The Language of Law School This page intentionally left blank

particular day. The remaining 34% of student turns are taken up by one other stu-
dent, so that the entire class consists of extended dialogue with two different stu-
dents. The exchange begins with a fairly typical request for a recitation of the facts
to elicit a telling of the underlying story as framed by legal exigencies.
Transcript 7.1 [4/17/6–7]
Prof.:
[turn begins with a summation of a key point regarding the case that he had
just finished discussing with another student]
 All right. Now let’s turn to uh
to the 
Ricketts
 case. 
[.30 shuffling noise]
. Uh, let’s see, um Ms. B., how are
we doing in 
Ricketts
 and what’s going on?
Ms. B.:
Well, there’s a conflict between grandfather and granddaughter that um
he would give two thousand dollars on demand and 60% interest per
annum and said that she didn’t have to work. And um, she said that she
gave up her work on reliance on this um promise and uh she- () she
wants to get the money.
Prof.:
Right, okay. You have the promise of some um money, uh, the granddad
to his granddaughter, okay? Um, what we’re asking in consideration
questions, we always ask about the return promise, right? So, uh, what
was the return promise in this case?
Ms. B.:
Well it’s not really sure that there was one because she um [[Prof:
Right]], she’s saying that she um relied on the money and she didn’t ()

---

146
Difference
grandfather really gave her the gift [[Prof.: Okay]] because she does go
back to work, after a year ().
Prof.:
Okay. And when she says “I’d like to collect on, collect on my gift,” the
grandfather’s estate says what?
Ms. B.:
Lack of consideration.
Prof.:
It was lack of consideration, okay. Back to 
Batsakis
again
[ . . . ]
By this point, almost halfway though the semester, we see a very smooth coproduction
of the fact narrative. Note the use of “we” inclusive to begin the dialogue, aligning
the professor and student as fellow travelers who are located together within the
bounds of the case narrative, and asking the student to provide some guidance in
explaining “what’s going on.” The student responds by providing a succinct sum-
mary of some of the key details needed for purposes of a legal reading. The profes-
sor immediately approves this summary and provides a frame for the student’s
ongoing narration; he characterizes the case as a token of the legal-discursive type
“consideration questions,” and then indicates that the next step in telling the story
involves discussion of any “return promise” (or absence thereof). The primacy
of legal issues and categories in organizing the narrative is assumed here, and the