Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bchopeful

Should I tell this lawyer that he must hire me?

Recommended Posts

When I was a child, I was in a car accident and recieved a barely visible scar. He told me (sarcastically of course) that if I got more than $1,500 from insurance than he would hire me.

 

 

 

Well, I argued and pestered them to $8,000.

 

 

 

So am I owed a job? I'm curious to see what he'd actually say.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swml, please keep your condescending comments within your own thread. I know your thread has not turned out as you expected (I could cite a few dozen posts but I won't), but I'd rather not listen to your (troll?) drivel within my own. Thanks.

 

 

 

PS, this explains nothing except that it's just a silly joke. I'd like to see the look on his face, however. Then again, with British Columbia's job market...:|

 

 

Edited by: bchopeful at: 4/13/05 12:15 am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he's going to offer you a job if you do come up with evidence of your accident compensation, and he's not required to do so even after his supposedly sarcastic remark. I think you'd have a tough time saying that you relied on his remark as a serious representation of his contractual intentions or an inducement to enter into a contract with you since you believe that he was being sarcastic at the time.

 

 

 

:o

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but this does not result in a contractual obligation. i know everyone has kinda joked around about it, but to be honest a court would consider it the exact same way. they will look to intent and consent to see if there is a contract. lets say that you and a friend are playing basketball and your friend says he'll give you $1000 if you hit 5 three pointers in a row or something... so you hit them but your friend would not actually have to pay you the money. so i know your situation's a little more serious, but courts will probably see it as a reasonable person would not think that your lawyer would have been intending to enter a contract with you.

 

all the same though, that doesn't mean you can't go and throw it in the guy's face now. cause i sure as hell would, this guy sounds pretty full of himself from what you've said.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it would be difficult to show that the lawyer intended to be legally bound ... but I still think that you should tell him to hire you just to stick it to him for his sarcasim, which seems highly unprofessional to me.

 

 

Edited by: Cross Examiner at: 4/13/05 1:50 pm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • No worries there. Most Oz students do their damned best to disassociate themselves with York whenever possible. They won't slip up. 
    • This is exactly my point on AI not being what the media says it is. The chances of lawyers getting replaced in our lifetime is pretty small.
    • I'm selling all of my Barbri materials that I used for the July 2018 exam. The materials are the same as those for the February 2019 exam (the covers of my books say July 2018/Feb 2019). I have all the materials included in the Barbri course, including the flashcards. I can also include some handouts that I printed (lecture notes, summaries, powerpoints for mini-lectures, study plan, and overviews). Everything is in good condition, as I barely highlighted or marked up any of the textbooks (except the lecture handouts, but they're useless unless they're filled out).  I'm willing to ship these wherever they need to go (we can negotiate on shipping), and I'm open to reasonable offers. PM me if you're interested
    • I won't claim I've read all the articles, but skimming the titles only puts them into the category of what I was saying before. It's buzz. And it's confusing the tool with the real work of a lawyer. If something automated actually killed thousands of parking tickets I guess that's real "law" in a way, but I can't believe it's more sophisticated than automating something simple that you can't pay a human being enough to care about doing for what it's worth. Again, there's a difference between automation and AI. I seriously don't think anyone has tried to grapple with my point about drafting. Do you realize how many people used to be employed simply to copy documents by hand? No one seriously imagines that word processing and photocopying killed a whole swath of the profession simply because students and junior lawyers don't sit all day copying contracts in longhand. The real work of this profession is creative and analytical. And that's before we even talk about the actual advocacy and human interaction. The day computers can do that, they can do damn near anything. EDIT: I've now read about the ticket-fighting "robot lawyer" and it's actually no more sophisticated than the SimpleTax program I used until recently. That is, it's a nice little choose-your-own adventure program, with the appropriate rules filled in, but to pretend it's AI is just absurd. It's no more AI than a DIY will kit.
×