The Front Of The Contract - American Bar Association: Fill & Download for Free

Before the front wheels drive (FWD) cars became mainstream, the standard layout was to place the engine longitudinally at the front, followed in line by the clutch and the gearbox with its lever being directly within reach of the driver. A driveshaft with a universal joint at each end transmit the power to the rear axle, which includes the bevel gear providing the final reduction and the required 90° transfer to the wheels shafts, as well as the differential.This architecture (RWD) provides a good directional stability because the engine weight loads the front axle and places the mass center of the vehicle ahead of its center of crosswind thrust. It also avoids the need for articulated joints on the wheels shafts, but it doesn’t put much weight on the driving wheels when the vehicle is empty or almost empty. Another disadvantage is the need for that long driveshaft between the powertrain and the rear axle, and an equally long exhaust line running underneath the car. Still, this solution remains of general use on trucks (except that they have a vertical or lateral exhaust); the BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar, Lexus, Alfa Romeo Giulia, a few other large cars and many sport ones have such a layout as well, but with independent rear wheels, their differential being suspended.Tatra 77, 1934With the above exceptions and that of buses, racing cars and many sport cars, a front engine with front wheels drive (FWD) has become the common solution. But it has not always been the case. During the 1950’s and 1960’s, the most diffused cars in Europe had their engine in rear overhang. That trend was pioneered by Mercedes-Benz in the 1930s (thanks to Donald Ferguson for mentioning it in his comment), by Hans Ledwinka with the air-cooled Tatra 77 in 1934 and by Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, particularly with the famous Volkswagen Beetle produced at more than 21,500,000 units between 1938 and 2003.VW BeetleRenault followed with the 4 CV, propelled by a small water-cooled 4-cylinder in-line engine in rear overhang. It was built at 1,100,000 units in 5 countries from 1947 to 1961 and followed from 1956 by the slightly bigger Dauphine which used the same basic mechanical components.Renault 4 CV2,150,000 Dauphine (ten times less than the VW Beetle, but still an impressive number!) were made or assembled in France, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Japan, Spain and USA. The 4 CV / Dauphine layout was retained and updated for the Renault R8 and derivatives (R8 Gordini and R10) produced between 1962 and 1976.Renault DauphineThe Fiat 600 commercialized between 1955 and 1969 had a layout similar as that of the Renault 4 CV. It was also built under the name Seat 600 in Spain, Zastava 750 (later 850) in Yugoslavia, Fiat 600/770 Neckar Jagst in West Germany, as well as in Australia, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay and Malaysia. Here again, the Fiat 600 basic conception was used in a whole series of Fiat small cars, amongst them the even smaller Fiat 500 propelled by a 2-cylinder air-cooled engine.Fiat Abarth 1000 TC, a sport-racing car based on the Fiat 600Similar cars were also mass produced in France (Simca 1000 and derivatives), Czechoslovakia (Skoda 1000 and derivatives), Japan (Hino Contessa) and England (Hillman Imp). Air cooled ones were made in Germany (NSU Prinz / 1000 TT and BMW 600/700) and in Soviet Ukraine (ZAZ Zaporozhets).Tatra T700In higher segments, various air-cooled Tatra models were manufactured in Czechoslovakia between 1934 and 1999. VW produced also 2,500,000 medium size Type 3 between 1961 and 1973, followed by the Type 4 (411 / 412 models) from 1968 until 1974, both types based on upgraded Beetle mechanical layout. In USA, Chevrolet mass-produced different versions of the Corvair between 1960 and 1969 ; it was also assembled in Belgium, Switzerland, Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela and South Africa.Volkswagen 1500 Type 3Several attempts to built large rear-engined 4-doors cars were done in USA (see Big Rear-Engined Four-Door Cars – Part 1: American Attempts) and Europe (see Big Rear-Engined Four-Door Cars – Part 2: European Efforts) during the 1930s - 1940s, but with the exceptions of the various Tatra and later the Chevrolet Corvair as well as the mid-segment VW Types 3 /4, none of the prototypes ever reached mass-production.Apparently, the engineers struggled with unsatisfactory directional stability and water-cooled engines overheating. If these shortcomings could be more or less addressed or deemed acceptable with small, low power and relatively low-speed cars, the were exacerbated on more powerful, faster cars. It could have been solved, in particular with front mounted radiators, a better rear suspension like that of the Hillman Imp or 1965 Corvair, wider rear-tires and a suitable aerodynamic design. But most such concepts were not mastered enough