Very informative and interesting. Easy to follow and understand. Having looked at this video puts me in a better place by way of the use of legal terminologies in every day life.
Thank you for this video. It helps me to learn legal vocabulary. I start learning English Legal words to sue my dream as a lawyer that works in an international law firm. It is hard for me (or Indonesian Law Students) to learn English legal words because our main legal words basically come from dutch.
Thank you for the reply! I saw the video, I appreciate the basic information and terms it gives on contract's matters. However the legal terms, used in practice are much more in number, different in depth and aspects, having nuances regarding to their use in material or procedure law, depending on stages of the court development of the case or the characteristics of the involved parties. I would gladly see some more videos from your series. Thank you once again for the quick answer!
I teach legal English in Germany to German lawyers, law students and others. It's a retirement career after 38 years practicing law in the US. I hoped this video would be helpful to introduce my students to basic English contract terms. Sadly, this video - which could have been useful -- is a comedy of errors. 1. A contract is not binding TO the parties, it is binding ON the parties . 2. A contract is not "threatened" if a party does not fulfill that party's obligation. Rather, the contract is breached by this non-performance. A "threatened" contract is not an idea in the Anglo-American legal system. 3. A non-breaching party may "repudiate" a contract -- but this is only one of a number of remedies for breach of contract. In other words, the video treats "repudiation as if it were the name of breach of contract. This is false. The explanation of "settlement and "arbitration" is woefully, laughably bad. Whey parties "settle" a dispute they reach an agreement about their dispute. The settlement agreement itself is a binding contract. Parties often "settle" a dispute during a lawsuit, in which case the approval of the judge might be necessary for the settlement to be made valid. Otherwise, parties to a dispute may settle at any time. In contrast, judges and arbitrators do not "settle" disputes. They issue, respectively, judgments and awards. In other words, "settle" is what the parties do themselves to terminate a dispute. Sometimes, as an alternative to starting a lawsuit, or even during a lawsuit, the parties use a mediator (not an arbitrator) whose job is to try to help the parties reach a private agreement. A mediator has no power to decide anything, but is skilled in helping parties resolve disputes on their own, thus avoiding the "roll of the dice" of legal proceedings. Arbitration is a lawsuit. Arbitration is the process by which the parties present their case(s) in private before a private judge, called an "arbitrator." Arbitration is extremely common in employer/union disputes, business disputes generally (to maintain secrecy) and especially international trade. The principal benefit of arbitration is that it is final and binding. After an arbitration, there is no appeal, and no lawsuit (except in rare cases to protect consumer rights). Thus, the video's claim that there may be a lawsuit after an arbitration is almost never true. The arbitration IS the lawsuit, and is intended to (and does) prevent the filing of lawsuits and appeals. The explanation of "consideration" is fundamentally wrong. "There must be something of value for both sides." Often each side of a contract receives something of value, typically the other party's counter-performance. However, the real idea of consideration is not that each side receive something of value, but that that each side must give up something of value. The following is a valid contract: Moe promises to give his car to Larry if Larry pays Curly $1,000. Moe gets NOTHING. Yet this is valid contract, because the two parties to the contract each GAVE UP something of value. Moe gives up the car. Larry gives up the $1,000. The fact that Moe receives NOTHING is irrelevant. "Acceptance happens when both sides agree on a contract". WRONG. Acceptance is agreement to an offer or a counteroffer. Is there a contract if someone agrees to an offer? Not necessarily. What if there is no consideration? No consideration, no contract. For example, you offer me an invitation to a party. I say yes. That is offer and acceptance. But that is not a contract because I did not give up consideration. You gave up the offer of the party. But what did I give up? ZERO. Therefore, no contract. Thus, I cannot sue you if, for some reason, you do not hold the party. "Acceptance of a contract depends upon certain facts being verified." UTTER NONSENSE. First, an offeree accept an offer, not a contract. Second, anyone is free to accept the representations by another party. There is no requirement that the second party verify the representations. It might be wise to verify before believing that another party's offer is true, but the existence of a contract does not depend upon whether either side verified anything.
In fact, the agreemend as referred to in the video refers to an international agreement (a treaty) that might be violated. (which is a good example of frustration).
