The Language of Law School This page intentionally left blank

6 sec.
—“That’s not the writ, it’s not the writ, the written bid itself, uh,
good shot.”
Mr. B.:
3 sec.
Prof.:
5 sec.
—“Something, this power of revocation is simply not going to exist
on this contract.”
Mr. D.: 4 sec.
Prof.:
26 sec
.
—“Why?
 [ . . . ]
 Why did they provide the bond with the bid? (.07
pause)”
Ms. F.:
23 sec.
Prof.:
3.36
 min., ending, “And you would have to focus on that half of the
sentence and then pick up the point that is made in the notes that follow
the case. Mm-hmm, Mr. uh, H.?”
Mr. H.: 11 sec.
Prof.:
“That’s right.”—
3.12 min
., ending, “What does, what does this court, this
case tell you that you’ll have to do to succeed here? Mr. T.?”
Mr. T.:
9 sec.
Prof.:
12 sec
.—“Well, that was one of six elements in a two-part of the legal
standard it focused on. And I want to make sure we get the whole picture.
That was one of the elements it focused on. Uh, Ms. N.?”
Ms. N.: 9 sec.
Prof.:
11 sec.
—“Again, you’re- you’re spelling out a particular element, but,
well, what’s the broad, what’s the broad remedy here? What’s the broad
option here? Mr. M.?”
Mr. M.: 4 sec.
Prof.:
“Okay 
[ . . . ]
”—