こんにちは。先日、一科目の成績が返ってきまして、とりあえず１単位を取得できました。一安心です。
Pass or Fail方式ですので、基本的には合格か不合格かしか判定されませんが、特に優秀な人はHonourなんてものをもらうようです。
最近、いろんな団体から大学ランキングも次のような感じでいくつか発表され（いちばん有名なのはUS News Rankingですが）、大学もHPから申し込めるウェビナーで次年度LLM生向けの説明会を開催を予定するなど、いよいよ次年度の選考期間がはじまるということで、昨年の準備期間を思い出します。たしかEarlyサイクルで出願する場合、11月には各種出願書類がそろっていないとキビしかったと思います。
○USニュースランキング; Best Law Schools
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings
○フォーブス;The Best Law Schools For Career Prospects 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/10/08/the-best-law-schools-for-career-prospects-2013/
○ビジネスインサイダー;The 50 Best Law Schools In The US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-law-schools-in-the-us-2013-9
さて、本題ですが、アメリカはいわゆるコモンローシステムの国なわけですが、誤解を恐れずにざくっといってしまえば（某教授の受け売りですので、間違っていないかと）、次のように整理できると思います。
・シビルローシステム：演繹法
・コモンローシステム：帰納法
大陸合理主義とイギリス経験論の対比みたいですね！
ルールの導出過程は違えど、適用の段階で三段論法を基本として用いるのは同じです。
例：
大前提（法）：故意に人を傷つけた場合はペナルティが与えられる
小前提（事例への法の当てはめ）：Xは故意に人を傷つけた
結論：したがって、Xはペナルティが与えられる。
（ちなみに試験なんかも事例問題では、いわゆるIRAC（Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion）という整理方式で回答するのがデフォルトのようです）
さて、じゃあ法（コモンロー、判例法（以下、厳密に使い分けません））はどんな感じに存在するのかというと、判例の中に書いてあります。したがって、自分の事案に関連する判例を見つけることは”ローヤー”として必須スキルです。
LexixNexisやWestlawのような商用のDBだといい感じにサマリーや関連判例との結びつけ（すでに法として効果を失ったもののフラグ化とか）があるので大変便利ですが、無料のDBだとグーグルスカラー（米国グーグル経由でアクセスが必要）があります。
Google Scholar
たとえば、シュリンクラップ契約の古典判例である
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenbergなんかも当事者名を入れれば見つけることができます。
さて、うんざりするほどアルファベットが並んでいます。
当事者名、管轄裁判所、判決日、裁判官の名前、判決内容等が書いてあるわけですが、これを簡潔に紙１枚程度にまとめると、次のような感じになります。
参考：無料のケースブリーフサイトです。
特定の状況下で、特定のルールをあてはめて、特定の結論を出す。これが法になります。（なお、いわゆる制定法は制定法でもちろん存在しますので注意。）
たとえば、上記の判例の後に出たHill v. GATEWAY 2000, INCでは、
>ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir.1996), holds that terms inside a box of software bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the terms and to reject them by returning the product.
ということで、ProCDのときにこんなルールを言っていたよね、ということで判決の一部が法となっています。ProCDの判例で上記ルールが導き出されている該当箇所はこのなかにある（と一般に解釈されていますが）、上記のルールを見出せますでしょうか。
以下抜粋＞
What then does the current version of the UCC have to say? We think that the place to start is § 2-204(1): "A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract." A vendor, as master of the offer, may invite acceptance by conduct, and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance. A buyer may accept by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance. And that is what happened. ProCD proposed a contract that a buyer would accept by using the software after having an opportunity to read the license at leisure. This Zeidenberg did. He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance. So although the district judge was right to say that a contract can be, and often is, formed simply by paying the price and walking out of the store, the UCC permits contracts to be formed in other ways. ProCD proposed such a different way, and without protest Zeidenberg agreed. Ours is not a case in which a consumer opens a package to find an insert saying "you owe us an extra $10,000" and the seller files suit to collect. Any buyer finding such a demand can prevent formation of the contract by returning the package, as can any consumer who concludes that the terms of the license make the software worth less than the purchase price. Nothing in the UCC requires a seller to maximize the buyer's net gains.
