T3BE44: Parental Promised Pizza Payment Predicament

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:00:08 Clip: I just know that you were going to kick that bar's butt out of here, you know? Come in here with a skull full of mush and you leave thinking like a lawyer.

0:00:31 Clip: My staff has flunked the bar exams six times.

0:00:36 Clip: You graduated from law school six years ago. What have you been doing since? Studying for the bar.

0:00:46 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is our Wednesday bar exam episode. Takes the bar exam number 44, where each and every week, bar prep expert Heather Veronini comes and gives us a bar question. I attempt to answer it using nothing. Using nothing. Actually, that's the end of sentence. Just using nothing, using nothing Nothing but the ping pong balls rattling around in my tired, overworked ADHD brain. And I attempt to answer it and folks play along on patreon.com/law and on reddit.com/r/openargs. week we'll Have the answer to last week's question 43 about hot firefighters. Really good one there. Surprising. The answer may surprise you about hot fire fighters, and then we'll get a brand new question. Be lots of fun. So let's go take a break, which you can avoid at patreon.com/law. You can avoid these which I have no control over. Absolutely no control other than an on -off switch. And that switch has to be on because legal debt. Far as the content of the auto ads. I have zero control over that whatsoever. And the best thing to do if you want to avoid them is just pledge a buck at patreon.com/law get access to the ad free feed. Otherwise, hit the skip button. I don't know. Right, after this break, we'll be on with the answer to question 43.

0:02:06 Thomas: All Right. How's it going today, Heather? Together.

0:02:09 Heather: Going pretty well, and I've been hanging out with our sexy friend Mike, the firefighter.

0:02:13 Thomas: Well, then it's going very well. Do calendar? Yeah.

0:02:16 Heather: Don't tell my husband. How'd

0:02:19 Thomas: Spoiler, your husband is sexy firefighter, Mike. Bam. Yeah. They should update this and have it be an OnlyFans job, but no. Okay. Remind us the question that we're talking about here.

0:02:32 Heather: Well, we had a city council of Oceania passing a local ordinance that was keeping or preventing all their first responders like firefighters and paramedics from working a second job. And the reason that the city council said that they were passing this law was to have their first responders available in the instance that they had an emergency like a pandemic or wildfire or what have you. The other employees of the city didn't have that same restriction. So our very sexy firefighter, Mike, he got really upset because that meant that he would have to give up his second job as a calendar model. So then Mike challenged the constitutionality of the law as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. So we're trying to figure out if Mike is going to win his challenge to see whether or not that law was going to be overturned.

0:03:16 Thomas: Yep. I ever made me give up my calendar modeling job, I would be pissed too, Mike. Solidarity.

0:03:24 Heather: So you did a great job at identifying this as a constitutional law question. You're bang on. Yeah, exactly. Right. Anytime you got like an amendment that's being brought up, someone's challenging under an amendment, especially with the equal protection clause. That's exactly what it is, con law question. I think it's a good opportunity to kind of do a quick reminder for what the equal protection clause is and a little bit about how it works. Typically it's when the government treats certain people or classes of people differently and whether that's justified. So our 14th Amendment equal protection clause specifically says that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws. So we're going

0:03:29 Thomas: Pretty easy. Okay.

0:04:08 Heather: To see how that works here.

0:04:10 Thomas: Interesting.

0:04:11 Heather: I'll make a quick note that usually like an analytical framework that we'll walk through and we'll go through it as we work through the answer choices today. I'm going to bop around a little bit. I won't

0:04:22 Thomas: Bop around. Well, I heard that was a petty offense though. Or no, that was, was that a major one? No, that's jostling. So you're not going to jostle. Okay, don't jostled, but you can bop.

0:04:30 Heather: Jostle too much. Usually what we do is we try to identify the classification. Saying the equal protection is really about, a lot of times, listen, I know about you, but under my Supreme Court, the first thing we're doing is making sexy firefighters a protected class.

0:04:40 Thomas: Sexy firefighter. Yeah, absolutely.

0:04:50 Heather: So yeah, we usually identify the classification, like who's getting treated differently. And then we identify what level of review or standard of review that should apply. High. And then we identify whether what the government is doing meets that standard of review to determine whether the law should be upheld or overturned. Like I said, I'll move around. But what I'm going to start by doing is talking about those levels of scrutiny, because you started talking about them. And I was glad to hear that you had familiarity with them.

0:04:51 Thomas: It's time they got their rights, their equal rights. Okay okay I

0:05:21 Heather: So we'll look through them. Yeah, you did. I was got to hear them.

0:05:20 Thomas: Can almost name them rational basis test that's just as long as it's rationally related intermediate scrutiny that I don't exactly remember how it works but it's something in between the two extremes strict scrutiny it's got to be very related to a very strong interest and the least restrictive means achieving that that's that's my memory how close did I get

0:05:37 Heather: Stuff. Very close. Did a great job. Just going to fill in a little bit of the details. Does that sound okay?

