Not only does JY's original statement assume fidelity, but it also could be interpreted as saying "any child BORN IN THE WORLD during the marriage". Now that would be a lot of money!
Hmm...it seems like these assumptions can be interpreted as the infamous loop-hole that lawyers are know to deal with. So basically, a good argument has no way for a loop-hole to enter the picture while bad ones are riddled with them.
“for each child born during the marriage, Party A agrees to transfer $100,000 to Party B…” This could also mean for each child born on the earth (of all parents). #feedback
Very uncomfortable with the cavalier use of the term 'bastard' here which is a slur directed at children of single mothers and has misogynistic, classist and racist roots. If you want to make this an inclusive learning space, I would be a little more intentional about things like this
in Canadian common law, words and terms in a contract are never litigated in isolation. People think words carry absolute meaning, but thats not how courts read agreements. Just because you wrote "any child born" its not gonna unlock some massive payout. Judicial system is not to be mistaken with a lottery system
The big issue with assumptions is that we make them almost subconsciously, not realizing that they are not a given truth. Anyone have any tips on how to be more aware of them?😅
Introspection and critiquing your own thinking and writing. But it's impossible to operate without making defeasible inferences and assumptions sometimes. The only thorough way to overcome the problem is not by becoming some logicmensch, but to be coachable, and try to learn from others, and to live in an intellectual culture where it's okay to be wrong, or at least not devastating to have one's thoughts critiqued.
334 comments
Ok JY spill the tea who's the movie star
PLS comments like these keep me going
LMAOO PLSSSS
it's little gems like these that make me (almost) ok about spending a saturday night in studying haha
If only the RC passages were this fascinating.
fr XD I was so invested
Not only does JY's original statement assume fidelity, but it also could be interpreted as saying "any child BORN IN THE WORLD during the marriage". Now that would be a lot of money!
that's what I was thinking!! could you imagine (o_o)
@je332650 Exactly what I thought too.
this anecdote really brought light to why the LSAT writers are so big on technicality!
I don't believe this. JY doesn't make mistakes.
No flaws in this argument identified.
The story example was very helpful!
If the movie stars weren't Angelina Jolie And Brad Pitt then I don't want it
Hmm...it seems like these assumptions can be interpreted as the infamous loop-hole that lawyers are know to deal with. So basically, a good argument has no way for a loop-hole to enter the picture while bad ones are riddled with them.
“for each child born during the marriage, Party A agrees to transfer $100,000 to Party B…” This could also mean for each child born on the earth (of all parents). #feedback
This made me laugh, but it's true!
Kind of how I assumed that bastard Jon Snow was a Stark but he is actually a...
Thank you for making studying fun!!
Very uncomfortable with the cavalier use of the term 'bastard' here which is a slur directed at children of single mothers and has misogynistic, classist and racist roots. If you want to make this an inclusive learning space, I would be a little more intentional about things like this
Why hasn't there been any changes yet, despite there still comments of concern? Also, the word "malpractice" is misspelled within the video.
Hi there,
I apologize for any offense caused by the use of that term. Your concerns are entirely valid, and I appreciate your feedback.
We are constantly improving, so every feedback will help us improve. I will make sure to share your thoughts with our team.
Let me know if you have any questions.
😒
And 7 months later the term still hasn't been updated...
This was a great lesson for us LOL
I agree. I literally laughed out loud at 3 AM...
A good lawyer could argue that any child born in the world during the marriage could constitute $100,000.
That’s how I first interpreted it, haha
in Canadian common law, words and terms in a contract are never litigated in isolation. People think words carry absolute meaning, but thats not how courts read agreements. Just because you wrote "any child born" its not gonna unlock some massive payout. Judicial system is not to be mistaken with a lottery system
The big issue with assumptions is that we make them almost subconsciously, not realizing that they are not a given truth. Anyone have any tips on how to be more aware of them?😅
Introspection and critiquing your own thinking and writing. But it's impossible to operate without making defeasible inferences and assumptions sometimes. The only thorough way to overcome the problem is not by becoming some logicmensch, but to be coachable, and try to learn from others, and to live in an intellectual culture where it's okay to be wrong, or at least not devastating to have one's thoughts critiqued.
As someone who is interested in contract law, THIS EXAMPLE WILL BE BURNED INTO MY MIND FOREVER..... Thank you!!!!
I just love that duck.
First thing I thought when I got to this page was "That's a nice duck."
My thoughts exactly! I also thought "d'aww cute duck!"
good story i will def remember this lmao
I better understand material like this - not sure why, but it's just interesting/relateable.
Feeling lawyer like cause I picked up on why his initial prenup was not approved lol
LOLLL
Thats actually hilarious lol
Had the volume turned up and my mom said “that’s what your studying” lol
@SarahShaver LOLLLL
I seriously love these lessons! They're so funny and I am learning so much!!! Thank you, J.Y.!!!
Lol, as a child born out of wedlock, the term bastard hits hard and not in a good way. It's maybe ok for Game of Thrones, but it's 2022...
I think today kids are born out of wedlock so often that the term bastard doesn't really apply to that anymore.