hypothetical
Facts:
Just as the sun is setting one night, Carl sees that the door to Vince's house is
ajar. Carl knows that Vince has a home office in which there is expensive
computer equipment. Carl pushes the unlocked door open, walks into the house
and steals Vince's computer equipment that is valued at well over $5000.
Issue:
Is opening an unlocked door to a building at twilight to commit a theft sufficient
to constitute a charge of burglary?
Rule:
The common law requirements for a burglary are that there be: 1) a breaking 2)
and entry 3) of a dwelling 4) of another 5) at night 6) with the intent of
committing a felony therein.
Analysis:
Element 1) Although the door was ajar and unlocked, Carl's merely opening the
door was sufficient minimal force to constitute a breaking since the nearly shut
door was meant to deter unwanted entry. No actual breaking of the door or lock
is necessary.
Elements 2, 3 and 4) Carl clearly entered the house, which is not his own. The
house is considered a dwelling since Vince regularly uses the house for sleeping
purposes.
Element 5) Whether it would be considered night at twilight is determined by
whether Vince's face could be discerned in natural light at that hour.
Element 6) Stealing items worth $5000 is a felony in all states.
Notice how methodically each element is proven using the facts provided. Even
though something like entering seems self-evident, the fact that the defendant
actually crossed the threshold has to be stated in order for the legal analysis to
be complete.
Conclusion:
Vince is probably subject to a charge of burglary even though it was not
technically nighttime and the door was unlocked.
Torts Hypothetical
Facts:
Peter and Doug are neighbors who hate one another.
One day, Doug is nailing some boards together on the common sidewalk that he
shares with Peter.
In a classic slapstick comedy move, Doug picks up a board just as Peter is
passing behind him and swings around so that the back end hits Peter in the
head.
The smack in the head causes substantial injury to Peter.
Issue:
Is existing malice between two people enough to show the intent necessary for
liability for battery?
Rule:
The three elements of battery are: 1) a harmful touching of another person 2) the
defendant caused the touching to occur directly or indirectly and 3) the touching
was intentional.
Analysis:
Element 1) The hitting of Peter in the head with a board is considered harmful
since it caused substantial injury.
Element 2) Doug directly caused the injury since he was physically holding the
board as it swung into Peter.
Element 3) The question of whether Doug intended to hit Peter is a matter of
fact that must be decided by a jury. The fact that Doug hated Peter may weigh in
the matter but is not dispositive. Doug must have known that Peter was behind
him and intentionally swung the board so as to purposefully harm Peter.
Conclusion:
Without further evidence, the facts do not appear to indicate the intent necessary
for Peter to sue Doug for the tort of battery.
(http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html)