NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8361513" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Two things-First, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about now. Yes, the number of cases that result in trial court and appellate court holdings is less than the millions of contracts cases each year, but it is still quite sizeable. Moreover, when you add in the fact that numerous publications survey the cases and publish findings about the state of contract law ... And this is after changing what you said! Your first claim (that I responded to) was this:"We apparently have wildly different perceptions of how comprehensive extant case law is concerning contract language."We do have wildly different perceptions! Because on any given contractual issue, it is trivial to find case law. You can usually get a good, what, 50+ years of cases in a given jurisdiction*, and the chances that your contractual issue is unique because of a lack of "comprehensive extant case law" is usually pretty laughable. IMO. Given that contracts are probably the single most litigated issue in civil litigation**, AND the primary focus of most transactional attorneys. But hey, maybe you're on to something. Maybe every time something an attorney writes something, they just throw up their hands because, hey, "It's all new to us. It's not like court have ever decided contract cases before! Most people say that the law is about stability and precedent and not taking risks ... but it's really just a guessing game with no guiderails. WOO HOO!"I'm being a little light, but c'mon. That's silly. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.Look, you want to do something good, help people draft the language. There's all sorts of resources out there, because contests and sweepstakes are a minefield of conflicting state and federal laws, along with the possibility of liability. I have trouble seeing it, but that might be because I have a wildly different perception of how the law works than you do, and I am clearly and obviously an idiot without the ability to understand the fine distinctions you are making.Wouldn't be the first time!*Sure, you can always go Hadley, but at a certain point you want something current, right?EDIT - **Maybe. If you combine all the contractual civil issues it would be; but "pure contract" loses out to "ambulance chasing." I think. Not concerned enough to actually look it up.</blockquote>

Verification