Week Six, Part 3 - Contracts: I Will Brief No More Forever

What I don’t tell Professor Kaveny during our conversation is that, since she doesn't call on students at random, I’ve quit briefing cases in Contracts. On both Tuesday and Thursday I come to class “naked,” without any prep whatsoever. It’s like the first day all over again.

As we discuss the cases in Chapter 2, Part 4 (“Obligation Arising From Unjust Enrichment”), I jot down the facts and issues as best I can. Sure there are some gaps in my “analysis” of Marvin v. Marvin, a 1981 California appellate case, but I soon know the basics. When actor Lee Marvin of The Dirty Dozen fame dumped his live-in girlfriend, Michelle Triola (a/k/a Michelle Marvin), she sued for half of the 3.6 million dollars he had earned during their five-plus years together. Her celebrity lawyer, Marvin Mitchelson, argued an oral contract existed. In exchange for Marvin’s undying love and promise of financial support, Triola provided wife-like services.

The trial court, on remand, ordered Marvin to pay $104,00 to be used for Triola’s “economic rehabilitation.” Marvin appealed. The press called it a fight over “palimony.”

Kaveny asks, “What do we glean from this case, aside from the principle that you don’t change your name unless you’re married?” We laugh.

A girl in the third row raises her hand. “We learn that for Michelle, the last five years were a flaming waste of time.”

Kaveny smiles. She points out the main argument used by the appellate court to modify the trial court’s judgment in Marvin and “delete therefrom” the $104,00 in economic rehab. In short, there was no obligation for Marvin to pay Triola anything. A court “may not create totally new substantive rights under the guise of doing equity.”

Yeah! Good call. I want to cheer.

After class, I rationalize that my on-the-fly approach to Contracts is more efficient. Instead of flailing about in a mudslide of dicta, I’m getting precisely what Kaveny thinks is important.

Still, I’m embarrassed and feel like the greatest living slacker. Next semester, when I’m in a better routine, I’ll do it right.

There’s no doubt I’m falling behind. On Thursday I write in my journal: “need to catch up on my reading, redo my briefs, define key terms, especially the ones I don't understand, meet with Kaveny to make sure I have all the issues down, read Nutshell to get an overview of the topic.”

I’m worried, but not paranoid. In grad school I had plenty of classes where the first half of the semester was a wasteland, but then everything greened up.

And I can define "contract" by memory, thanks to my flashcards. “A promise or set of promises, the breach of which results in a remedy at law, and the performance of which the law recognizes somehow as a duty.” It's small comfort. A definition, no matter how solid, is just a start.

What I need is a Contracts outline, the organized notes of someone who took the class previously. I’ve seen them in Crim, Civpro, and Torts. Unfortunately, both Kaveny and the casebook, West’s Contract and Related Obligation, are new to Notre Dame.

I vow to keep looking.

* * *