1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Kabuo
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:53 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Kabuo » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:53 pm

0LNewbie wrote:
ph14 wrote:
0LNewbie wrote:Starting to become disgruntled and cynical about the whole system, and exams haven't even started yet. I've done all the right things, taken a ton of PTs, gone over them with my study group and my profs, feel ready to take exams. But I feel like everyone else is doing the same things, and we're all gonna end up at median.

Le sigh.


Yep, I know this feeling. Facebook should have a no exam related statuses or comments rule for the month of December for law students.


Haha, thanks for the commiseration. If I went to your school, I wouldn't worry about everyone possibly being smarter than I am, I would just know. Not sure how you're dealing with that.

I have definitely dome some serious unsubscribing from facebook status updates.


Dude is so bashful. Do I need to send you the eye of the tiger playlist (no Rocky songs were used in the making of this list)? But for srs, stop being so beta until you actually find out you hit median. That's my plan at least. Maybe I can will myself to the top with nothing but borrowed outlines and alpha thoughts.

User avatar
TatteredDignity
Posts: 1520
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:06 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby TatteredDignity » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:17 pm

Kabuo wrote:
0LNewbie wrote:
ph14 wrote:
0LNewbie wrote:Starting to become disgruntled and cynical about the whole system, and exams haven't even started yet. I've done all the right things, taken a ton of PTs, gone over them with my study group and my profs, feel ready to take exams. But I feel like everyone else is doing the same things, and we're all gonna end up at median.

Le sigh.


Yep, I know this feeling. Facebook should have a no exam related statuses or comments rule for the month of December for law students.


Haha, thanks for the commiseration. If I went to your school, I wouldn't worry about everyone possibly being smarter than I am, I would just know. Not sure how you're dealing with that.

I have definitely dome some serious unsubscribing from facebook status updates.


Dude is so bashful. Do I need to send you the eye of the tiger playlist (no Rocky songs were used in the making of this list)? But for srs, stop being so beta until you actually find out you hit median. That's my plan at least. Maybe I can will myself to the top with nothing but borrowed outlines and alpha thoughts.


Yes, please.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11755
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:21 pm

How am I supposed to study on Sundays when there is so much football on tv? :(

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:22 pm

ilovesf wrote:How am I supposed to study on Sundays when there is so much football on tv? :(


...I didn't realize today was Sunday.

User avatar
Kabuo
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:53 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Kabuo » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:24 pm

ph14 wrote:
ilovesf wrote:How am I supposed to study on Sundays when there is so much football on tv? :(


...I didn't realize today was Sunday.


+1

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:52 pm

ph14 wrote:
ilovesf wrote:How am I supposed to study on Sundays when there is so much football on tv? :(


...I didn't realize today was Sunday.


+1 I thought yesterday was Thursday.

I'm going through PTs for CivPro though the exam is a week off, I look through it and I think "Psh... I got this shit!" I feel confident and like I know how to fully address all of the issues. And then I look at the answer key/outline, and I start to freak out because out of like 10 possible issues, I didn't see one... Then I start second guessing myself and panicking and wishing I had never come to law school and it all breaks down into a horrible existential argument for about 10 minutes... I fucking hate exams.

User avatar
rocon7383
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby rocon7383 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:03 pm

ilovesf wrote:How am I supposed to study on Sundays when there is so much football on tv? :(



+1.

I just assume that every one else in my section knows I have to watch the Jets, so they'll take a random 3 hour break today to keep things fair.

Right?


..right?

User avatar
SilverE2
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby SilverE2 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:08 pm

Am I right in how I'm viewing civ pro: It's more rules based and less analysis based than other classes like contracts or torts?

Honestly, I don't see much room for the same in depth analysis that you would do in other classes in civ pro. It's more applying the rules correctly.