at the time and low profile large tires didn’t even exist.1965 Corvair rear suspensionIt would be an easy task to work out the said shortcomings today, as very successfully demonstrated by Porsche - and even more so with the now ubiquitous electronic stability program (ESP). Furthermore, a weight distribution with most of it on the rear axle doesn’t necessarily cause directional instability and oversteer, especially if the rear tires are wider than the front ones. That’s shown by the fact that 2-axles trucks are commonly loaded (in Europe) at 11.5 t (metric tons) on the rear axle for a total weight of 18 t, which leaves 6.5 t only on the front axle, thus a weight distribution of 36% front, 64% rear. But since these vehicles have 2 front tires and 4 rear tires, their directional stability is fine and they do not oversteer - in any case not more than a front wheel drive car.And yes, front wheels drive cars do oversteer when driven to the absolute limit at high speed! It’s a myth forged by journalists who never drive them to the limit at high speed that FWD cars systematically understeer. They tend to do so only in small radius corners but they oversteer slightly at high speed - and sometimes even strongly, especially if the road is wet or slippery. Conversely, rear-engine cars can be made to understeer.So, why is a front engine more common than a rear engine? My answer is because the rear engine cars mass diffused in the 1940's to 60's were built as cheap as possible and at the expenses of optimal handling. In order to save two universal joints (one per side), those cars had a rear swing axle, a simplistic solution which cause considerable camber variation along the suspension travel. Thus, front engine cars had a better directional stability and handled better, so the customers preferred them. In response, the automotive industry shifted to FWD after engineer Alec Issigonis showed with the Austin/Morris Mini that it was possible to install a 4-in line engine transversally and thus replace the axle expensive bevel gear by a spur one which is easier to manufacture and has a better efficiency.Goliath GP700 (above) and Saab 92 (below) powertrains (sorry, no better pictures available!)A simpler FWD setup is generally credited to Fiat engineer Dante Giacosa who, in 1964, installed the transverse 4-cylinder engine of the Autobianchi Primula asymmetrically on the right side of the car with its transmission in line on the left side, saving on transfer gears and reducing friction losses in the transmission. But a same layout had been applied on the 2-cylinder 2-stroke Saab 92 in 1949, Goliath GP700 in 1952 and the Est-German Trabant in 1957. Giacosa showed that it could be used with 4-cylinder engines too; it has then become the mainstream powertrain and car architecture.Central-rear engineRace cars and sport cars often have the engine in front of the rear axle. This architecture gives an even weight distribution between the two axles and the centering of the heavy components near the vehicle’s center of mass reduces its moment of inertia around said center. The yaw moment is thus lessened, so that the vehicle can change course very easily and quickly. This feature is favorable for a race car, but less so for a commonly used road vehicle because it reduces its directional stability and the pitch oscillations are larger, affecting comfort.The engine can be placed flat under the front or rear seats of a 4 or 5 seater car, but the heat released inevitably spreads to the seats, especially at high ambient temperature, and secondly engine access for maintenance is harder.Volkswagen EA 266Nevertheless, to replace the venerable "Beetle", VW and Porsche had developed between 1966 and 1971 the type EA 266, of which 50 prototypes were built. The rear passengers were sitting on the engine and the dipstick was 1.02 meters long. Hundreds of millions of DM had been invested in this project and it was very advanced when the new director of VW, Rudolph Leiding suddenly canceled it... and ordered the destruction of the prototypes! The FWD Golf was favored and its success set the trend.The Corvair caseIt is quite possible that the attack against the US manufacturers and among others against the Chevrolet Corvair by the lawyer Ralph Nader in his bestseller published in 1965 "Unsafe at Any Speed" struck a decisive blow against the rear overhanging engine layout.Corvair Handling and Stability, excerpts:Due to Nader’s wild charges about the Corvair and the national concerns for automobile safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was authorized to run a series of comparative tests during the Spring and Summer of 1971 to demonstrate the handling of the 1963 Corvair against four contemporary competitive automobiles. Involved in the tests were The Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, Renault Dauphine, the 1963 Corvair, and a 1967 Corvair for reference.The Corvair Is ExoneratedAt the conclusion of these tests, the NHTSA released its 134 page