twisty turns of fates

Sometimes the most logical and reasonable of events are a direct result of thoroughly absurd circumstances. The almost ridiculous nature of causality should harbour little surprise among the mortals. After all, if a kangaroo sneezing in Australia alters the weather in Detroit can anything be genuinely wacky? By extension, is it actually peculiar that the very existence of my legal career is the result of the synergistic interplay of 1 cubano, 1 russian-jew, 1 failed standardized test, a pair of comedically nosy americanos, and 3 weeks of unending passionate chess? Predictably, the answer is "it depends!"

Some learning mechanisms are more effective for certain individuals than other equally valid techniques. For better and for worse, being the center of attention works well for me. Often embarrassing, occasionally humiliating, it is still far better than the alternative... namely, not comprehending spherically the material. True, many students are able to achieve this without the full energy of their classmates and professor behind them but, in the end, what counts is the ability to concurrently apply a formation defense and performance excuse in one's own life. Which is not to malign the process, arguably the the most causal element of all!

A vital part of the "process" is professor feedback.. Take for example this relatively faithful partial transcript of an actual exam response regarding formation defense; examiner comments in red. (For the readers' well being, comments related to the examinee's better suitedness to comedic writing than economic analysis, sociopathic personality, and general inability to follow direction have been edited.)

Basic conditions that need to exist for a contract to be considered valid are: 1) the parties must be rational, 2) informed (both sides), 3) both sides acting on free-will, 4) and the service contracted for must cause no net harm on others. What about the consideration requirement? Since these conditions must be met for a contract to be bindable, basic formative defenses will argue that one or more of these conditions were violated. Because of 1) children and lunatics are not bound by contracts they enter into...the court has expanded this concept of "irrationality" to include individuals who enter into a contract that "no sane person" would accept. including temporary incapacity like being drunk.

I never meant to be a lawyer, law school was for "those people, and rules were as well. But there is no denying the fatalistic force of putting 1 cubano, 1 russian-jew, a pair of comedically nosy americanos, and one idiotic bet altogether in a small room. Out of this mayhem came something remarkable... where else can a torturedly-reasoned formation defense leave everyone on the floor, tears in their eyes, hysterically laughing?