0:05:47 Thomas: I'm just going to fix it a little bit No look away I'm going to just fix that a little bit.

0:05:52 Heather: Listen, you laid the groundwork. I'mjustadding in a littledetail. Sound like I said, I won't go into all the details, just a little bit. Strict scrutiny, like you said, highest it's classification. And the law is upheld if it's necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.

0:05:55 Thomas: There you go Necessary. Yeah okay Compelling government interest too. That's okay

0:06:09 Heather: Exactly. Government usually has the burden to show that the law is valid or should be upheld. So that's our government's job. Usually the hardest hurdle to clear, meaning that it's pretty hard to invalidate a law when it's reviewed under strict scrutiny. And you had mentioned this early on, too. A lot of classifications that are reviewed under the standard erase national origin and citizenship because there's understandably suspect classifications, right? So when a law treats people differently based on, let's say, national origin, it should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. That makes sense, right? We don't want the law treating different people differently based on those things.

0:06:44 Thomas: Twist answer. There's actually a country of sexy firefighters and that's what? No I'm kidding.

0:06:50 Heather: Then to what you're saying a little bit before, then we've got intermediate scrutiny. This is our kind of middle standard of review. A law is upheld if it's substantially related to an important government interest. Government here has the burden of proving the law meets the standard of review and things like gender and illegitimate children are reviewed under this standard.

0:07:07 Thomas: What the hell? They got to review every legitimate Sorry that was stupid

0:07:13 Heather: No, that's okay. And just to clarify, that it's not my language. It's the Supreme Court. To clarify what that means, the when laws discriminate based on whether a child's parents are married. So if kids receive or don't receive benefits based on on whether or not their parents are married. That's what the court determines is

0:07:30 Thomas: This sounds like a very random result of like some stupid case law from too long ago that some stuff just got shoved in the basket of intermediate scrutiny because I don't know they needed to use each of them otherwise why do you make these categories and like what should we put in the middle one

0:07:46 Heather: Kids. Yeah. And it's surprisingly not quite as long ago as you thought. Then it happened just enough times and up to the Supreme Court on a couple of different ways. And so then it ends up in our law school case books. And that's how we do this. It was funny because I was reviewing this and I oh, there's one or two. And there's just like this whole section It was like illegitimate children. I go, ah, yes. How dare I forget that this exists?

0:08:09 Heather: I always wish when I review this stuff, I'm always like, hate I that this exists because it means that a bunch of bad stuff had to happen for us to get to this point. Yeah. And to your point too, we also then have rational basis review when a law is upheld if it's rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Here, the burden of proof shifts to the challenger. But what happens here is the really deferential to the government, and laws are likely upheld here because there's a strong presumption in favor of the laws. Categories that are reviewed under rational basis are things like age, disability, or like wealth and poverty. This is also the default category because every law challenged under equal protection has to meet meet this standard. Right. So with that in our back pocket, we're going to work through some of the answer choices. Does so

0:08:18 Thomas: That's the first time

0:09:00 Heather: Let's take a peek at answer choice A. It says, yes, because the ordinance is not the least restrictive means of achieving Oceana's legitimate interest. You did a great job of saying that your memory is very good, uh, because you were saying, Hey, least restrictive.

0:09:14 Thomas: I've ever heard that that in my life.

0:09:16 Heather: No, really. Cause you were saying, hey, least restricted reminds me of strict scrutiny. And you were absolutely right. Right. Of the standards of review, as you heard me kind of mention, have two parts. Here, strict scrutiny says the law is upheld if it's necessary. And necessary means that it has no less restrictive alternative. So it was answer choice is trying to get you to think strict scrutiny when it says that. So you were right. Also has this other part here where where it says, achieving Oceana's legitimate interest. That's the second part. We've got to remember that rational basis uses the legitimate government interest or purpose language. We've got a mismatch between the levels of scrutiny in the language that this answer choice is using.

0:09:58 Heather: Yeah. And a common wrong answer choice on questions like this, common wrong answer choices do one of two things. They either mismatch the language, like it does here, it or will apply the wrong standard of review to the classification. Yeah.

0:10:12 Thomas: Right. So I didn't catch that. The legitimate interest. So it needs to be a compelling interest, was it?

0:10:19 Heather: Yes.

0:10:19 Thomas: If it were strict scrutiny. Got it. Okay.

0:10:21 Heather: You put this as your second chance answer, but you did eliminate it because you were saying, and you also kind of did mention, isn't rational basis review, you're kind of saying, a little bit like, oh, this feels like rational basis is kind of paired with strict scrutiny here. You even mentioned that a little little bit.

