Murphy, Speidel and Ayres' Studies in Contract Law, 6th (University Casebook Series)

I was not satisfy with the book at all. it was unbounded. but I really recommend this seller because they are quick responder

It is a very rare thing when when words coil around your soul and leave you breathless and clear-eyed. Few books have the power or brilliance to be transforming, and even fewer are brave enough to launch entirely new ways of thinking about literature. And then comes "Studies in Contract Law: Sixth Edition," the newest book from renowned legal philosopher Murphy Et Al. A quick glance at its faux-leather cover and embossed title and you might cast it aside as yet another heavy, meandering read. But, as is often true, the adventurous will be rewarded with delights heretofore unknown to modern readers. "Studies" covers a startling range of topics, from the high-powered world of business to the disintegration of families throughout various eras of American history. It even briefly delves into poetry, quoting what it describes as "one of the delights of legal literature," namely the immortal Professor Brainerd Currie's "Aberlone, Rose Of." In the discussion of a presumed barren cow on page 490, the recitation of lines like "Ah me!--Ah moo! / Respectively their quidsome balm / How mournfully they chew!" grips us with longing and wistfulness. The frenetic pace of the text is filled with endless cliffhangers; nervous readers should take warning. Will Roscoe ever find his true father? Will the theft of Mrs. Hooper's gardenias ever be solved? Will Alaska Northern Development, Inc prevail over Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. regarding the applicability of the parol evidence rule of the Uniform Commercial Code, section 2-202, codified as AS 45.02-202? Subplots and intrigue twist throughout the book until page 1121, where a single sentence rings as sharp and true as any in history. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." "Call me Ishmael." "To be or not be." And now, from the sublime mind of Murphy Et Al: "The idea which ruled this case--that where a person for a consideration paid to him by another agrees to pay a sum of money to a third person, a stranger to the transaction, the latter does not thereby become possessed of the absolute right to the benefit of the promise, nor until he accepts the same in some way; and that while he is ignorant of the promise, or thereafter, at any time before he assents to the transaction, it may be rescinded,--we must admit is well supported in the books." If the poetry of this sentence does not immediately seize you, consider yourself a hopeless wreck on the shores of The New Literature.