03/01/12 04:44 - ID#56153
Tuesday night's restaurant: El Vez. Yummy, but loud. The table we were seated at sucked - squeezed between a photobooth and the stairs down to the restrooms, so we asked to move. The place was loud. Service was very good. It felt like what Cantina Loco wants to be. Great decor:
After a Cezar Chavez guac appetizer, A got shrimp tacos which he said were really good:
And I got black bean enchiladas. I also got a Stegmaier IPA which had the malty-coffee edge of a black IPA.
After the exam on Wednesday, I wanted to celebrate a least a little. I asked Meredith for some mapping/exploring help and she suggested the Manayunk Brewery & Restaurant. Manayunk is a funky cool neighborhood that I had visited back in probably 1994 with my ex's mom & stepdad. It's gotten a bit gentrified since then - it has a Pottery Barn.
We shared the sampler of eight beers. I was surprised I liked their Black Eye PA - much less of the malty-toasted flavor than other black IPAs. The Dreamin' IPA was my favorite, of course, a crisp double IPA 8.5%, 85 IBUs.
(remember, you can click to enlarge and read the text) A liked the Schuylkill Punch, a raspberry lager.
A's amazingly sculptural sashimi plate (very unusual for a brewpub to have a full sushi bar, but there it was!)
Wheat & malt
Dessert - Jewish apple cake and ice cream.
Then we had the four-hour drive home.
Thank goodness it's over. I'll know mid-April if I passed. I'm taking today off (except accepting phone calls from (e:Terry)), lazing around, enjoying some quiet.
Last Modified: 03/01/12 05:14
02/27/12 10:43 - ID#56145
Traveled to philly tonight, currently at Triumph Brewing Company on Chestnut enjoying a Bengal Gold IPA and listening to a jazz band. A got a Love Potion, too sweet for me. We ordered an insane amount food because A was worried the portions would be tiny. Ooops.
Last Modified: 02/27/12 10:58
02/27/12 12:16 - ID#56142
at the office
Kelly got her nails done with super cute pandas.
Last Modified: 02/27/12 12:16
02/23/12 05:48 - ID#56115
(e:kookcity2000) took me out to lunch at John's TexMex in the South Wedge and then he gave me a little tour. Thank you so much!! Gorgeous view from next to the big reservoir:
There was an overwhelming number of people in the room for the admission ceremony.
And there were all these people talking! The ceremony took about 45 minutes.
But now I'm a lawyer... officially an "Attorney and Counselor at Law" as you can see:
Back to studying.
Last Modified: 02/23/12 05:54
02/20/12 10:33 - ID#56106
Collateral estoppel. It's so boring i'm not bothering. You can google it.
So folks, I've got seven days left. I'm in a way better position than I was for the NYS bar exam but somehow I'm in a worse mental place, or at least it feels like it at the moment. The scoring is mysterious and the essays have more weight than they did in NYS... stress stress.
I'm asking you all to please write more posts and comments because they help me understand that this exam is not the only thing that exists in the world.
(e:springfaerie), I really hope Rhys is okay.
Tomorrow night, Mardi Gras.
Last Modified: 02/20/12 10:33
02/18/12 08:09 - ID#56094
Paternity by estoppel Once you say you're the dad of the kid, you can't disclaim the kid even if blood tests say it isn't yours. But if biological dad steps in and says that he'll take responsibility for the kid, you're off the hook.
Corporation by estoppel if you're dealing with an entity that you believe is a corporation (which would have limited liability) and you find out that it was defectively formed or isn't a corporation at all, you can't assert that the owner is then personally liable. This is only true if the owner didn't know that the corporate formation was defective and was in good faith holding it out to be real.
Last Modified: 02/18/12 08:09
02/13/12 07:16 - ID#56060
Word of the Day: Subjacent
Legal context: "Subjacent support rights are the rights of surface owners to not have their land subside from the activities of the owners of underground rights." Coal mining is a good example: as the miners are removing coal, they have to make sure that the surface doesn't collapse. The relation of the subsurface to the surface is "subjacent".
Last Modified: 02/13/12 07:22
01/31/12 01:27 - ID#56009
Promissory estoppel allows a promisee to enforce a promise against a promisor even when there's no consideration. Consideration is a legal detriment that binds one to a contract. It's usually money for service or product but it could be product for service or something else.
Example: (e:Lilho) promises (e:Paul) that she will give him a year's worth of tortoise food if he stops going out dancing for a month. (e:Paul) thinks this is a good bargain and stops growing dandelions and strawberries for Basra and T2. At the end of the month, (e:Paul) hasn't been dancing but (e:Lilho) laughs and says she wasn't serious. Now Basra and T2 are hungry. Can (e:Paul) sue (e:Lilho) for tortoise food?
- Was a contract formed? (e:Lilho) made an offer, (e:Paul) accepted, so yes.
- Was there consideration? (e:Lilho) isn't getting anything for her promise, so no ((e:Paul) not dancing for a month doesn't affect (e:Lilho)'s life although that's what she asked for).
- So why can (e:Paul) sue? Promissory estoppel: Because he relied on (e:Lilho)'s promise by tearing out the dandelion and strawberry garden and an injustice will occur if (e:Lilho)'s promise is not enforced - Basra & T2 would go hungry. Was it reasonably foreseeable (or even just reasonable) that (e:Paul) would rely on the promise? Yes, because (e:Paul) thinks growing tortoise food is a pain.
Last Modified: 01/31/12 01:30
01/30/12 08:16 - ID#56006
When P2 has failed to respond or flat out states they don't intend to honor the contract, anticipatory repudiation has occurred. P1 can then seek remedies and doesn't have to follow through on their part of the contract. If P1 doesn't seek remedies, P2 can resume performance (or promise to) and P1 can request assurances that P2 will follow through. P1 is also required to mitigate the consequences of the breach (such as find a different supplier).
Last Modified: 01/30/12 11:03
01/15/12 07:30 - ID#55925
PA DUI laws
1. What is operating or in control of a vehicle?
The court looks at the totality of the circumstances but factors include
- is the person in the drivers seat?
- is the engine or the headlights on?
- are the keys in the ignition?
- how is the car situated?
2. Where? The vehicle can be on the side of the road, in a parking lot, or any other public roadway.
3. How much alcohol?
General impairment is a BAC of .08 to .1 (or acutally impaired and no BAC results available)
High rate of alcohol: .1 to .16 (irrespective of actual level of impairment)
Highest rate of alcohol: =>.16
(irrespective of actual level of impairment)
(e:Puddlediving) has a breathalyzer and we've been shocked by how little alcohol it takes to hit that .08 mark. .16 is easy to hit, too. DUI penalties are quite harsh (and include not being able to go to Canada for 10 years), so today's lesson is Don't Drink & Drive!
Note: In PA, you can turn around to avoid a DUI checkpoint. You can't drive around the checkpoint, but you can turn around. Very interesting.
Last Modified: 01/15/12 08:14