Kucinich Out Of Tonight's Debate

Update: (TL): Here's the opinion. Shorter version: There was no contract because there was no consideration.


According to KO, via Josh, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled in favor of NBC's petition for prohibition (do not ask me, I know nothing of Nevada civil procedure) and ruled against Dennis Kucinich.

That means tonight's debate is between the 3 leading candidates. Could be fireworks. I can not watch and will be counting on Jeralyn and commenters to keep me up. Jeralyn's earlier post on the Kucinich challenge.

< MI Exit Poll Rumors: Mittster Winning | Michigan Primary Results >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The decision (none / 0) (#1)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:35:44 PM EST
    is here. It says no enforceable contract existed because "the element of consideration is absent."

    Failed to raise promissory estopppel? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:39:30 PM EST
    How the heck do THAT happen?

    That seemed the pirmary line of attack for Kucinich it seems to me.


    Er... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:45:54 PM EST
    you're going to have to explain that part to all us non-lawyers. The rest of it seemed pretty straightforward though.

    Well (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:49:01 PM EST
    it is a theory of quasi-cpontract -- that I relied on your promise and thus you are estopped - forbidden, from welching because I relied on your promise.

    There was no consideration - Kucinich paid nothing - so promissory estoppel shuld have been the central argument.



    Conduct in reliance of a promise (none / 0) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:58:31 PM EST
    where the conduct in reliance on the offer  was reasonably forseeable and the the offeree relied on the offeror's promise to the offeree's detriment.

    Here  is an ok explanation, but not a great one.

    See also Cornell Law

    And finally this explanation


    In other words (none / 0) (#7)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:27:16 PM EST
    he failed to present his case in a way that could win. The story of his campaign.

    Thanks to both of you for the explanations.


    Dennis is the wrong man with the right message (none / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:01:34 AM EST
    Not sure why that is, but it is. Most people I know agree with his message, but few people vote for him.

    A victory for America (none / 0) (#3)
    by DA in LA on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:44:15 PM EST
    Which benefits greatly from fewer voices.

    Because what America (none / 0) (#9)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:22:32 AM EST
    really needs is yet another primary debate with Dennis Kucinich.