I can’t explain the importance of law vocabulary because it hold an emphasis on the definition of the word clarity; therefore, thanks lawyers for always making thing straight to the point, art.
The method to dispute resolution should be defined within the contract. For example, should the need to go to court arise, the jurisdiction is typically set forth in the contract.
Hi James I'm a student, Could you recommend some authors to deep into the topic? I'm not American student, in our curriculum of DI we just reach to study public law. I'd fancy to know more about application's differents jurisdictions on the agreement, also the conflict of laws. I hope that you can support me. Thanks!
Watch out my lessons on contract at Unacademy.... Just search name Jayashree Roy in their educators and you will get all the courses of Contract there....
Uniform Commercial Code 1-201(3) "Agreement", as distinguished from "contract", means the bargain of the parties in fact, as found in their language or inferred from other circumstances, including course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade as provided in Section 1-303. 1-201(12) "Contract", as distinguished from "agreement", means the total legal obligation that results from the parties' agreement as determined by the UCC as supplemented by any other applicable laws.
I love the way you highlight the vocabulary to be learnt. Great job!!
Thank you! 😃
Very informative and interesting. Easy to follow and understand. Having looked at this video puts me in a better place by way of the use of legal terminologies in every day life.
Thank you for this video. It helps me to learn legal vocabulary. I start learning English Legal words to sue my dream as a lawyer that works in an international law firm. It is hard for me (or Indonesian Law Students) to learn English legal words because our main legal words basically come from dutch.
tks so much for this video!!! It's very helpful for some starters like me learning bout law,new volcabulary,....
Thank you for the reply! I saw the video, I appreciate the basic information and terms it gives on contract's matters. However the legal terms, used in practice are much more in number, different in depth and aspects, having nuances regarding to their use in material or procedure law, depending on stages of the court development of the case or the characteristics of the involved parties. I would gladly see some more videos from your series. Thank you once again for the quick answer!
I teach legal English in Germany to German lawyers, law students and others. It's a retirement career after 38 years practicing law in the US. I hoped this video would be helpful to introduce my students to basic English contract terms. Sadly, this video - which could have been useful -- is a comedy of errors. 1. A contract is not binding TO the parties, it is binding ON the parties . 2. A contract is not "threatened" if a party does not fulfill that party's obligation. Rather, the contract is breached by this non-performance. A "threatened" contract is not an idea in the Anglo-American legal system. 3. A non-breaching party may "repudiate" a contract -- but this is only one of a number of remedies for breach of contract. In other words, the video treats "repudiation as if it were the name of breach of contract. This is false.
The explanation of "settlement and "arbitration" is woefully, laughably bad. Whey parties "settle" a dispute they reach an agreement about their dispute. The settlement agreement itself is a binding contract. Parties often "settle" a dispute during a lawsuit, in which case the approval of the judge might be necessary for the settlement to be made valid. Otherwise, parties to a dispute may settle at any time. In contrast, judges and arbitrators do not "settle" disputes. They issue, respectively, judgments and awards. In other words, "settle" is what the parties do themselves to terminate a dispute.
Sometimes, as an alternative to starting a lawsuit, or even during a lawsuit, the parties use a mediator (not an arbitrator) whose job is to try to help the parties reach a private agreement. A mediator has no power to decide anything, but is skilled in helping parties resolve disputes on their own, thus avoiding the "roll of the dice" of legal proceedings.
Arbitration is a lawsuit. Arbitration is the process by which the parties present their case(s) in private before a private judge, called an "arbitrator." Arbitration is extremely common in employer/union disputes, business disputes generally (to maintain secrecy) and especially international trade. The principal benefit of arbitration is that it is final and binding. After an arbitration, there is no appeal, and no lawsuit (except in rare cases to protect consumer rights). Thus, the video's claim that there may be a lawsuit after an arbitration is almost never true. The arbitration IS the lawsuit, and is intended to (and does) prevent the filing of lawsuits and appeals.
