the philosophical banter of a madman
I was back in good ol’ Massachusetts over Thanksgiving break and it was nice seeing my family and a few of my friends from home. As for those of you whom I did not get a chance to see, I apologize but I will be back again for Christmas break and I will try to see you during that period of time.
I will be back out east from December 21st to January 14th; mark your calendars.
A long while ago, I read about the concept of a caffeine nap and then promptly didn’t give it another thought. Today, however, I revisited the topic inadvertently. Finding myself rather tired from last night’s minimal quantity of sleep, I was waiting from about 1:30 for my 2:30 class and falling asleep. I had, in my possession, a mostly full bottle of Vault Zero, and by 2:00 my ability to keep my eyes open had approached nil. Thinking that I might as well try to take a 15-20 minute power nap, I vaguely recalled what I had read long ago and decided that I might as well pound the remainder of my beverage before my nap. Surprisingly, I found the caffeine nap to be dramatically more effective than any other 15-20 minute nap that I’ve ever taken. I may just have to consider the option of caffeine naps more seriously in the future.
Frequent conversations will fill your
heart with joy.
Lucky Numbers 21, 4, 28, 36, 17, 2
Commentary: I certainly do like talking to people.
Well, not so much Dodge as Minneapolis but the point is the same. As I write this, I am in Chi-town visiting my friend Jamie. I’d been meaning to get out of Minneapolis in a “get away from it all” for a while sense and I’ve been wanting to pull a big road trip for a few weeks. So, when I discovered that I had an old friend 6 hours drive away, I found a brilliant means of satiating my desires. As it stands, I haven’t been doing altogether too much her but relaxing with a change of scenery and people is really nice. Of course, I’m not terribly looking forward to the amount of work that I’ll have to do tomorrow night but it’s worth it so, so be it.
YOU ARE 28 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1332!
You are not a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure at all: you’re the statute that allows the federal district courts to hear diversity of citizenship actions! You were drafted with the idea that an out-of-state party may be unduly prejudiced by appearing in a foreign state. Sometimes people may think that you’re strange, and they try to minimalize your effects by requiring an amount in controversy and by being especially strict on the requirements for diversity. Also, attorneys often use you for “forum shopping” and other undesirable behavior. But there’s no getting around the fact that you’re so darned loveable! Your delightful quirkiness entertains friends and law professors alike, and although others may grumble about your eccentricities behind your back, they’re always talking about you, so you must be doing something right. Let’s face it, the world could use a few more 28 USC 1332’s!
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure are you?
As the clock ticks over to 6am, it occurs to me that I’m pulling more all-nighters here in law school than I ever did at MIT. I used to pull all-nighters every once in a while at MIT, sometimes out of necessity and sometimes just for the heck of it. All told, I probably averaged one or two all-nighters for every few months during my undergrad career. So far in law school, I’m probably averaging one or two per couple weeks. To compensate my lack of sleeping, I’ve taken up a fairly regular napping regimen; Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, from the end of Contracts (10am) until lunch, I usually take a nap in one of the chairs of the law school sub-plaza. It’s probably not a good system but it works well enough and I’ve only got about a month left.
Today, I negotiated a new contract as a means of settling a dispute over the breach of an implied term in another contract. The entire event was decidedly uninteresting until it occurred to me to put the matter in a contractual light. So, here’s what happened (with analysis):
On account of the temperature being below freezing and my now having a parking permit for the garage across from the law school, I decided to drive to class today. Running late and having decided to drive to class, I forewent breakfast at home and decided to take advantage of the McDonald’s drive-through three blocks from where I live. Pulling into the drive-through, I spoke to the ordering box and requested a Number 4 with a medium orange juice (I entered into a contract with the McDonald’s to exchange $3.85 for a Sausage Biscuit with Egg, a Hash Brown and a Medium Orange Juice). Pulling up to the window, I handed the attendant $4.00, received $0.15 in change and proceeded to wait for my food (I fulfilled my contractual duties). After a few minutes had passed, my food had not yet arrived (McDonald’s breached an implicit term of the contract, specifically the implicit duty to provide my food in an expedient manner, as would be expected by both parties to the contract). At this point, the drive-through attendant offered me two apple pies if I would pull to the side and wait a minute or so for my food (McDonald’s put forth an offer to contract with me to release them of the obligations imposed by the breach of the implicit expedience term in exchange for their providing me with two apple pies). I accepted the offer of apple pies and pulled over to wait (I accepted the terms of the newly offered contract, waiving McDonald’s responsibilities imposed by the breach of the first contract). I was finally provided with my food and two apple pies (McDonald’s fulfilled their contractual duties under the combined terms of the two contracts).
You might not notice it, but there are contracts all over the place, all the time.