Of course, it depends on the professor, but my professor just teaches the standard civ pro class with nothing special. Unfortunately, she has not given out any practice exams with model answers, so I can't see how she writes the tests. But yeah, so is my assessment of the class more or less correct?

nonprofit-prophet
Posts: 844
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:10 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby nonprofit-prophet » Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:12 pm

Contracts question.

facts
If A materially breaches, but really wants to cure,
B refuses to allow for A to cure
the facts are such that B's duties aren't discharged under § 242
B says the contract is canceled because it says A has materially breached.


I know that A can only sue on the contract if A substantially performed, and therefore cannot sue on the K if A has materially breached. But if B still had a duty to perform regardless of A's §241 material breach (because B's duties weren't discharged under § 242), it would seem that by "canceling"/repudiating the K, B is the one that has totally breached the K. But what is A's remedy if A cannot sue on the K, because A has materially breached? Is it just restitution? That seems odd, since if A was allowed to cure, the K would still exist and A would only have to pay B for any loss suffered from the material breach. A would still get the benefits of the K.

Any thoughts?

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby acrossthelake » Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:16 pm

SilverE2 wrote:Am I right in how I'm viewing civ pro: It's more rules based and less analysis based than other classes like contracts or torts?

Honestly, I don't see much room for the same in depth analysis that you would do in other classes in civ pro. It's more applying the rules correctly.

Of course, it depends on the professor, but my professor just teaches the standard civ pro class with nothing special. Unfortunately, she has not given out any practice exams with model answers, so I can't see how she writes the tests. But yeah, so is my assessment of the class more or less correct?


I would say the analysis for FQ SMJ, PJ, vertical choice of law, Twiqbal, preclusion, and possibly horizontal choice of law if you're doing the 2nd restatement rather than the 1st restatement of lex loci delicti leave plenty of room for analysis. Venue has less analysis. Things like "must reply within X days" are pretty straightforward. Even T&O or CNOF analysis can get pretty difficult depending on the fact pattern.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:16 pm

SilverE2 wrote:Am I right in how I'm viewing civ pro: It's more rules based and less analysis based than other classes like contracts or torts?

Honestly, I don't see much room for the same in depth analysis that you would do in other classes in civ pro. It's more applying the rules correctly.

Of course, it depends on the professor, but my professor just teaches the standard civ pro class with nothing special. Unfortunately, she has not given out any practice exams with model answers, so I can't see how she writes the tests. But yeah, so is my assessment of the class more or less correct?


I'd disagree, there is lots of room for analysis. They're not just going to give an exam where everything is clear cut and unambiguous and you can just apply rules and profit (except maybe if it was multiple choice). They're going to give exams that straddle issues, force you to extrapolate from prior cases, ambiguous, etc. Think of something like personal jurisdiction. You can analyze that in depth and for a long time if it is in a grey area.

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:21 pm

SilverE2 wrote:Am I right in how I'm viewing civ pro: It's more rules based and less analysis based than other classes like contracts or torts?

Honestly, I don't see much room for the same in depth analysis that you would do in other classes in civ pro. It's more applying the rules correctly.

Of course, it depends on the professor, but my professor just teaches the standard civ pro class with nothing special. Unfortunately, she has not given out any practice exams with model answers, so I can't see how she writes the tests. But yeah, so is my assessment of the class more or less correct?


Absolutely not true, at least for my professor. He wants in-depth mix of policy analysis and the discussion of ambiguities within court precedents. Going through old tests, it seems like all the work is falling around the gray areas where the court had 4/4 splits.

User avatar
SilverE2
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby SilverE2 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:29 pm

crossarmant wrote:
SilverE2 wrote:Am I right in how I'm viewing civ pro: It's more rules based and less analysis based than other classes like contracts or torts?

Honestly, I don't see much room for the same in depth analysis that you would do in other classes in civ pro. It's more applying the rules correctly.

Of course, it depends on the professor, but my professor just teaches the standard civ pro class with nothing special. Unfortunately, she has not given out any practice exams with model answers, so I can't see how she writes the tests. But yeah, so is my assessment of the class more or less correct?


Absolutely not true, at least for my professor. He wants in-depth mix of policy analysis and the discussion of ambiguities within court precedents. Going through old tests, it seems like all the work is falling around the gray areas where the court had 4/4 splits.