report. It exonerated the Corvair from Nader’s charges, and said things such as: "The 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests," and, "The handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic." The complete report, PB 211-015, can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)*.An Independent Panel AgreesBecause the NHTSA wanted to be as sure as possible of their approach, tests and conclusions, they then contracted with a three man advisory panel of independent professional engineers to review the scope and competency of the NHTSA tests. This review panel then issued their own 24 page report (PB 211-014, also available from the NTIS*).In their report, the Panel drew even stronger conclusions in support of the Corvair than the NHTSA. They said, "It is the opinion of the panel that the Corvair quantitatively meets or exceeds the standards set by contemporary cars in stability tests, cornering tests, and rollover tests," and, "for this reason the panel concluded that the 1960-63 Corvair does not have a safety defect, and is not more unstable or more likely to roll over than contemporary cars."Nader is Proven WrongWow, go back and read that again. No safety or handling defects in the Corvair! But does anybody know this? The news media all but ignored these conclusions. They apparently thought that Nader’s charges were of greater news value than the fact that his charges were all proven wrong. Even today, of those who know of Nader’s charges against the Corvair, few if any know that his charges were false and were proven wrong. No, the fact that the Corvair was exonerated of all of Nader’s charges was hardly publicized. It received little or no attention from the media.It is ironic that these false charges concerning the Corvair’s handling and stability are all anyone remembers, and are the only story ever told in the Press, even though they have been fully refuted by actual tests. Nader, of course, built his career on these false charges.However, the 1960 to 63 Corvair had a swing rear axle of the same simplistic concept adopted on most other rear engined cars, which involved a very high roll center and strong camber variations, as already mentioned.Corvair rear suspension evolutionIn 1964, the Corvair handling was further improved with a front anti-roll bar in conjunction with what they called a “camber compensator”. Actually, it was a rear transverse single leaf compensation spring of the same type used on the Porsche 356 Super 90. It tends to equalize the weight on the rear wheels, acting on the contrary of an anti-roll bar, being namely a “pro-roll bar”. It works in association with softer rear main suspension springs and a strong front anti-roll bar, increasing the roll resistance of the front axle while decreasing that of the rear axle. The results in a more neutral cornering behavior and even better drive wheels traction.In 1959 Mercedes had added a compression coil spring over the center of their single joint swing axle (above picture) on the 220 W111 in order to obtain the same effect. The result is well shown below with this 300 SEL 6.8 AMG:See also Racecar Engineering March 2018, page 52In 1965 the Corvair received the totally new rear suspension (shown previously), similar to that of the Corvette. It further improved its handling, allowing it to reach a lateral acceleration of 0.7 g - a remarkable value with the tires of that time. This fact establishes that a rear overhanging engine is perfectly compatible with excellent dynamic qualities, as the Porsche 911 has also amply demonstrated.VW 412There is a lot of room in the overhang behind the rear axle and this space is usually partly lost. By placing the peripherals of a water-cooled flat engine on the sides into the fenders, its height can be further reduced - especially with side exhaust manifolds and possibly with dry sump lubrication. A dual-disc or multi-disc clutch would have a smaller diameter and the entire powertrain would be little higher than a spare wheel.The spare wheel can be placed under the front trunk, between two radiators - since the engine must be water-cooled. Air cooled engines are too noisy and they need a powerful fan which takes up to 15% of the crankshaft power.The engine can be of the opposed cylinders type or conventionally in-line, longitudinal eccentric or else transversal with the crankshaft ahead and the cylinder head in the back. An in-line engine is a little simpler to produce industrially because it requires only one cylinder head, a single exhaust manifold and a single overhead camshaft (or a single pair of camshafts). Since the rear wheels do not steer, there is more width available for the engine than between the front fenders. It is also less necessary to provide a deformation zone at the rear, so that the available space in length is also higher. The fuel tank can be located under the front seats or else under the rear seats, as usual.The car would then have two trunks, one at the rear over the engine and