The explanation of "consideration" is fundamentally wrong. "There must be something of value for both sides." Often each side of a contract receives something of value, typically the other party's counter-performance. However, the real idea of consideration is not that each side receive something of value, but that that each side must give up something of value. The following is a valid contract: Moe promises to give his car to Larry if Larry pays Curly $1,000. Moe gets NOTHING. Yet this is valid contract, because the two parties to the contract each GAVE UP something of value. Moe gives up the car. Larry gives up the $1,000. The fact that Moe receives NOTHING is irrelevant.
"Acceptance happens when both sides agree on a contract". WRONG. Acceptance is agreement to an offer or a counteroffer. Is there a contract if someone agrees to an offer? Not necessarily. What if there is no consideration? No consideration, no contract. For example, you offer me an invitation to a party. I say yes. That is offer and acceptance. But that is not a contract because I did not give up consideration. You gave up the offer of the party. But what did I give up? ZERO. Therefore, no contract. Thus, I cannot sue you if, for some reason, you do not hold the party.
"Acceptance of a contract depends upon certain facts being verified." UTTER NONSENSE. First, an offeree accept an offer, not a contract. Second, anyone is free to accept the representations by another party. There is no requirement that the second party verify the representations. It might be wise to verify before believing that another party's offer is true, but the existence of a contract does not depend upon whether either side verified anything.
I'm impressed by your comment. Thanks.
As a judge of law court do agree with you, how can I contact with you?
thanks！sir! I learnt a lot from your comment, I am a student who major in law
In some way we've been learning a lot with that video followed by your comments. Thanks sir.
Hello sir!! I am a law student....can you teach me legal english?? That would be really helpfull for me.
Thank you for this video. It really helped me a lot to pick up some basic law vocabularies.
What A Great Video On How To Learn Legal English. Thanks for sharing. Good Job!
Thank you! 😃
Thanks for the video . It is very useful to the law school students .
Very useful , thanks!! I am an interpreter your lessons seems the very helpful for me !!
Very useful ! Thanks.
Thank you very much!))
In fact, the agreemend as referred to in the video refers to an international agreement (a treaty) that might be violated. (which is a good example of frustration).
thanks for these videos ^^ very useful ^^
Thank you 🎉
Would it be possible to enable closed captions/subtitles on this video?
I can’t explain the importance of law vocabulary because it hold an emphasis on the definition of the word clarity; therefore, thanks lawyers for always making thing straight to the point, art.
Thanks for your video. I need your help. Do you have other videos that I can get more information? Thanks.
The method to dispute resolution should be defined within the contract. For example, should the need to go to court arise, the jurisdiction is typically set forth in the contract.
Hi James I'm a student, Could you recommend some authors to deep into the topic? I'm not American student, in our curriculum of DI we just reach to study public law. I'd fancy to know more about application's differents jurisdictions on the agreement, also the conflict of laws. I hope that you can support me. Thanks!
Watch out my lessons on contract at Unacademy.... Just search name Jayashree Roy in their educators and you will get all the courses of Contract there....
Wow words in context and underlined...couldn´t be better! Thanks!
Uniform Commercial Code 1-201(3) "Agreement", as distinguished from "contract", means the bargain of the parties in fact, as found in their language or inferred from other circumstances, including course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade as provided in Section
1-303.
1-201(12) "Contract", as distinguished from "agreement", means the total legal obligation that results from the parties' agreement as determined by the UCC as supplemented by any other applicable laws.
it's very helpful. thanks
that's really great one
Thank you man
thanks!=))
Amzing
Thank you so much.
unforseen is written, but u said unseen. which is correct?
The definition of "frustration" is wrong: what is described is "impossibility."
the video is correct
Great
There are some implicit contacts, not hidden law.
thanks
FOR SALE: Recently discovered cache of new-old-stock of Carbolic Smoke Balls. Bit dusty. What am I offered?
..:..
Missed Force majore, an essential element in contract
Мужики, дайте перевод, мне нужно сессию закрыть)
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I seen this.
Hi everone I'm hasan (.
no queriais salir perjudicados por algo que no habiais hecho ahora si y para que lo haceis agtuntaos
Heyyy, can You do me a Favor, please?! Then I owe You one...
Mark Darkmandamiani May I help you?
really wanna get to the ten minute mark huh
SaxxaSs Anna Anna
Нід булетс
Thank you so much