Ok...well looks like I should maybe focus a bit more on policy. My professor released practice exams with no answers, but the questions mostly seemed to be straightforward, but applying a ton of rules in a very short time period. Basically racehorse style exams. I saw a little bit of analysis potential in the more case heavy Civ Pro subjects, but not so much in the FRCP heavy subjects.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11755
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:05 pm

SilverE2 wrote:
crossarmant wrote:
SilverE2 wrote:Am I right in how I'm viewing civ pro: It's more rules based and less analysis based than other classes like contracts or torts?

Honestly, I don't see much room for the same in depth analysis that you would do in other classes in civ pro. It's more applying the rules correctly.

Of course, it depends on the professor, but my professor just teaches the standard civ pro class with nothing special. Unfortunately, she has not given out any practice exams with model answers, so I can't see how she writes the tests. But yeah, so is my assessment of the class more or less correct?


Absolutely not true, at least for my professor. He wants in-depth mix of policy analysis and the discussion of ambiguities within court precedents. Going through old tests, it seems like all the work is falling around the gray areas where the court had 4/4 splits.


Ok...well looks like I should maybe focus a bit more on policy. My professor released practice exams with no answers, but the questions mostly seemed to be straightforward, but applying a ton of rules in a very short time period. Basically racehorse style exams. I saw a little bit of analysis potential in the more case heavy Civ Pro subjects, but not so much in the FRCP heavy subjects.

I think it really depends on how your professor teaches the subject and what his/her expectations are. Of course there has to be some level of analysis, but my exam is half multiple choice and a lot of the questions are about proper procedures, etc.

sknight323
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:39 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sknight323 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:05 pm

morris248 wrote:
K question - If I tell somebody "if you find my dog, I will give $100" then I am basically offering a unilateral contract, correct?

The offeree then searches for my dog, but cannot find the dog. Does this create an option contract? I would assume this is beginning performance. And, let's say the offeree incurs some type of monetary damage due to him trying to complete/accept the K. So, basically, does this scenario create an option contract under §45, and can he collect any kind of damages from me, if they exist?


This is known as a reward offer that must be communicated. It can only be accepted by performance so it is a unilateral contract. However, the party must know of the offer in order to collect but if they do not perform then they can collect nothing, there are no damages. In other words if someone else finds your dog and did not know of the reward you do not have to pay them.



Well yeah, the other party has to be accepting of a contract. But what I'm really interested in is what happens because of the option contract (if there is one). Let's say I communicated the offer to just a neighborhood kid, or something. And he incurs some type of expense even though he can't find the dog. Can he get reliance damages?

User avatar
piccolittle
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:16 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby piccolittle » Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm

Anyone willing to take a look at a substantial performance hypo and outline the issues for me? This is the question that gave me an anxiety attack yesterday, and I just want to check that I wasn't totally off base. Also includes damages calculation. PM me if you want it so I don't clog up the main thread :) Alternatively, happy to post it here if everyone wants to give it a shot.

Peg
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:32 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Peg » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:08 pm

Can someone please explain illusory promises (from Contracts) to me as if I am a retarded 10-year old? Don't overestimate my intelligence, don't assume that I understand basic assumptions.

I remember that I understood this concept in October, or thought I did. Now I simply don't get it. None of the supplements (Chirelstein, E&E...Wikipedia) have explained it to me.

For example, this how Chirelstein explains it on p. 25 (using annoying words like "Pretty clearly" and "obviously" - no douchebag, it's NOT obvious to me anymore):

"Suppose S offers to sell B at $1,000 a ton as many tons of widgets, not exceeding 10 tons, as B may choose to order within the next 90 days. B accepts, agreeing to buy at that price as many tons of widgets (up to 10) as he may order from S within the 90-day period."

Okay, so B had no obligation to buy from S...until B said, "I agree to buy 10 tons from you at the stated price." That seems pretty fucking clear to me that B is now obligated to buy from S. He wasn't obligated until he "agreed" to buy and also agreed to the terms that S offered. How is this illusory?

