Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

legal impossibility

Read a random definition: earnings

A quick definition of legal impossibility:

Legal impossibility refers to a situation where a person cannot perform a task or fulfill a contract because of a fact or circumstance that makes it impossible to do so. This can include things like the subject or means of performance being destroyed or no longer available, a law preventing performance, or illness preventing performance. Increased difficulty or expense is not considered legal impossibility. In criminal law, legal impossibility can occur when a person intends to commit a crime but the act they are attempting is not actually illegal. It can also occur when an element required for an attempt has not been satisfied. Legal impossibility is a defense to certain crimes, but factual impossibility is not a defense.

A more thorough explanation:

Legal impossibility refers to a situation where a person cannot be held responsible for not fulfilling a contract or committing a crime because it was impossible for them to do so. There are different types of legal impossibility:

Factual impossibility occurs when the illegal act cannot physically be accomplished. For example, trying to pick an empty pocket. Factual impossibility is not a defense to the crime of attempt.

Legal impossibility occurs when what the defendant intended to do is not illegal, even though the defendant might have believed that they were committing a crime. For example, if a person goes hunting while erroneously believing that it is not hunting season. This type of legal impossibility is a defense to the crimes of attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation.

Objective impossibility occurs due to the nature of the performance and not to the inability of the individual promisor.

Subjective impossibility occurs wholly due to the inability of the individual promisor and not to the nature of the performance.

Supervening impossibility arises after the formation of a contract but before the time when the promisor's performance is due, and arising because of facts that the promisor had no reason to anticipate and did not contribute to the occurrence of.

For example, if a person agrees to deliver a package to a client, but a natural disaster occurs that makes it impossible for them to do so, they cannot be held responsible for not fulfilling the contract. This is because the natural disaster was a supervening impossibility that they could not have anticipated or prevented.

legal holiday | legal inconsistency

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
11:20
Saw a guy that wrote in Biden and he said no retirement for you buddy
1a2b3c4d26z
11:20
@ClockworkBlue: god I hope that's true
if the country was run the same as Mich Law it would be a better place
Imagine if election night was run by an adcom? Like, "yep, we could get the results Friday, or June 2025."
imagine if it was like Berkley applications
1a2b3c4d26z
11:22
Election status: Complete
1a2b3c4d26z
11:22
For months
triplethread
11:23
erection day
soapy
11:23
Shoutout to Robinhood's election bet not resolving until January
triplethread
11:23
is anyone else like certain that trump will win
ambitiouslizard
11:23
he aint winning
triplethread
11:23
i like being a pessimist
ambitiouslizard
11:24
he lost his re-election, why would he win this one?
1a2b3c4d26z
11:25
I have no idea why people have so much beef w berkeley's app
I've been reading a bit about "herding," which is this idea that pollsters are making the race look tied so they look right no matter who wins.
1a2b3c4d26z
11:26
Like... it's a more involved app but you don't have to do it? They're clearly trying to have some self-selection go on
I 100% agree with the self selection, I also am not even close to touching the medians there. However I think the huge PS plus the video and especially the very specific criteria for the why Berkeley essay is pretty crazy
I'm curious, how bold can one be in those videos? Is it worth making a satirical Jason Statham-action short if the adcoms have no sense of humor?
the more risk you take the higher chance of it backfiring
my instinct would be low humor bc if they have such a complex application I would feel hesitant to use a major part of it as a joke. They clearly take their admissions seriously and a joke video might convey the wrong thing at the wrong time. I think that humor is best put into a PS anecdote where it adds some shine to your personality
safe is always better
All good points
triplethread
11:34
@TheAdoptedOne: amazing
I almost did one for Vanderbilt and my idea was to do a documentary-style vid where I and others talked about me like it was an ESPN 30 for 30.
1a2b3c4d26z
11:36
I was risky in maybe one or two of my essays in that some parts read as slightly humorous, but I really tried to suss out the vibe for each school. I feel like Berk and UMich may be more accommodating of a more "out there" approach than other schools I applied to
1a2b3c4d26z
11:37
but that's literally just going off vibes
it looks like Berk vid is in response to a known prompt. My thinking is it may be a counter to AI by getting people to have to respond to what is essentially an essay prompt but on video
"I think really it’s more the USNWR change that emphasizes employment outcomes in school rankings. Schools want to admit people who have the skills to be more likely to land great jobs even more than before, and being a good interviewer is a very important for that. They want to see you have the soft skills." from a reddit comment
1a2b3c4d26z
11:38
One funny thing when talking to lawyers at work is that they will always say how they wish more law schools had interviews to make sure you can like... talk to people and form sentences
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.