Section 2-606, which defines "acceptance of goods", reinforces this understanding. A buyer accepts goods under § 2-606(1)(b) when, after an opportunity to inspect, he fails to make an effective rejection under § 2-602(1). ProCD extended an opportunity to reject if a buyer should find the license terms 1453*1453 unsatisfactory; Zeidenberg inspected the package, tried out the software, learned of the license, and did not reject the goods. We refer to § 2-606 only to show that the opportunity to return goods can be important; acceptance of an offer differs from acceptance of goods after delivery, see Gillen v. Atalanta Systems, Inc., 997 F.2d 280, 284 n. 1 (7th Cir.1993); but the UCC consistently permits the parties to structure their relations so that the buyer has a chance to make a final decision after a detailed review.
Some portions of the UCC impose additional requirements on the way parties agree on terms. A disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability must be "conspicuous." UCC § 2-316(2), incorporating UCC § 1-201(10). Promises to make firm offers, or to negate oral modifications, must be "separately signed." UCC §§ 2-205, 2-209(2). These special provisos reinforce the impression that, so far as the UCC is concerned, other terms may be as inconspicuous as the forum-selection clause on the back of the cruise ship ticket in Carnival Lines. Zeidenberg has not located any Wisconsin case — for that matter, any case in any state — holding that under the UCC the ordinary terms found in shrinkwrap licenses require any special prominence, or otherwise are to be undercut rather than enforced. In the end, the terms of the license are conceptually identical to the contents of the package. Just as no court would dream of saying that SelectPhone (trademark) must contain 3,100 phone books rather than 3,000, or must have data no more than 30 days old, or must sell for $100 rather than $150 — although any of these changes would be welcomed by the customer, if all other things were held constant — so, we believe, Wisconsin would not let the buyer pick and choose among terms. Terms of use are no less a part of "the product" than are the size of the database and the speed with which the software compiles listings. Competition among vendors, not judicial revision of a package's contents, is how consumers are protected in a market economy. Digital Equipment Corp. v. Uniq Digital Technologies, Inc., 73 F.3d 756 (7th Cir.1996). ProCD has rivals, which may elect to compete by offering superior software, monthly updates, improved terms of use, lower price, or a better compromise among these elements. As we stressed above, adjusting terms in buyers' favor might help Matthew Zeidenberg today (he already has the software) but would lead to a response, such as a higher price, that might make consumers as a whole worse off.
Pass or Fail方式ですので、基本的には合格か不合格かしか判定されませんが、特に優秀な人はHonourなんてものをもらうようです。
最近、いろんな団体から大学ランキングも次のような感じでいくつか発表され（いちばん有名なのはUS News Rankingですが）、大学もHPから申し込めるウェビナーで次年度LLM生向けの説明会を開催を予定するなど、いよいよ次年度の選考期間がはじまるということで、昨年の準備期間を思い出します。たしかEarlyサイクルで出願する場合、11月には各種出願書類がそろっていないとキビしかったと思います。
○USニュースランキング; Best Law Schools
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings
○フォーブス;The Best Law Schools For Career Prospects 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/10/08/the-best-law-schools-for-career-prospects-2013/
○ビジネスインサイダー;The 50 Best Law Schools In The US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-law-schools-in-the-us-2013-9
さて、本題ですが、アメリカはいわゆるコモンローシステムの国なわけですが、誤解を恐れずにざくっといってしまえば（某教授の受け売りですので、間違っていないかと）、次のように整理できると思います。
・シビルローシステム：演繹法
・コモンローシステム：帰納法
大陸合理主義とイギリス経験論の対比みたいですね！
ルールの導出過程は違えど、適用の段階で三段論法を基本として用いるのは同じです。
例：
大前提（法）：故意に人を傷つけた場合はペナルティが与えられる
小前提（事例への法の当てはめ）：Xは故意に人を傷つけた
結論：したがって、Xはペナルティが与えられる。
（ちなみに試験なんかも事例問題では、いわゆるIRAC（Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion）という整理方式で回答するのがデフォルトのようです）
さて、じゃあ法（コモンロー、判例法（以下、厳密に使い分けません））はどんな感じに存在するのかというと、判例の中に書いてあります。したがって、自分の事案に関連する判例を見つけることは”ローヤー”として必須スキルです。
LexixNexisやWestlawのような商用のDBだといい感じにサマリーや関連判例との結びつけ（すでに法として効果を失ったもののフラグ化とか）があるので大変便利ですが、無料のDBだとグーグルスカラー（米国グーグル経由でアクセスが必要）があります。
Google Scholar
たとえば、シュリンクラップ契約の古典判例である
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenbergなんかも当事者名を入れれば見つけることができます。
さて、うんざりするほどアルファベットが並んでいます。
当事者名、管轄裁判所、判決日、裁判官の名前、判決内容等が書いてあるわけですが、これを簡潔に紙１枚程度にまとめると、次のような感じになります。
参考：無料のケースブリーフサイトです。
特定の状況下で、特定のルールをあてはめて、特定の結論を出す。これが法になります。（なお、いわゆる制定法は制定法でもちろん存在しますので注意。）
たとえば、上記の判例の後に出たHill v. GATEWAY 2000, INCでは、
>ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir.1996), holds that terms inside a box of software bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the terms and to reject them by returning the product.
