TO: Name of the person who assigned the research project DE: Your name DATE: Date Memo is translated into RE: Name of the client and a brief description of the purpose of the memorandum A final but important reminder: An office memorandum is a predictive statement of the law. You are not writing to convince a court, but to predict how a court would apply the law to the facts of your situation. Therefore, you need to maintain a objective tone and do not forget to address all the counter-arguments. Provide a formal and objective description of the legally significant facts of your research problem. Facts of legal importance are those which are relevant to the answer to the point of law referred. In a question concerning, for example, whether a minor may refuse a contract, a legally significant fact would include the nature of the agreed object or service (clothing, food, shelter, health care, etc.) and whether the minor had in any event access to the object without having to be contractually obliged to: to pay for it. The description must be accurate and complete. Present the facts in a logically consistent manner, which may include chronological order. Add legally significant facts – facts on which the resolution of the legal issue submitted is based, whether they are favorable or against the client for whom you are writing – and add substantive facts that clarify the context of the problem. In this section, do not comment on the facts or discuss how the law is applied to the facts. Any factual information that appears later in the discussion section of the memorandum should be described in the facts section. This document contains a brief description of how to develop an office memorandum. The format and structure may vary somewhat from one law firm to another (and here at the law school from one professor to another).
Once you`re in practice, you can customize the format to suit the needs of your desktop. The office`s standard memorandum usually includes the following sections: 15) Note how the author merges the key cases that make up the rule, and then identifies the investigative standard by which the courts apply the rule. No. 7 If, as in the present case, the wording of the advertisement merely stated that the sale was a `manufacturer`s business` and that the `early` buyer would `absorb the savings`, the advertisement did not constitute an offer to sell the coat which could be converted into a binding contract by conduct constituting acceptance of the conditions announced. The most fundamental issue in Garricks v. New York City has determined whether the city has enough time to properly clean streets and sidewalks. Like J.P. Sullivan J. in Valentine v.
City of New York, A.D. 449 N.Y.S.2d 991, 992 (1982), “a reasonable period of time is the period within which the community should have noticed and corrected in the exercise of due diligence by cleaning the sidewalk or otherwise eliminating the hazard.” Such a period is measured from “the end of the storm to the time of the accident”. Morning v. New York City, 487 N.Y.S. 2d 39 (1985). In Garricks, the plaintiff fell between 39 and 45 hours after the last significant snowfall, which left 10 inches of snow on the ground. Previously, in Valentine v. In New York City, where the plaintiff fell on the ice thirty hours after a storm that left 2 to 3 inches of rain, the court ruled that the city did not have enough time to clear the roads because of the extent of its snow removal work. The situation is similar with Goldman et.al.
v. City of New York, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 429 (1942), the court ruled that the city is not liable for bodily injury suffered 36.5 hours after the end of a two-day storm. However, in crichton v. Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, 679 N.Y.S. 2d 392 (1998), the city was found negligent for failing to remove the snow that caused the plaintiff to fall five days after a snowstorm that left 22 inches of snow. Although the heavier snow in Crichton significantly slows down the city`s snow removal efforts, the time elapsed in Crichton.is is much longer than in Garricks. In fact, if Ms. Garricks were to win, this case would involve one of the shortest periods in the history of slips and falls in which the city was held responsible. Interestingly, the judge in Valentine mentions that the shortest period for which the accused, New York, was held responsible for slip and fall injuries after a snowstorm is 44 hours in a 1948 case, Janota v. New York City, 297 N.Y.
942 (1948). The similarities between Janota and Garricks are striking. Both crashes occurred less than two days after a storm that accumulated about 10 inches of snow on the ground, although Janota only has 7.9 inches left before the incident. However, there were also outstanding differences which influenced the judgment in favour of the applicant in the Janota case. For example, the applicant fell in front of a store on Queens Boulevard; she claimed that she could not find a free way to access the door. It`s unclear if Garricks had another way to get to her destination, but she slipped onto the sidewalk, probably suggesting she may have walked around the icy spot or taken a side street. Although Janota deserves to be compared to Garricks, specific differences between the circumstances that may affect the outcome of this case must be cited. 20 In the present case, the applicant could claim that the advertisement did not contain any restrictive wording, e.B. that the coats were on sale during stock.
21 However, the ad pointed out that the store, which opened at 7 a.m. on .m the day of the sale.m, was open to shoppers early in the morning. By announcing that “the early riser saves money”, the announcement could be read in such a way that supplies were not unlimited. 22(10) In your facts section, indicate which legal claims are being considered or are being developed and describe any legal proceedings that have already taken place. 23) The overall conclusion contains a summary of the main points of your analysis. In your application section, you may have struggled with areas of uncertainty in legal doctrine and/or competing political justifications. You may also have dealt with a seemingly contradictory set of facts: some seem to fit the requirements of the rule; others suggest that the rule is not being followed. You may have weighed arguments against counter-arguments. After doing all this, you need to take a stand and make a statement about how the court will apply the law. In view of the more detailed short answer, the author has opted for a brief reformulation of the final conclusion here. Ultimately, for each issue or sub-topic, you should come to the conclusion of how you think a court would likely decide your facts.
Discuss and resolve any counter-arguments in favor of your main line of analysis Many law firms expect you to start with a short thesis paragraph that briefly identifies the problem and the applicable rule (without elaboration) and repeats the short answer. This is followed by an introductory section that provides a map or framework for the discussion as a whole. The introductory section should summarize and synthesize the rule, describe all subsections of the rule, and clarify their relationship to each other. If the synthesized rule is derived from case law, the discussion of cases should focus on general principles, on the criteria that courts use to describe the rule, and not on the specific facts and reasoning of the cases. .