a front one too. The rear tires should be wider than the front ones, for example 205/55R16 front and 225/50R16 rear. Both having exactly the same rolling circumference, the spare 205/55R16 could be temporarily used at the rear. With a front anti-roll bar and if necessary a compensation spring at the rear, the car will handle perfectly, better than any front wheels drive.Renault Twingo III: its engine is not really flat, but still there’s a lot of cargo space above it.A whole series of advantages result in cascade:As already mentioned, the car can have a boot in the front in addition to the rear trunk.The load on the drive wheels is important and it increases further uphill and in acceleration.The turning diameter can be reduced and the stresses on the half-shafts joints are minimized.Due to reduced front axle load and its smaller tires, the power steering may be unnecessary.A preponderant mass distribution on the rear provides a better load balance in braking, which shortens the stopping distances. 4 unventilated disks may suffice.The heat released by the powertrain is evacuated to the rear and it heats less the cabin. Air conditioning, which consumes considerable power and adds a dozen kg, is less necessary.The hot exhaust does not pass under the car, which shortens and lighten it while allowing to lower the vehicle.The tunnel and the center console, which makes the passage from one side to another scabrous or even impossible and forces to spread out the front seats, have no longer any reason to exist. Their removal is eased by an electronic control of the transmission and an electric parking-brake, allowing either a reduction of the frontal area or 3 front seats side by side.The NSU Prinz 1000 had a transverse air-cooled 4-cylinderA Porsche 911 powered by a 427 CI (7 liters) V8 Chevrolet LS7 (LSX Magazine)Francois Dovat's answer to Would you buy a rear-engine car like the VW 412 or Chevy Corvair if there was a modern affordable one in production?Rear-engine design - WikipediaThe Story of the Rear Engined Passenger car (thanks to Steve Dudley)

The great Abraham Lincoln was admitted to the bar after some period of study under the supervision of a licensed attorney and successfully practiced law. Four states - California, Vermont, Virginia and Washington - permit people who satisfy the particular state’s requirements using the same path of supervised study and experience to sit the bar exam. The following is from https://slate.com/business/2014/08/states-that-allow-bar-exams-without-law-degrees-require-apprenticeships-instead-of-law-school.html :“Law office readers comprised only 60 of the 83,986 people who took state and multi-state bar exams [in 2013], according to the New York Times. They are also less likely to pass those exams. Only 28 percent of the tiny minority of law office readers passed their bar exams last year, compared to 78 percent of students who attended American Bar Association-approved law schools, reports The Times.”I was a grader for a year for the State Bar for California. This involved reading and grading some 800 blue-book responses to a specific question. I was given a model response by the bar and a range of scoring. Any response that I believed failed required that I write a short (1–2 pages) explanation of the basis for the failing score. That was sent to the bar, which would then separate my explanation and send the failed answer to a second reviewer who was to score the response independently of anything I wrote. If that second reviewer also failed the response, then it could be reviewed a third time by another independent person. Each answer had a specific number; at no time was I provided any way to identify an actual person with a specific response.I read answers by people who couldn’t distinguish between a plaintiff and a defendant, or who could not spell the word “attorney” but this was not a test based on English grammar or spelling. A failing response did not mean the applicant was mentally unable to write a correct answer. That could be difficulty with English, but of course that is the language in which the practice of law is stated in this country. But if the applicant could not identify the legal principles applicable to the question, or could not see how the given facts related to those legal principles, that went beyond grammar and was the basis for a failing score.Problems of spelling or grammar have to be corrected, but not knowing what the legal consequences of the words plaintiff or defendant were was a real problem that should and must be corrected during the period of study and preparation for the bar. To get through law school, everyone has to read and be able to understand many, many legal principles. This is done by reading cases, all of which are published in English. This was illustrated by a movie titled “The Paper Chase” which starred John Houseman (see Roger Ebert’s review of this movie at The Paper Chase Movie Review & Film Summary (1973) | Roger Ebert).Whether determined after a