When a party breaches a contract, their counterpart typically suffers loss. Contract law redresses this wrong by awarding compensation to return the innocent party to the position they would have been in had the contract been performed correctly. In some anomalous cases, however, the innocent party may instead benefit from the breach, as the founders of McDonald’s did during the famous franchising saga of the 1950s and early 1960s. Contract law is unclear as to how to deal with such cases of “advantageous breach.” This Article examines current approaches to doing so under contract law in both Australia and the United States, and provides practitioners and parties with guidance as to the remedial consequences that may flow from advantageous breaches.

This Article offers possible solutions to the complex question of how to treat failing students in law school, when those students have failed to earn a passing grade in an individual class but still deserve a chance at success. Using information gathered from the Author’s independent survey of 113 law schools countrywide, she breaks down how faculty can use educational psychology to assess the best way to support law students and encourage future success. The Author notes that differing philosophies shape remedial systems at each law school, and suggests that perhaps even institutional pressures from the ABA contribute to how law schools approach student failure. The Author outlines the wide range of approaches law schools might follow and discusses sources of motivation for law schools to choose which approach works best for them, then illustrates current examples of these approaches currently in action.  Lastly, this Article analyzes the cause of student failure and how failure can affect students’ future performance. This provides a basis of understanding for which approach will work best for each law school in light of their values and goals.

This Article addresses the increasingly important problem of conflicts between free speech and antidiscrimination claims in commercial or consumer contexts. Based on considerations of freedom and autonomy; marginalization and equality; and of dignity, humiliation, and persecution, this Article draws an important—but not exceptionless—judicial boundary line. On one side of the line are cases in which the speech, whether freely uttered or compelled, occurs either on‐premises or in any other essentially individualized person‐to‐person commercial interactive context. On the other side of the line are cases in any other context, such as when the speech, again either freely uttered or compelled, occurs in typical company mission statements, widely available company advertising and social media posts and tweets, or in company comments in the public square on the issues of the day. On the latter side of the line, otherwise valid free speech claims should, presumptively but not exceptionlessly, prevail.