I am sharing two additional student commentaries. One addresses a dispute concerning a homeowners’ association and compliance with restrictive covenants. A second addresses the Rule Against Perpetuities as applied to the term of a settlement agreement.
Go to the Law Student Commentary page for more information.
We’ve just posted our second law student commentary. In it, Wes Dagestad addresses the efficacy of a disembodied signature on an iPad.
We now have our first student commentary, from Robert Herz. It’s titled: Ward v. West County Motor Co.–The thousand dollar test drive.
See more at our pages for student commentaries.
A few MU law students are preparing their own commentary on briefed cases. At least this year, we do not have enough student posts to populate a separate site. Those comments students wish to have me post, and make available to a wider audience, will be posted under a separate page here:
I expect the first student post to be available some time later this month.
Missouri authority allows a property owner to testify as to the value of property, in contexts where one might think that the property owner’s testimony would be excluded as being an expert testimony without proof of the ordinary prerequisites to expert testimony. Oitker v. K.C. Waterproofing addresses such an issue. It seems there were problems with the foundation work done by the contractor.
It seems to be the contractor’s position that the client was not entitled to claim that the promised services were worth at least what the contractor charged. Presumably the contractor would not have expressly disagreed at the time the contract was formed.
Let’s see if the contractor’s discussion of the foundation for the damages computation is “all wet”.
More after the break …