Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

This morning, I was planning on reviewing last night's Franz Ferdinand/Pretty Girls Make Graves/Cut Copy show at the bizarre but wonderful Aragon Ballroom.

The events of this morning's Contracts class take precedence.

First of all, it was all my fault. My ears are still ringing from the show and despite the fact that I got a good night's sleep (for once, going to a show full of teenagers is worth it) I was slightly out of sorts. I wasn't cold-called and I could have gone through the entire class without saying anything and it would have been fine.

The question was straightforward, a hypothetical straight out of the book. I thought I would answer on a technical point and get back to email and the Times. I looked up the rule in my reading notes and made the point.

Then came the follow-up. I knew I had about a one-in-three chance to get chosen to do the entire hypo, and I went ahead and did it without rock-solid knowledge anyway.

I got the follow-up and botched it, punting, in a way, by quoting the Restatements. Still respectable, but it didn't fit 100% with what I was saying.

An opening! The prof (who is far and away my favorite, and very nice) takes the gap I give her, and just like a good lawyer, dives right in with the Jaws of Life and pries it right open. Now I have to switch my position, taking a completely different tack. She continues on my line of argument and calls on someone else. Now, after voluntarily taking on a topic I thought I had a handle on and screwing it up, I was off the hook. This is a good thing, right?

Apparently not. For whatever reason, I couldn't save it for the final exam and I tried to dive back in and make a point the person who "saved" me from my ignominy didn't think of. Couldn't you attach a tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress to the breach of contract claim to extract punitive damages for the band that didn't show up to the wedding in favor of a better paying gig?

"So, counsel, as the judge here, I see you have a very compelling argument," says the professor. I relax momentarily and think the nightmare is over and that I've redeemed myself.

Am I more stupid for answering the question, jumping back in, or for thinking I was done at that point?

"But I have this precedent here in front of me that says the tort involves fraud, wantonness, malice or oppression. By the way, have you studied Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in your Torts class?"

"We've touched on it briefly," I said, sheepishly.

After class, I scrambled down the stairs, seriously considering cutting the rest of the day's classes and taking a long drive out in the country to clear my already apparently empty mind. In the stairs, I met a classmate who said I did well because the professor always takes the other side to test you.

I reminded her, compounding my idiocy, that I got a few points of fact wrong. She said that nobody noticed.

I think I've been saved by the very emailing, IMing and newspapers that should have saved me in the first place. Maybe there are second chances in law school.