Comments on: Judge Orders Inclusion of Kucinich in Debate http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/01/15/kucinich-debate/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:51:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: Derek Bambauer http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/01/15/kucinich-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-42715 Derek Bambauer Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:54:39 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/01/15/kucinich-debate/#comment-42715 Bill, I've been thinking about this one a bit recently - particularly since I'm teaching Contracts this semester. Might Kucinich have a non-trivial reliance claim here? In other words, let's assume he didn't "accept" the offer. But still, if he incurs some detriment - such as going to Nevada when he would not otherwise have done so, hiring people to prep him for the debate, etc. - he might well have a promissory estoppel claim under Section 90 of the Restatement, if not just a straight-up contract claim. I don't know if I agree that networks should get an exemption from standard contract law just because there are free speech issues involved. We enforce speech-limiting contracts all the time: non-disclosure agreements are only one example. I just want to find out what you think on this: is it that Kucinich did not in fact have a good contract claim, or that there should be a public policy override of his potentially valid claim? I love this stuff - classic issues of information law! thanks... Bill, I’ve been thinking about this one a bit recently – particularly since I’m teaching Contracts this semester. Might Kucinich have a non-trivial reliance claim here? In other words, let’s assume he didn’t “accept” the offer. But still, if he incurs some detriment – such as going to Nevada when he would not otherwise have done so, hiring people to prep him for the debate, etc. – he might well have a promissory estoppel claim under Section 90 of the Restatement, if not just a straight-up contract claim.

I don’t know if I agree that networks should get an exemption from standard contract law just because there are free speech issues involved. We enforce speech-limiting contracts all the time: non-disclosure agreements are only one example.

I just want to find out what you think on this: is it that Kucinich did not in fact have a good contract claim, or that there should be a public policy override of his potentially valid claim?

I love this stuff – classic issues of information law!

thanks…

]]> By: bob white http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/01/15/kucinich-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-41840 bob white Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:02:56 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/01/15/kucinich-debate/#comment-41840 Is this not how the clinton group operated for Bill in 1994? Hillary's campaign just placed onboard the two main team members that used such campaign ideas. Things happen? No one in campaign knows how? Only the political operatives know and they work below the surface wich whisper campaigns and blocks no one expected to crush those who dare fight back. Is this not how the clinton group operated for Bill in 1994? Hillary’s campaign just placed onboard the two main team members that used such campaign ideas. Things happen? No one in campaign knows how? Only the political operatives know and they work below the surface wich whisper campaigns and blocks no one expected to crush those who dare fight back.

]]> By: greenpagan http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/01/15/kucinich-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-41837 greenpagan Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:59:11 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/01/15/kucinich-debate/#comment-41837 Thx for the post. -- GP Thx for the post.

– GP

]]>