0:10:35 Thomas: Yeah, so what I worried about was I it pretty accurately. I remember that rational basis is, you know, it's the easy one. It's just like, hey, it's got to be rationally related to, I forgot the second part, which is, A, that it's a legitimate interest, I kind of glossed over that versus the compelling interest or what's the middle one straw something interest or there's the substantial oh important okay I love that they're like god how do we make this middle category is a little weird well is it a legitimate interest is an important interest or is it an compelling interest so I love we've got our terrorism like color coding on that uh is it magenta interest or whatever yeah so what I worried about was okay the least restrictive means sounds like you could I mean you should probably just do that all the time so I was worried I was like wait is least restrictive does that apply to all of them like I was I was afraid like well no matter what it should be the least restricted means you can because like why not do the least restrict I was a little bit worried about that but I ultimately was was pretty sure that like rational basis didn't have that component to it so that's why I it was my second chance just in case I had that wrong, but it looks like I barely remembered that right.

0:10:56 Heather: Substantially related to important. Yeah. Compelling. I feel like it was really serving you very well, this answer choice. So you did great eliminating it at the end of the day. A is out. Then we got to B, which tells us yes, because the ordinance unreasonably discriminates against firefighters. And if I recall correctly, you eliminated this because as you said, firefighters weren't a protected class. Is that correct?

0:12:05 Thomas: Yeah, I mean, I think that's, I don't know if that's exactly the right logic, but It seems like it.

0:12:10 Heather: You're absolutely right. Sexy firefighters, or unsexy, they're definitely not a protected class. So you are correct as eliminating this and as for the reasoning. Friend Mike, unfortunately, he's going to lose. So But we're trying to figure out why is he going to loose? Is it because C, the ordinance is rationally related to Oceana's legitimate legitimate interest in health and public safety, or because Mike is an at -will employee of the calendar company and does not have a property interest in his second job. About D, and you were taking a little bit about the due process clause. Thing that I think can be kind of confusing is that the due -process clause, it deals with both... Listen, there's two two types. The substantive due process. Yeah.

0:12:48 Thomas: Substantive due process and, yeah, yeah.

0:12:50 Heather: And procedural due process, yeah.

0:12:50 Thomas: Okay. I remembered that actually. Procedural due process. Okay, sure,

0:12:53 Heather: Yeah, and this answer choice is getting at procedural due processes, which tells us that a fair process is required for basically the government to deprive a person's life, liberty, or property. Really, really close as you were talking about this answer choice and you are working to eliminate it. You were saying you talked about depriving here and depriving our Mike of property. And if I recall correctly, that's part of how you eliminated it. It was also saying, I don't think the equal protection and due process are the same. So you were kind of seeing that what Mike was trying to sue for and what this answer choice was talking about were not quite the same thing.

0:13:29 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Ultimately it's kind of stupid, but so having not read the constitution or at least I've read at some point, but having no ability to remember everything in the right order or what it it is. I was like, wait a minute. Do I know property interest is related to due process. I was wondering, okay, does the equal protection clause have something in there about property? Is it going to be like, oh, you know, can't be deprived of property or something? I was worried that there could be in both places. Then I didn't think that was right. And then I remembered, okay, no, it's pretty solidly due process and I thought, well, usually they actually say the due due process clause of the whatever amendments I was pretty sure that we just weren't talking about that here under

0:14:10 Heather: And you're exactly right. And to validate what you're saying, there's no similar requirement about the property interest here as well. The Under equal protection clause, there's no C. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. You were right. So you were correct to eliminate D. then that leaves us with C. And we're going to talk through, I'll explain how and why we get through C because it bears little bit of explaining. Because this is here, the ordinance is rationally related to Oceana's legitimate interest in health and public safety. A lot of times too, if you can get to a question process of elimination. We saw this before. That's great. You're like, all right. But I always like to do the second step of just like double checking my work because why not? So we know that with this, this is giving us the language for rational basis, right? We're saying it says that the ordinance

0:14:17 Thomas: Equation yeah yeah cool fantastic mean

0:14:52 Heather: Is rationally related to the legitimate interest. You might be wondering what this other stuff is as it talks about health and public safety. So we can walk through that a little bit to try to make it make sense. Trying to do is figure out whether the city council's law meets that rational basis review. And our friend Mike, because we're at that rational business review and he's the challenger, he's got the burden of proving that the law doesn't meet the standard. So he's Got a lot of legwork to do, essentially. We're trying to connect the stated purpose for which the city Council passes the law to the discrimination, right? And you kind of mentioned this before. So who's being discriminated against in this? Who's been treated differently? What groups are getting treated differently in this question.

0:15:29 Thomas: I guess fire emergency whatever's first responders that's

0:15:34 Heather: First responders versus other types of city employees. And you did such a good job from the jump talking about how employees and different groups of employees, they're not a protected class. That's actually how we know right away that we're going to review this law under basis review. Because again, it's really our default category. So if you weren't sure from the beginning, that's always a good place to start is, this doesn't feel like a protected class. I'm going to start with rational basis review.

