Inherently Hopeless

I'm officially over a week in now. My first final is two days away. Tomorrow starts the hardcore studying (i.e. cramming and taking advantage of the short-term memory that I have, only to dump the material the next day to make room for my next final's information).

You'll be happy to hear that I have showered since my last post...once. I can't say that I've changed my clothes though. And I'm not sure the flea and tick stuff worked - my face itches like crazy.

But I'm plowing ahead. Today has focused on agency principles (mainly inherent agency power). I have determined it is inherently hopeless to try to understand it. I have read my notes (it didn't take long since I didn't understand what the hell the professor was talking about at the time) and re-read the relevant case. I remember this case well because it hit me like a ton of bricks.

Briefly, there was a lady that was trying to get damages for a breached contract. The contract was with a mortgage company (who sold the loan off to the federal government without telling the lady) who serviced the loan and then went bankrupt (like so many mortgage companies these days...only this took place in the '90s). The federal government was going after the lady's house (or the monetary equivalent, which she, like so many these days...only this took place in the '90s, didn't have the money to pay for). Ultimately, the court applied the concept of inherent agency power to declare that the woman won under agency principles.

The thing that makes me laugh about the case is that the court specifically said it did not understand inherent agency power. The thing that makes me cry about the case is that the lady didn't actually win. Let's say she won the battle but lose the war. The court turned around in the very next paragraph and said that the federal government is immune from an agent's unauthorized actions. As such, the lady loses.

Where was I going with this? (remember that short-term memory I was talking about? I may be in trouble...) Oh, yeah. I figure that if a judge can't understand the concept, I shouldn't have to understand it either. That's a pretty good theory in my book since I don't actually understand it. I've consulted my notes (which weren't helpful), consulted a free outline (which didn't help because they didn't understand it either), went so far as to consult the Restatement (which, as the court itself stated was "unhelpful"), and re-read the case.

I think I'll chalk this one up to the "hope it's not in an essay" category and move on. Oh look! It's 9:30. Guess it's time to go watch the rest of the game.