Chirelstein says that "B was completely free either to order or not to order up to 10 tons of widgets from S and hence quite obviously [fuck you, Chirelstein] promised S nothing...Since B had no obligation to buy from S but could buy from some other seller if the price of widgets dropped, it appears that B's promise was no promise at all and that the agreement was entirely hollow."

I don't get it, where does it state or even imply that B had the option to not buy from S, and instead buy from someone else, after B agreed to purchase from S? B's freedom is limited once B agrees to buy 10 tons from S at $1,000 per ton. It's pretty crystal clear. Where is the illusory-ness in this?

sidhesadie
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sidhesadie » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:13 pm

Peg wrote:Can someone please explain illusory promises (from Contracts) to me as if I am a retarded 10-year old? Don't overestimate my intelligence, don't assume that I understand basic assumptions.

I remember that I understood this concept in October, or thought I did. Now I simply don't get it. None of the supplements (Chirelstein, E&E...Wikipedia) have explained it to me.

For example, this how Chirelstein explains it on p. 25 (using annoying words like "Pretty clearly" and "obviously" - no douchebag, it's NOT obvious to me anymore):

"Suppose S offers to sell B at $1,000 a ton as many tons of widgets, not exceeding 10 tons, as B may choose to order within the next 90 days. B accepts, agreeing to buy at that price as many tons of widgets (up to 10) as he may order from S within the 90-day period."

Okay, so B had no obligation to buy from S...until B said, "I agree to buy 10 tons from you at the stated price." That seems pretty fucking clear to me that B is now obligated to buy from S. He wasn't obligated until he "agreed" to buy and also agreed to the terms that S offered. How is this illusory?

Chirelstein says that "B was completely free either to order or not to order up to 10 tons of widgets from S and hence quite obviously [fuck you, Chirelstein] promised S nothing...Since B had no obligation to buy from S but could buy from some other seller if the price of widgets dropped, it appears that B's promise was no promise at all and that the agreement was entirely hollow."

I don't get it, where does it state or even imply that B had the option to not buy from S, and instead buy from someone else, after B agreed to purchase from S? B's freedom is limited once B agrees to buy 10 tons from S at $1,000 per ton. It's pretty crystal clear. Where is the illusory-ness in this?


B didn't agree to buy 10 tons from S at $1000 per ton. B agreed to buy UP TO 10 tons, "as many tons, up to 10" as he liked. Or, as he didn't like. He could buy 5 tons, 10 tons, or NO tons. Since B reserved the decision of how many tons to buy entirely to his own whim/choice, the promise is illusory because he might buy some or none at all, entirely based on nothing but his own decision.

rklafehn
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby rklafehn » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:14 pm

I would re-read Chirlestein.

He explicitly states that an illusory promise becomes a binding promise once a minimum or specific quantity is agreed upon by the parties. This way, the risk is not completely one-sided (e.g. on the seller) and both sides have given adequate consideration.

target
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby target » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:15 pm

Peg wrote:
"Suppose S offers to sell B at $1,000 a ton as many tons of widgets, not exceeding 10 tons, as B may choose to order within the next 90 days. B accepts, agreeing to buy at that price as many tons of widgets (up to 10) as he may order from S within the 90-day period."



I don't get it, where does it state or even imply that B had the option to not buy from S, and instead buy from someone else, after B agreed to purchase from S? B's freedom is limited once B agrees to buy 10 tons from S at $1,000 per ton. It's pretty crystal clear. Where is the illusory-ness in this?


I am reviewing for K as well, so not quiet sure I am right. No languages in the K say that B must buy from S. The K just establishes the upper limit, not the lower limit. Had it said S offers to sell B at $1000/ton of widget, not exceeding 10 tons but not less than 1 tons. Then, the K may be clearer.