0:15:36 Thomas: Responder second through final responders yeah my only worry was like I thought that we might also be like what are we even doing here? You know, like if I'm like, hey, I'm being treated differently as a, you player who also does podcasts. I'd be like, that's no, those aren't categories. It's weird to be like well, okay, let's see, is there, yes you are. Is there a legitimate interest though or is there yeah, I don't know. I was worried that like it didn't even seem like we need to go that far but I guess in the end, yeah, it kind of nailed this because I did think like well, I think that is is kind of the catch -all you just go to that that level of review possibly so that's why I stuck with it

0:16:37 Heather: And that's exactly right. And questions not uncommon for the bar to ask these types of questions for you to have to identify a non -sus, but these are referred to also non - suspect, non -subject classifications and use rational basis view for something that you're like, well, that's not anything I'm used to seeing. Guess I got to start, you know, it can be like two brown cats or something. I don't, people who like to dress up like that kind of of thing and then be like, okay. And I also just like to walk through the rest. So we've got to figure out too, if there's a legitimate interest. So there's a traditional area of state authority. So like what's the area under which states and localities can pass laws. And that's health, safety, and morals is the area Under which they can usually pass laws pretty freely. Here they say that they're passing the law because they want to have of these first responders available, right, for emergencies, like wildfire, earthquake, pandemic, so similar reason. Do we think that that sounds like health, welfare, safety, or morals?

0:17:33 Heather: Yeah, exactly, right? We've got a pandemic, sounds like hell. Wildfire.

0:17:33 Thomas: Because it's immoral for Mike to be that sexy I get it save some sexiness for the rest of us you know you're hogging it sure

0:17:40 Heather: Listen, that's the real reason. Yeah, come on, Mike. So that's a legitimate interest, right. We know that they can do that. We've Now we've got to ask ourselves, is the cities treating different types of employees differently? Is that in any way, again, bars low, any way related to purpose of passing the law for reason of health and safety?

0:18:08 Heather: Yeah. Exactly it. Yes. So that's just us doing the double check to make sure that everything makes sense, like analytically and logically, right? So that answers the question. The ordinance is rationally related. That's how C is our answer. So you are correct.

0:18:08 Thomas: Mm -hm yeah yeah ding ding I still need you to get some sort of horn or something, some sound effect.

0:18:27 Heather: Vuvuzela. I'm just kidding. Too loud. Too bad.

0:18:29 Thomas: I hate those.

0:18:30 Heather: Me too. It's okay.

0:18:31 Thomas: Do those when I get it wrong.

0:18:35 Heather: But you also, I'll just say this really quickly. You also did highlight something as you were We're talking through the substantive due process and the procedural due process in the equal protection. It was so funny because even as I was reviewing this, I was like doing my own quick review because sometimes questions, this kind of where it can get a little bit sticky. So I'm glad that we talked through some of that because it can kind of get sticky through some of those three topics as we kind navigate questions.

0:18:57 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, don't they usually, which one is it? Is it due process that they usually cite the two amendments? Did I have that right?

0:19:05 Heather: What will happen is, so there's the 15th Amendment and then there's the 14th. And what happens is with equal protection, they'll talk about both because the 14th Amendment is the way in which it applies to the states, and government. Government.

0:19:21 Thomas: The 5th or the 15th? I think you said both.

0:19:24 Heather: Sorry, the fifth is the way it applies to the federal government, and the 14th is the way in which it applies the states. Sorry.

0:19:29 Thomas: Good. Yeah, so it's not 14th and 15th. It's 5th and 14th, right?

0:19:33 Heather: It's 5th and 14th. Sorry about that.

0:19:34 Thomas: I did remember that. Yeah, okay, I almost had it. I think I said 8th at first, but yeah, 5th and 14th Amendment. I just remember seeing that in a lot of like, you probably bogus lawsuits that we've covered on Where There's Woke or something.

0:19:46 Heather: I that helps us because it says exactly...

0:19:48 Thomas: No, it is.

0:19:49 Heather: Okay, good.

0:19:50 Thomas: It's very nice to legitimize. I swear, I was like, I know that something is in two different amendments here, but that's not equal protection. That's the due process thing, or do they cite equal protection as two different commandments there?

0:20:03 Heather: Different clauses of the same, like there's different, the equal protection and substitute due process are different parts. They're actual clauses, like different sections of the 14th Amendment. Yeah. Does that help?

0:20:17 Thomas: So guess that's my question. So due process is in the 5th and 14th, right? But protection is not in the 5th, is it? It's do process, they'll cite the 5nd and 14TH Amendment. But equal protection, that's, I think, just 14th. Right? So it's, yeah, Yeah, it's, yeah, okay.

0:20:32 Heather: Yeah, because the, yeah, with equal protection, it's definitely 14th, because the way in which it applies to the federal government through the fifth is a little bit confusing. And it's called reverse incorporation. You don't have to worry about that. But yeah, it's because it's, yeah.