trial, or in some matters, a type of pretrial motion, the ultimate burden of proof in civil suits is on the side asking the court for relief. That party is the “plaintiff”. Failure to present sufficient evidence to meet that burden (called the “preponderance” of the evidence) will lead to dismissal of the case because the judge cannot give the plaintiff relief if that party does not meet the burden of proof. The actual proof required depends on the type and nature of the plaintiff’s suit. Any decision on the merits also requires that the court have jurisdiction over the parties before it, and jurisdiction over the lawsuit itself. The plaintiff is responsible for demonstrating that the court assigned the suit has both types of jurisdiction. This question comes first in every case, and is so important that either type of jurisdiction can be challenged by the defendant, or even the judge acting on her or his own.And that is just a threshold requirement. The plaintiff must be able to identify what facts have to be proven to obtain the relief the plaintiff wants, and be able to get that proof into evidence according to the Rules of Evidence of that particular jurisdiction. That proof must be relevant to the particular “cause of action” that is stated by the plaintiff. Some causes of action, like fraud, have several “elements” and the plaintiff must know what those are and present at least a minimal amount of evidence to support each elements. If the plaintiff in a fraud suit presents evidence on all of the elements of a cause of action but one, the suit may be dismissed “for failure to state a cause of action”. To complicate this further, a defendant may have to produce evidence to support certain types of defenses. These are called “affirmative” defenses, and they are not automatically applicable to every type of suit. For a quick example, a plaintiff may sue for breach of a contract or other type of written or oral agreement. Every contract has three basic elements: 1) an offer to agree was made; 2) the other party to the contract evidenced acceptance of that offer, and 3) there was some type of “consideration” to support the agreement. Every aspiring law student must spend at least one semester’s coursework on the law of contracts. The textbook is hundreds of pages. When I took my final exam in my contracts course, I didn’t think I really understood the subject matter, so I took off two weeks from work and spent that time in a bedroom with the door closed re-reading that entire book. Then there are multiple types of contracts, such as sales contracts, which are governed by their own special rules, such as those contained in the Uniform Commercial Code. All 50 states have adopted some flavor of the UCC, but there are important differences. For example, Louisiana based its law on the laws of France, and so the UCC as adopted by that state materially differ from the UCC as adopted by those states whose legal roots were those of Great Britain. Not knowing those differences could mean losing a case depending on which side of the Red River has the case. But a lawyer must know how that difference is identified and determined.Please understand that law is complex. And the attorney must correctly identify the applicable law up front.I was a successful litigator in civil business law, but outside of that, I could easily get in trouble. Once I was asked to help a person get a will admitted into probate. Now I knew nothing about probate, and I can’t now recall how I ended up having to do that, but I read and re-read the applicable statutes in the state’s probate code. Come the great day and my case is called. Since there was no opposition, this meant standing immediately in front of the judge’s bench. I run through everything the statute said I had to present and stop, looking expectantly at the judge. Unfortunately, he was looking equally expectantly at me. There was a short pause. I whispered that I was doing the case pro bono (meaning I wasn’t getting paid) and that all that was needed was to get the will into probate. I said I knew I had missed something, but I had gone through the statute and didn’t know what more was needed. I said that I would be happy to do whatever else was required, and get myself out of the judge’s courtroom, hopefully to never bother him again. The judge smiled a bit, and leaned forward to say “Counsel, you have to offer the will into evidence. Do so and be gone with my blessings.” Ah ha! I did have the original will, handed it to the clerk to give to the judge, backed away and said, firmly and with as much dignity as I could muster “I offer the will into evidence.” That nice judge says “thank you counsel for a job well done.” He could have just left me dangling, but he knew I was just doing it “for the good of the law”, or pro bono, and I escaped the courthouse and never darkened the door of that courtroom again.People do pass the bar exam and obtain a license to practice without having a Juris Doctorate, but an apprenticeship