A tip of the hat should go to Ken Schneyer from Johnson and Wales who has suggested that a better example may be found by using a song that was composed but never performed by the composer. (More like a legislature which must leave "performance" of the staute to the courts.) He has suggested using Over the Rainbow. I think that is also an excellent example.
videos, music, websites, articles, movies, and popular culture resources for use in the undergraduate law classroom
Monday, September 26, 2011
Statutory Interpretation Illustrated
I frequently use music in class to illustrate a legal principle. My theory is generally that students understand how music "works." Therefore, music can be used as a scaffold to assist understanding of more complex principles.
I assign the videos below, all of various versions of the song, The First Cut is the Deepest, to illustrate the concept of statutory interpretation. Start with the performance of the composer/lyricist, Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam). He wrote "the law" as expressed in the melody, lyrics, tempo, arrangement and overall feeling of his performance. Next, PP Arnold interprets the law by adding an R&B tempo and arrangement. Linda Ronstadt’s version tracks close to Arnold’s precedent, but adds energy and richness. In the chorus of Ronstadt’s version, there is a slight but noticeable change in the lyrics of the chorus, transferring focus from the “other” in the story to the “self” and, thereby, altering the meaning. Rod Stewart’s performance slows the tempo, stylistically shifting the feel of the song to more of an acoustic rock ballad and makes two notable textual and substantive changes. In the third line of the first verse Stewart changes the word “got” to “have.” The word change does not affect the meaning of the sentence and is arguably a grammatical improvement. However, the change destroys the three-line rhyming scheme of the verse as composed and falls more clumsily on the ear of the audience. Even more notably, Stewart truncates the chorus, bringing it to a close after only two lines of the original three-line rhyming scheme and abandoning the reiteration of the “first cut” reference. Sheryl Crow’s popular version matches Stewart’s version, embracing and solidifying in audience memory both the clumsiness of the first verse and the truncated, unfinished sounding chorus over the composer’s own aesthetic. Crow has confirmed in interviews that she did not return to the original text in arranging her version because she knew Stewart’s version as precedent and “heard” the song principally in that way. Ultimately, she recorded the song as it sounded right to her, regardless of the composer’s intent. Finally, Papa Dee’s version bears the least resemblance to the Cat Steven’s original despite similarity in melody and lyrics. Each interpretation of the original (the statute) results in different meaning while retaining some measure of fidelity to the original composition.
A tip of the hat should go to Ken Schneyer from Johnson and Wales who has suggested that a better example may be found by using a song that was composed but never performed by the composer. (More like a legislature which must leave "performance" of the staute to the courts.) He has suggested using Over the Rainbow. I think that is also an excellent example.
A tip of the hat should go to Ken Schneyer from Johnson and Wales who has suggested that a better example may be found by using a song that was composed but never performed by the composer. (More like a legislature which must leave "performance" of the staute to the courts.) He has suggested using Over the Rainbow. I think that is also an excellent example.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Law Music Video - Who Put The Benzadrine in Mrs. Murphy's Ovaltine?
This week's installment in the "Law Music Videos" series is Who Put The Benzadrine in Mrs. Murphy's Ovaltine? by the Chevalier Brothers. Certainly this is tortious conduct!
Law music videos played before your class starts will positively contribute to learning.
Law music videos played before your class starts will positively contribute to learning.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Trial By Jury
From the Georgia Civil Justice Foundation comes this video on Trial by Jury.
Click on the image below to start the video:
Click on the image below to start the video:
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Featured Case: Anthony v. Blum
As reported in an article in The Business Lawyer:
In Anthony v. Blum,(1999 WL 259726 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 23, 1999)). a Connecticut case, Blum had negligently represented Anthony and, in settlement, Blum executed a $10,400 promissory note on behalf of his law firm (an LLC), payable to plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Blum on the note and argued that Blum's negligence constituted the consideration for the note, thereby entitling plaintiff to hold Blum personally liable. The court held, however, that "the present action is not a malpractice action but a breach of contract action" in which the law firm was the obligor and for which "Blum is not personally liable."
So, the lawyer escapes liability on the note issued by the LLC to settle the case based on the lawyer's malpractice. No wonder lawyers have a bad reputation for slick maneuvering.
In Anthony v. Blum,(1999 WL 259726 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 23, 1999)). a Connecticut case, Blum had negligently represented Anthony and, in settlement, Blum executed a $10,400 promissory note on behalf of his law firm (an LLC), payable to plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Blum on the note and argued that Blum's negligence constituted the consideration for the note, thereby entitling plaintiff to hold Blum personally liable. The court held, however, that "the present action is not a malpractice action but a breach of contract action" in which the law firm was the obligor and for which "Blum is not personally liable."
So, the lawyer escapes liability on the note issued by the LLC to settle the case based on the lawyer's malpractice. No wonder lawyers have a bad reputation for slick maneuvering.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Law Lessong - Take it Reasonably
The next installment in the “Law Lessong” series is Take it Reasonably. This simple video and song from a Power Point presentation helps students consider the nature of the law of negolgence. Learn more about Law Lessongs from the post found here. More videos may be found at my youtube channel. Please feel free to use them in the classroom or as assignments or in any way that they work for you as an educational resource.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Mutuality of Consideration: The "So That" Test and the Case of the Freakin' Thirsty Grandma
Having trouble with consideration principles? Fuhggeddabouhdit! This is sooooo simple!
Thank you Elura Nanos and Michele Sileo.
Thank you Elura Nanos and Michele Sileo.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Jury Nullification Described
Looking past the Libertarian political overtones, this video gives a brief but effective description of the concept of jury nullification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)