0:20:44 Thomas: Incorporate, no, I know, I know something about

0:20:46 Heather: Okay, good.

0:20:46 Thomas: Incorporation, yeah.

0:20:47 Heather: It's a pain in the ass.

0:20:48 Thomas: Yeah, no. It's a weird thing. It's crazy. Okay, well, this is awesome. Two in a row, I can't believe it. Those were very, well not very, this one, yeah I feel like this one in the end it was pretty easy. But hey, this brings me to a fun number. 26 out of 39, which you might recognize as exactly two thirds. Words so 66.67% awesome wow how fun thank you it was I'll take that compliment I think it was this was some good work on that one all right right, Heather. Well, it's time to look at our winners on reddit.com/r/openargs and patreon.com/law. pick anybody? Maybe I'll just throw it to you first. Maybe we could both pick someone. I don't know. How do we want to do this?

0:20:56 Heather: They were tricky. Tricky. Yay. Yes, great work. Love I perusing the to see who's like playing along. And I found somebody I really liked this particular answer because they went through all the answer choices and had a reason. And that's the teacher in me really loving this answer. And I also appreciate.

0:21:48 Thomas: It's It's Heather's sock account, everybody. Buddy. She's like, wow, who is this? A brilliant responder.

0:21:56 Heather: And I Also listen, I'm a sucker for humor. So I'm to give a shout out to modest polar bear this week. Week.

0:22:02 Thomas: Yeah. All right. Modest Polar Bear says the answer is C, which was Chex Notes, the correct answer. Good start. Good start, good start. Question is going to turn on the standard of review for the ordinance Intermittent classifications drawn on the basis of a, quote, suspect class generally receive strict scrutiny. Certain other classifications can trigger scrutiny. Intermediate Everything else gets rational basis review. Sadly, hot firefighters are neither a suspect class nor one of the kind of suspect classes that trigger intermediate scrutiny, thus.

0:22:32 Heather: Sad but true.

0:22:33 Thomas: Yeah, I know. I was going to say, as soon as there's one that's intermediate, I don't know what those those that must be weird. Some judge at some point was like well you're kind of protected as a class you're not you know like what would that even be like italian people or something wait that doesn't get oh

0:22:50 Heather: It's literally the quick quick thing to basically boils down to two it's basically women classifications um um and then it's also um -marital children so children who um have parents who weren't married at the time yeah so sorry

0:23:02 Thomas: So john snow so it's a really weird it's the john snow rule uh that's funny I was thinking it was like okay you know all the ethnicities that like people used to be racist against and then forgot like or something you know it's like it would be all those like there's still intermediate scrutiny no uh stuck with rational basis review, which appropriately rhymes with screw you.

0:23:27 Heather: Listen this is the line where I was like this is a winner

0:23:30 Thomas: If you're unlucky enough to receive rational basis revue, you're almost certainly going to lose. C is the only answer choice that properly applies the standard for rational basis reue. A is the standard of rational basis. A is a standard for strict scrutiny. B is incorrect because of the aforementioned legal principle of screw you, and D is incorrect because it improperly applies an element of to an equal protection claim. A moment of silence for our fallen hot firefighter comrades. Well, at least their calendars.

0:23:58 Heather: Yeah, I thought this was so great really for really having a reason. I always tell my students, have a reason for each of those answer choices for either choosing the one and then a reason for eliminating each of the other three for being wrong. And also, like I said, having some humor in this context is always a big, big, big plus. So great work there. I answer.

0:24:19 Thomas: Does the bar exam give you extra credit for humor? Because then I maybe, I mean, I I mentioned that like, of silence for the calendar. But now I'm wondering maybe hot firefighters, like screw it. I'm going full -time calendar model. And then there's a big controversy because sometime later it's revealed that, wait a minute, he's not even a firefighter anymore. He had to leave his job because of this whole controversy. And everyone's like, oh, my God, my world is shattered. Is it cultural to dress up as a firefighteur when you're no longer? Anyway, that's the whole storyline in my head. Either way. And let's see. Maybe I want to give someone an mention honorable here. Always love now that was the the teacher and you want the long comprehensive review I like the uh it within like a couple sentences and effectively communicates it that's enough I'll go that direction I mean I like both but I'll do that I'll go this direction and some real uh hitters here who I've shouted out several times let And it's sandwichtime. I've shouted out it's sandwichestime as many times as it's actually been sandwichestime. That's how many times great Reddit user, consistent T3B performer going with C, firefighters, hot or not, are not a a protective or suspect class for the purposes of the equal protection clause. So the government only needs a rational basis for their discrimination. And having firefighters available passes this very low bar. Well, you also passed this very lower bar at sandwich time. And hopefully I will too with this question. And congratulations. Now we've got to go over to patreon .com where... Breaking news! Patreon .com slash law did not have a winner. Unbelievable. Leave I do all the sounds for that I think of that I'm too lazy to look up and put in the show the