ということで、ProCDのときにこんなルールを言っていたよね、ということで判決の一部が法となっています。ProCDの判例で上記ルールが導き出されている該当箇所はこのなかにある（と一般に解釈されていますが）、上記のルールを見出せますでしょうか。
以下抜粋＞
What then does the current version of the UCC have to say? We think that the place to start is § 2-204(1): "A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract." A vendor, as master of the offer, may invite acceptance by conduct, and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance. A buyer may accept by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance. And that is what happened. ProCD proposed a contract that a buyer would accept by using the software after having an opportunity to read the license at leisure. This Zeidenberg did. He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance. So although the district judge was right to say that a contract can be, and often is, formed simply by paying the price and walking out of the store, the UCC permits contracts to be formed in other ways. ProCD proposed such a different way, and without protest Zeidenberg agreed. Ours is not a case in which a consumer opens a package to find an insert saying "you owe us an extra $10,000" and the seller files suit to collect. Any buyer finding such a demand can prevent formation of the contract by returning the package, as can any consumer who concludes that the terms of the license make the software worth less than the purchase price. Nothing in the UCC requires a seller to maximize the buyer's net gains.
Section 2-606, which defines "acceptance of goods", reinforces this understanding. A buyer accepts goods under § 2-606(1)(b) when, after an opportunity to inspect, he fails to make an effective rejection under § 2-602(1). ProCD extended an opportunity to reject if a buyer should find the license terms 1453*1453 unsatisfactory; Zeidenberg inspected the package, tried out the software, learned of the license, and did not reject the goods. We refer to § 2-606 only to show that the opportunity to return goods can be important; acceptance of an offer differs from acceptance of goods after delivery, see Gillen v. Atalanta Systems, Inc., 997 F.2d 280, 284 n. 1 (7th Cir.1993); but the UCC consistently permits the parties to structure their relations so that the buyer has a chance to make a final decision after a detailed review.
Some portions of the UCC impose additional requirements on the way parties agree on terms. A disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability must be "conspicuous." UCC § 2-316(2), incorporating UCC § 1-201(10). Promises to make firm offers, or to negate oral modifications, must be "separately signed." UCC §§ 2-205, 2-209(2). These special provisos reinforce the impression that, so far as the UCC is concerned, other terms may be as inconspicuous as the forum-selection clause on the back of the cruise ship ticket in Carnival Lines. Zeidenberg has not located any Wisconsin case — for that matter, any case in any state — holding that under the UCC the ordinary terms found in shrinkwrap licenses require any special prominence, or otherwise are to be undercut rather than enforced. In the end, the terms of the license are conceptually identical to the contents of the package. Just as no court would dream of saying that SelectPhone (trademark) must contain 3,100 phone books rather than 3,000, or must have data no more than 30 days old, or must sell for $100 rather than $150 — although any of these changes would be welcomed by the customer, if all other things were held constant — so, we believe, Wisconsin would not let the buyer pick and choose among terms. Terms of use are no less a part of "the product" than are the size of the database and the speed with which the software compiles listings. Competition among vendors, not judicial revision of a package's contents, is how consumers are protected in a market economy. Digital Equipment Corp. v. Uniq Digital Technologies, Inc., 73 F.3d 756 (7th Cir.1996). ProCD has rivals, which may elect to compete by offering superior software, monthly updates, improved terms of use, lower price, or a better compromise among these elements. As we stressed above, adjusting terms in buyers' favor might help Matthew Zeidenberg today (he already has the software) but would lead to a response, such as a higher price, that might make consumers as a whole worse off.