1L Cookie Monsters v. UVA Law
370 U.Va 100 (2020)
"I have had a very long day; I am very small; and I have no money, so you can imagine the kind of stress that I am under."
While comedian John Mulaney uttered these words in his 2015 Netflix special The Comeback Kid to describe the life of an elementary schooler, he also inadvertently articulated the plight of thousands of first-year law students across the nation. To be sure, law students of all years may relate to Mr. Mulaney's proclamation, but it is recognized that the days of 1L seem longer, that the 1Ls are indeed smaller in knowledge and experience, that they have no money nor any immediate prospect of money on the horizon, and that they are thus slightly more frazzled. It is within this context that the 1L class stands before the Court today. The facts are as follows:
For approximately 16 weeks during the fall semester, the Student Affairs Office hosted a "Weekly Wind Down" (henceforth, WWD) for 1Ls in the Withers-Brown Lounge on Fridays, wherein two to three trays of cookies were always provided with the exception of one week where mini cupcakes were substituted (See, 1L Anti-Cupcake League v. UVA Law 465 CoPA 213 (2019), wherein summary judgment was granted to the defendant after the Court found that mini cupcakes, though constituting a decrease in portion size, were an acceptable substitute for cookies in this singular instance due to the high quality of their buttercream frosting). These WWDs were, of course, pretense to grab as many cookies as their little 1L hands could carry back to the library to stuff their faces with as they read and cried, but they were nevertheless appreciated. Indeed, with a variety of cookie flavors to choose from, what was not to love?
[A two-page criticism of oatmeal raisin cookies, as well as an overview of the differences between a snickerdoodle and sugar cookie and why one should always choose the former, has been omitted.]
The smiles have now faded quicker than the dopamine hits from the sugar, however, as this semester there has been nary a cookie to be found. For three consecutive weeks since the start of spring semester, the 1Ls allege that there have been no WWDs and, by extension, no cookies. They come to us today with three causes of action that will be taken in turn.
The 1Ls first argue that they have an inalienable right to cookies, pursuant to our holding in Law Students Home for the Holidays v. Nosy Relatives 880 CoPA 251 (1988) in which we established that law students had a license to snack however much they so please and that they are entitled to tell relatives who ask if they’ve put on any weight as much. While the Court did indeed establish an inalienable right to snack that does encompass eating cookies, the 1Ls confuse this right with an expectation that the Law School provides them. No one contests that 1Ls have a right to eat cookies––it is the provider of the cookies at issue.
This leads precisely to the 1Ls’ second cause of action: that the Law School has a duty to provide them cookies. One generally does not owe a duty unless falling into one of four categories—statutorily compelled, landowners, custodians, and enablers. The 1Ls allege that the Law School owes a custodial duty to protect their well-being (i.e., hunger) by virtue of them paying tuition to the tune of $63,200 (but, hey, who’s counting?). The court has already ruled on this issue in our landmark decision in Hangry Law Students v. UVA Law 852 CoPA 777 (2015), where it was found in a unanimous decision that the faculty was required to provide sustenance in the form of snacks to law students, wherefore the “Snack Room” was created. The case before us is distinguished from Hangry, however, because students today already have an oasis of snacks in the desert of the Law School from which to seek refuge, that is to say, the “Snack Room,” whereas students before Hangry were left to wander as a collective, hungry Moses through the school. Options, albeit not as scrumptious as a Snickerdoodle, are nevertheless available to all. The Court declines to extend our holding in Hangry to require free cookies for law students at this time.
The 1Ls’ third and final cause of action is that the Law School breached a contract with the 1Ls when they did not continue WWDs in the spring semester. The Law School insists that providing cookies each week was gratuitous and is unsupported by consideration, to which the 1Ls again reply that they are paying $63,200. We side with the 1Ls that sufficient consideration exists. Undeterred, the Law School further insists the 1Ls never accepted any offer of cookies and that it is free to revoke its offer pursuant to UCC Section 2-206(2). UCC Section 2-206(1), however, makes it clear that unless otherwise expressly stated, acceptance by any manner or medium reasonable in the circumstances is valid. The Court can think of no more reasonable manner of acceptance than by eating the cookies which were offered. Furthermore, UCC Section 2-204 states that orders and acceptances exist as a routine process; therefore, since the 1Ls silence was routine in the fall semester, there was no need to specify that they would like the cookies to continue. As such, a valid contract was offered, accepted, and then breached by the defendant. UCC Section 2-713 dictates that the damages be the difference in contract and market price. However, to establish such a difference would require the Court to determine the weekly price of tuition, what percentage went towards cookies, and what a tray of cookies goes for these days. As the Court draws a hard line at participating in basic algebra, damages are instead to be nine trays of cookies (three for each week missed) provided in the WB Lounge on three discretionary days this semester, as well as the reinstatement of WWDs with cookies.
SHMAZZLE, C.J. dissenting:
The Justice sitting by designation (whose name is worse than mine, tbh) has come in hot with this decision demanding that the Law School provide cookies to 1Ls on Fridays. When I was your age, I never got cookies on Fridays, and especially none for free from the school administration. You twerps[1] get free cookies for 16 weeks, hand delivered on literal platters, and you’re now demanding more? While I do love and respect the desire to stick it to the Man, I think the majority is forgetting the second-most important rule[2] of this court: 1Ls always lose. And here again, the 1Ls should lose. If I had written this dissent before 7:21 p.m. the night of production of this paper, I am confident I would have won the hearts of the majority and my decision would have been elevated to the majority decision. But I am a 3L, and this is my last week in charge, so anyone expecting me to do that was definitely expecting too much.
Down with the 1Ls. End the coddling, no more free cookies. Face ConLaw and Property with an empty stomach like your 3L predecessors who came before you.
CALAMARO, J. Dissenting, in which LUK, J. joins:
I fully agree with Justice Shmaezal’s dissent, but believe that it is incomplete. The famous words of philosopher Laura Numeroff come to mind, writing in her opus If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, that “he’s going to ask for a glass of milk. When you give him the milk, he'll probably ask you for a straw. When he's finished, he'll ask you for a napkin.” I believe that Numeroff’s original intent, however, was to warn against giving 1Ls cookies for free, especially when they demand them of the school administration. Indeed, Numeroff later wrote that she would have added, “And when the mouse is done with the napkin, he will ask for a full scholarship from the administration and organize the students to sue the school in to obtain benefits.” These words hold as much weight today as they did in Numeroff’s time, and, indeed, across all times. Clearly cognizant of the burden that entitlements can have on an administration’s budget, Numeroff’s brilliant work has been a guidepost for many great legislators and was even the inspiration for Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
Perhaps the majority believes that it is okay to do away with tradition? P’raps they feel that mice like the 1Ls should get anything they want. Giving them only oatmeal raisin cookies is one thing, but, to provide these benefits, when they had no right to them in the first place, is going too far. I support the administration in its willingness to do away with these frivolous cookie programs, the execution of which was half baked at best.
___
bes4cf@virginia.edu
mes5hf@virginia.edu
dac6jk@virginia.edu