0:26:07 Thomas: Price is right one I like that one yeah this this is crazy so wait had some responses I want to thank everyone for commenting who did you know uh Dan to Grand Prix please erase Elon Musk's exposed midriff from my brain. Wow. Yeah. Holy smokes. I have a feeling this patron may make an appearance in the shoutouts later because there's a new contest for best patron name of the week. But they said Gorsuch says hot firefighters are overruled and agrees with me that the answer is A, using of scrutiny. Well, I'm sorry. Please erase Elon Musk's exposed midriff from my brain. Thanks. It wasn't the vibes basis of scrutiny. It was a rational rational basis. And so, you know, I, unfortunately, as much as I'd love to pick your answer, nobody on Patreon got this, right. Right so I that be a lesson patrons at patreon.com/law it's think there's an opportunity here so make sure in this question that uh you get your commenting fingers going and uh try to be the winner I right. Well, I think I'm not going to speak for Heather, but I would say I see it in her eyes. She's incredibly disappointed. She's not mad. She's disappointed in the patrons. And so she's these are not my words, not words. I mean, she's very disappointed in their legal abilities and their level of participation. And personally, she was telling me before we started recording that she was crying a little bit that people didn't comment on patreon.com/law. with a winning answer um you know that's I think that's a little if it's me I think she's being a little harsh not gonna lie I think sounds it doesn't sound like her heather that doesn't sound like you but uh

0:26:06 Heather: Can you hear my heart breaking? Did

0:27:41 Thomas: Yeah

0:27:41 Heather: You see all these box of tissues are like at my desk yeah

0:27:44 Thomas: But uh yeah better luck next time patrons but uh reddit knocked it out of the park and um maybe the some of those redditors need to go on patreon I get mad that's another solution but uh thanks to everyone for playing

0:27:54 Heather: Is it possible that we also shout out to one of our reddit users who just passed the bar exam um uh our user I hope I get this right uh giglia um been participating really regularly and also I just want to two other things I want to mention um been reading this uh user's user's comments and they are also they've been really fantastic and their response has been been really thorough. So although they've probably spent the summer unsure, maybe feeling a little bit unsure about whether they passed the bar exam, I was pretty confident based on reading the content of their answers, which has been really through and on point each and every time. And I also saw they shared their score for the bar examination, which my understanding is in the top 1%. So not only do they pass the bar exams, but they pass at a really, really, high rate.

0:28:29 Thomas: What? Well, I was going to say, don't you like not get your score unless it's like super good or something? How does that work?

0:28:33 Heather: So yeah. California, you don't get a score unless you fail um so um but if sometimes when you're in a ube jurisdiction my understanding is that you do get your score and sounds like I bet she did so congratulations and you knocked it out of the park so you've been working really hard and we're so excited to welcome you to the profession so yay so that's giggly esquire oh I'm

0:28:55 Thomas: Well, let's not get too hasty. I mean, they may pass the bar and be like, wait a minute. Being a lawyer sucks. I'm not doing that. They wouldn't be the first person to pass thebar and belike, wait, I don't want to to do this. What was I thinking? But no, I'm just kidding. That's awesome. If somebody who's a top 1 % bar performer, surely has a future in the law, you would think. But great shout out. I love that so much. And just goes to show, we definitely, you read your answers. Even those that aren't the winners, we read your answer and we enjoy it. And so thanks so much for that participation. Right. Well, we'll have to give folks another question to participate with and to answer after this all

0:29:04 Heather: Done oh

0:29:37 Thomas: Right Heather fresh off another win don't look now but I'm putting together a little streak uh let's see if I can keep it going with question 44 oh

0:29:47 Heather: Scotty, Donald's adult son called Benzino's pizza to place an order for delivery that evening because Scotty was craving pizza. The restaurant requires customers to pay using a credit card when they place orders over the phone. However, Donald was a regular at the restaurant and yelled from the couch when Scotty placed the order, quote, if Scotty doesn't pay, don't worry, I've got it covered. 30 minutes later, a delivery driver arrived at Donald's house and delivered the order of delicious hot anchovy pizza. Answered the door and refused to accept the food or pay for it as he changed his mind and decided to order Chinese food instead.

0:30:30 Heather: Can Benzino's pizza collect what they are owed from Donald? No, because a third party will not be held liable for the contract obligations of another. No. Because Donald's promise was made orally. Yes. Because a parent is liable to pay for necessities provided to their child.

0:30:48 Thomas: I didn't get that it it was a parent -child relationship, is this the, oh, Donald's adult son, okay, that's funny, okay.

0:30:56 Heather: D. Yes, because Donald promised to pay.