is so much more difficult than going through law school. Each state publishes the results of each bar exam, but this is the results from one 2017 bar in California, a state that permits people without a JD to take the exam, published at http://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News-Events/News-Releases/state-bar-releases-results-of-february-2017-california-bar-examination:“Preliminary statistical analyses from the February 2017 General Bar Exam:4,439 applicants completed the exam1,153 (26.0 percent) were first-time applicantsThe passing rate for first-time applicants was 39.0 percent overall3,286 applicants were repeat applicantsThe passing rate for repeat applicants was 33.0 percent overall”This is not unusual. The bar exam is tough. Here are the numbers in the same state over 10 years:YearOverall Pass RateJuly 201749.6 percent passedJuly 201643.07 percent passedJuly 201546.6 percent passedJuly 201448.6 percent passedJuly 201355.8 percent passedJuly 201255.3 percent passedJuly 201154.8 percent passedJuly 201054.8 percent passedJuly 200956.4 percent passedJuly 200861.7 percent passedNow imagine what the pass rate would be like for those people who do not have the advantage of professors who present the material in a rational order and with textbooks and supplementary written material. I was in the top 5 on each bar exam I took, and I always completed a several-months long review course. I doubt that I would have the courage and stamina trying to do it without the structure and order of a college, and from scratch.

The most accurate answer I can give to this question is that law school is a great choice for many people and the wrong choice for many others, and it will take some introspection and research to determine which category you fall into.Let me take your concerns one-by-one:Job prospects. While it isn’t necessary to go to a top-ten law school, you should check out the JD employment rate of each school you’re interested in. It’s undoubtedly harder to get hired as a lawyer out of, for instance, schools that are not accredited by the American Bar Association. But any school worth its salt puts a lot of effort into helping students secure real lawyer work, starting with getting them summer jobs that can turn into job offers after law school. They usually maintain strong alumni networks that students can tap into even after they graduate. If you use these resources aggressively, there’s no reason to think that you’ll be unemployed at the end of law school.Years of contract work. It’s true that you probably will not be spearheading big trials in your first year or two, but most law firms that hire right out of law school are looking to train junior associates to do the more important and difficult work of lawyering because that’s where clients are willing to spend more money. That said, most of the work that even the most successful attorneys do happens in front of a computer or in phone calls, rather than in front of a jury. If you’re expecting that practicing law will look like TV shows about practicing law, you will be disappointed no matter how high you climb. Alternatively, you can start your own firm, even right out of law school, meaning you’ll get to perform the highest level work on the cases you land. It’s just difficult to land clients when you have little experience practicing law.Debt. This is a real concern, but there are many ways to manage debt. If your LSAT score and GPA are significantly above the median score of a particular school, they are likely to offer you reduced tuition up to and including a full ride. So, pump up those numbers, and you might not have to borrow a lot. There are also creative ways to manage debt. If you go into government or public interest law (a good way to avoid sitting in a basement and reviewing contracts, by the way), you can have your debt forgiven after ten years of paying on time.Toxic work environment. The practice of law is adversarial by nature, and some lawyers, unfortunately, take that fact as a permission slip to be uncivil. That’s never okay, though, whether the lawyer is being uncivil to opposing counsel, co-counsel, staff, clients, or anyone else. Well-run firms have HR standards that they take seriously, and abuse and harassment are not tolerated at such firms. Luckily, it’s possible to get information about the work environment at lots of places of business, including law firms, at Glass Door and other websites that allow employees to review employers. Do your research before you accept a job offer, treat others with dignity, and insist on the same treatment for yourself. I think you’ll find that most lawyers are decent people who work hard and take pride in providing value to their clients.In sum, having a fulfilling career as a lawyer takes planning ahead and recognizing that you will likely work very hard. As long as you are clear-eyed about what’s ahead of you, there’s every reason to believe that law school may indeed be a good choice for you.