This comes up every term, of course, but it seems worse this time than
usual.  On quizzes in my UCC class, students want to give me the facts as
the legal reason.  For example, the reason a contract exists, they say, is
because "A dropped the letter of acceptance into the mail box."  That, of
course, is a fact, not the law; the law is the "mail box rule," that says an
acceptance is effective upon dispatch.  Here is another example.  What I
wanted was some discussion of the concept of consequential damages
(forseeability, and the like); a student wrote:
 
"A  will argue for loss of revenue from the three days the store was closed.
 The store     was  supposed to be opened in two weeks, but it was ready for
business in two weeks and three days; this caused a three day loss of
revenue for A."
 
My problem with this is that it really is only a restatement of the facts
(delay in remodeling).  I think the subtext suggests the student knows the
issue, but the answer here is one that any reasonably competent person could
give who had never sat in the classroom at all.  I make notes on the paper
such as "this is fact, not law" or "this really is not a legal analysis"
or--sometimes, "so what?"
 
I'm not the only one that has this problem.  Any suggestions?