0:30:59 Thomas: Love this, okay? So, we got some very spoiled and overprivileged son, adult son by the way, so that's, that seems like it would change things, or maybe affect things. Scotty is the son, oh Donald, dad, maybe that's why they did that. I don't know. Scotty, the son, is craving pizza and places an order. And normally, yeah, that's what's interesting. Normally, Pizza Place requires to pay when they order. But Donald, dad is a regular and yelled from the couch, if Scotty doesn't pay, don't worry, I have got it covered. Seems like a promise someone is relying lying on, perhaps to their detriment, maybe. About 30 minutes later, delivery driver, okay, so they deliver the pizza, and it was delicious. Like, the question said, you can't fight the question. Question says it was Delicious Hot, it does say anchovy, which I don't know that I'm a huge fan of. But it was delicios and hot. And if you're into anchovy pizza, we're to believe, based on the fact pattern, that it was, in fact, a delicious hot anchovy Pizza. And so there's nothing wrong with it. And Scotty answers the door and refuses to accept the food or pay for it as he changed his mind come on come on it's pizza if that's your pizza order forget the anchovies if if anyone gives me pizza in any context I am going to eat some of it at least like there is no I am not going to be like how dare you give me pizza the food that I could eat any time anyone could eat it famously one of the most versatile you can have it cold in the morning you can eat it cold you can be hot at night you can get hot any time you can go cold at night any time time. So anyway, this person is horrible, but we can't let that color our perceptions here. Decides to order Chinese food instead. So can Benzino's Pizza collect what they are owed from Donald the dad here? Interesting. My is kind of yes, because it does seem like they relied on his word, his word is his bond, to this here. But I'm not, you know, I'm I'm not a hundred percent sure a no. this is weird wording on a no, because a third party will not be held liable for the contract obligations of another. That's a, that's weird. Why isn't it? Can't like normally it's like, Oh, it can't or can be held, you know? So it's kind of weird to say they will can, can, yeah, that'S a, THAT'S weird wording. No, because the third Third party will not be held liable for the contract obligations of another. So I what I'm wondering with that answer is I don't really see why this isn't is any more Scotty's contract then it is Donald's. Just because Scotty was going to eat the pizza, allegedly. Allegedly, I mean, if calling and ordering a pizza is a contract, then I would think being a part of that call and saying I will pay for it is kind of as much a contract as that. So I just don't like A for multiple reasons. I don'T think that like this is all oral contract stuff. Know, unless the fact parent doesn't say they signed and notarized this pizza contract. I think that there's no way that like one is a contract and the other, it can't be because it's a third party to that. I don't like that. B, no, because Donald's promise was made orally. I also don't. Like that because I think again then why would why would uh Scotty have to pay like if Scotty says I mean yeah they they you they have a policy that they charge customers using credit card when they place orders but not not they don't have to like not every pizza place has that not every restaurant has that necessarily and there's no there's No trick of like ha I only promised you in words that I would pay for the food I ordered so I'm I'm magic out of it don't need to gold fringe on the pizza don't need to do it I so I don't like a or b so I okay which is I mean I was leaning toward a yes answer so I guess I should that's to be expected c yes because a parent is liable to pay for necessities provided to their child I mean it's an adult son I don' t I don''t like that at all it's not like like if that were true donald the dad could have been in in a different country for all we know and the pizza place could have been like hey we We gave your your your asshole son a pizza. You need to pay. And I don't really think that's true. A necessity. I mean, is there anything weird there? Donald's adult son. We don't even know that the adult son lives there, I think, which, again, I don'T think any of this really matters. But like just in case there was some problem of like, yeah, they're your responsibility and that's why you could be held. Like, I do think if Arlo runs in and orders a pizza or causes damage in a store, like, I'm pretty sure that's my problem, I think. I guess I don't know for sure, but I could see there being some legal, you principle there of like, hey, if your kid comes in and ruins something, that's kind of on you. Like, you can be held liable. But an adult son that we don't even know lives there just used a phone, essentially. I don'T think that will be the reason. I think the reason will be because Donald clearly said on the phone, if Scotty doesn't pay, I have got it covered. So that, I mean, that just leaves D yes, because Donald promised to pay. Hate to say it. And honestly, I do tend to get caught sometimes with these when I think it's obvious. So maybe this won't be right. I don't even know if I can come up with like a second chance answer. I if I were to say the second most plausible answer to me, I guess it would be A. Like, I don't like any of them. I think D is just it. And I don' t really like A, B, or C. But I guess maybe there could be something in being held liable for the contract obligations of another person. Like, maybe. But, again, it' s only because I think the others are so bad. I I'm trying to come up with like, if I were wrong about this, how could I possibly be wrong? Maybe C would be some weird thing. B, no, because Don's promise was made orally. I don't I think that matters. The whole thing was done orally Maybe There's that's the next most most plausible, I guess. Yeah. I mean, I mean I guess that's the next most plausible. Like it's still, I don't think it's a good answer, but just for the sake of just in case I'm going to go D with second chance answer B, but I mean really just think this is a clear D answer. I don' t really see much plausibility in the rest of them. I did forget to do what I should always do. Let's identify the, kind of question? And I would think this as a contracts question. Seems to be pretty contractual here. So I think it's a contracts question. Think the answer is D, yes, because Donald promised to pay. And it's as simple as that. And if I'm wrong, maybe it's B. I don't know. But there you go. Final answers. If you'd like to play along and have Heather talk about your winning answer potentially with me, go to either the best place to play, of course, is patreon .com slash law. Go to where the post is and put in your answer. And also if you're a patron play there and at reddit .com slash r slash open args because reddit will track your scores it tracks if you know who the winners are it's really cool um do both that's ideal but uh non -patrons your only option is going to be that reddit dot com slash r open arg and uh you know give your answer maybe make it a little funny maybe make it well -reasoned I don't know I usually just pick thing that are good so in some way and you too can win the eternal fame and rewards that come with being a winner like of the famous names that I already forget no they're etched permanently in our hearts so play along well to we'll have to wait a week to see how if this one is was obvious or if I uh you know if I'm missing something all