User avatar
piccolittle
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:16 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby piccolittle » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:18 pm

sidhesadie wrote:
Peg wrote:
I don't get it, where does it state or even imply that B had the option to not buy from S, and instead buy from someone else, after B agreed to purchase from S? B's freedom is limited once B agrees to buy 10 tons from S at $1,000 per ton. It's pretty crystal clear. Where is the illusory-ness in this?


B didn't agree to buy 10 tons from S at $1000 per ton. B agreed to buy UP TO 10 tons, "as many tons, up to 10" as he liked. Or, as he didn't like. He could buy 5 tons, 10 tons, or NO tons. Since B reserved the decision of how many tons to buy entirely to his own whim/choice, the promise is illusory because he might buy some or none at all, entirely based on nothing but his own decision.


This can also be distinguished from a requirements contract because the quantity term in a requirements contract can be established by reference to extrinsic facts (B's requirements). Additionally, a requirements contract would bind B to only purchase from S, which would be consideration. Here, not only was B free to buy however many he felt like, which couldn't be established by reference to any extrinsic fact, but there was no consideration for this promise because he didn't bind himself to do anything (e.g. buy widgets exclusively from S). Not sure if that helps lol
Last edited by piccolittle on Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Peg
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:32 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Peg » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:18 pm

sidhesadie wrote:B didn't agree to buy 10 tons from S at $1000 per ton. B agreed to buy UP TO 10 tons, "as many tons, up to 10" as he liked. Or, as he didn't like. He could buy 5 tons, 10 tons, or NO tons. Since B reserved the decision of how many tons to buy entirely to his own whim/choice, the promise is illusory because he might buy some or none at all, entirely based on nothing but his own decision.


But the wording states, "as many...as he may order", not "as many as he likes", which, to me, means that B is saying he'll buy as many tons as S is willing to sell. Doesn't that imply a promise?

User avatar
piccolittle
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:16 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby piccolittle » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:21 pm

Peg wrote:
sidhesadie wrote:B didn't agree to buy 10 tons from S at $1000 per ton. B agreed to buy UP TO 10 tons, "as many tons, up to 10" as he liked. Or, as he didn't like. He could buy 5 tons, 10 tons, or NO tons. Since B reserved the decision of how many tons to buy entirely to his own whim/choice, the promise is illusory because he might buy some or none at all, entirely based on nothing but his own decision.


But the wording states, "as many...as he may order", not "as many as he likes", which, to me, means that B is saying he'll buy as many tons as S is willing to sell. Doesn't that imply a promise?


Ohh, interesting interpretation. I think it's Chirelstein using old-timey language here. I think he means may as in "may happen" to order, not may as in "is allowed" or "is able to" order.

Peg
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:32 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Peg » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:27 pm

piccolittle wrote:
Ohh, interesting interpretation. I think it's Chirelstein using old-timey language here. I think he means may as in "may happen" to order, not may as in "is allowed" or "is able to" order.


Oh God, now I get what you mean. I should point out that Chirestein's style of writing has been frustrating me all semester, but I forced myself to read his book because my professor dotes on him. If I have to face language like this on my exam, I'm fucked.

Thanks guys - now could someone explain the more complicated version of illusory promises to me? The version involving good faith? Because that made even less sense to me when Chirelstein explained it. It's pg. 26-27 of Chirelstein (Mattei v. Hopper)

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby r6_philly » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:32 pm

Peg wrote:
sidhesadie wrote:B didn't agree to buy 10 tons from S at $1000 per ton. B agreed to buy UP TO 10 tons, "as many tons, up to 10" as he liked. Or, as he didn't like. He could buy 5 tons, 10 tons, or NO tons. Since B reserved the decision of how many tons to buy entirely to his own whim/choice, the promise is illusory because he might buy some or none at all, entirely based on nothing but his own decision.


But the wording states, "as many...as he may order", not "as many as he likes", which, to me, means that B is saying he'll buy as many tons as S is willing to sell. Doesn't that imply a promise?


Yes but an order is the performance that creates the contract. Until he orders something, they have an agreement to form a contractual relationship once B places an order. This is an option contract where A is obligated to keep the offer open and B has the power to revoke.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests