I’ve been made an unwilling advocate against good faith.
It’s funny how law professors are seemingly well-trained (or take inordinate delight) in pushing a student’s uncertainty into out-and-out support of a doctrine or issue. I expressed some doubts about the application of good faith in unclear unilateral contract situations, and suddenly found myself in an extended diegesis working my way through my own issues, in front of the entire class. I think “good faith” (based on my incomplete current understanding) runs very close to being so amorphous that it is more dependent on a subjective reading by an individual judge than a “reasonable market” (Reasonability? What is this, torts?), but honestly, I didn’t feel all that strongly about it while doing the reading before class.
The more the professor allowed me to talk, however, and challenged my ideas with one hypothetical after another, the more personally involved I became. I’m the kind of asshole who, if he is engaged in a discussion, will argue the antithetical as best he can, just to see where the conversation goes. Most of the time I have no idea what my position is going into the discussion, but in the process of talking about and arguing for it, I often come to insights I never would have considered earlier. That’s exactly what happened here, even if the final position I was forced to take was one I do not necessarily agree with.
Anyway, it seems as if I will have a scarlet GF tattooed onto my face for the rest of the class, as now I am my Contracts professor’s go-to reference for “subjectivists” in any subsequent conversation. I was even made into a “judge” and told to decide another student’s hypothetical query based on a legal position I haven’t worked out myself!
The teacher in me recognizes the tactic and is quite familiar with it (I would often use it myself while I was teaching), but the returning student in me cannot but laugh.