0:38:18 Heather: I'm on pins and needles. I'm waiting to find out.

0:38:24 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

0:38:33 Thomas: Is time to shout out the patrons at patreon .com slash law who make the show happen, who are helping get the word out about, you know, the fascist dictatorship we're trying to avoid enabling opening arguments to feature folks like Matt Cameron and Heather Veranini. All made possible by these amazing patrons please consider joining the ranks gotta new patron WinterGeas taking a trip on over to the Hall of Famers the all time greats these are the amazing folks who pledge at that $5 level and above for at least a month they get a shout out each and every week and they can change their patron name and And attempt to win the newly minted and now fiercely coveted Thomas Smith Award for Patron Name Excellence for the week. So we'll thank those Hall of Famers, beginning with Scott Vera, Michelle Chandler, Thomas Beaver at Law, Judy Hanrahan, Starry Decisus has gone into hospice. Is she talking about me? Logomancer, sex and gender are different things and people should stop using them interchangeably. Apprentice of Adventure, Jessie D. Myers. Cavalri, unfrozen caveman lawyer. Justice is a dish best served with cold hamburgers. Non-monolittle, non-monologuio.

0:39:52 Thomas: That's another great Dear Old Dads reference. And so far, once again, leader in the clubhouse. I think last week's winner. It's hard to keep track because the name changes, obviously. But Mr. non-modeloguio, last week's winner for best patron name. We'll see. Nick Fish, a Raw meatballs. (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Ex Parte). Jaysank, please erase Elon Musk's exposed midriff from brain, thanks. There it is, yeah. You know, I'm going to say that's now leader in the clubhouse because my God, yes. E.T., oh great, now I have to go back to changing my name every month. Thomas Freeman, Cajunkilla, Fraud Fishy Hates Everything. Chris Simpson, love the extra episodes. Check out the Queer and Cryptography Conference at cryptography.lgbt. liberals root cause mitigation, not ineffective gun control. Not a lawyer, but I play one in court. Give up on funny names. I'm just Leo G for now. Stormy Decisus says, visit sharebandbooks.com. This isn't a patron name and I'm not reading anything right now. I just personally think Legal Eagle is so handsome. Mark Schultz, hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report. The Cincinnati Kid, Bob Loblaw's Law.... Podcast. Philly Basement Bar is knocking doors for Harris, you should too. Edgy Veggie. Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association. Baltakatei. Philip Kizer. Guy Chapman, the solutions archaeologist. I truly would have to be sick to not love a good limerick they can be funny often are punny and hating them makes me a loser all

0:41:25 Thomas: Right, I'm not the biggest fan of limericks, but that's a solid roast. And so that is now leader of the weekly Thomas Smith Award for patron name excellence. I love the rhyming scheme there. I would really have to be sick to not love a good limerick. Can be funny, often are punny, and hating them makes me a loser.

0:41:48 Thomas: Oh, that's awesome. The 501st and Rebel Legion want you. Cosplayer's doing good. Milo Meadsong is on to the post now that his cert petition was denied. A string of unpronounceable characters. Malaika Chandler, Malcolm the Dragon, the precious variant, FRED R GROOTHUIS, Big Easy Blasphemy, RhondaTheDork.com, Chris Waltrip, Mitchell, and Bye Felicia, our champion still for now. Bye Felicia. Congrats, Bye Felicia. And congrats to... I truly would have to be sick to not love a good limerick. They can be funny, often are funny, and hating them makes me a loser. That's a great, fantastic roast. Win. Winner this week for best name. For playing, all four or five of you. There are dozens of us. I can't even make the joke that there are dozens of us, we need to, more more folks should change their name each week, but hey, you people have those all -time greats that we will recognize forever, so I get it. Well that's the show, can't wait to see next got this bar question right? Don't know if I did. We'll find out. Thanks for listening. See you for Rapid Response Friday.

0:42:46 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.