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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:57 pm

theavrock wrote:
TheFutureLawyer wrote:
theavrock wrote:Do well on your exams all who have them. I refuse to say good luck.

"The best of luck of all is
the luck you make for yourself."
Douglas MacArthur


"Better to be lucky than to be good."
The Bunk


When it comes to luck you make your own - The Boss


I'm going with the Tim Tebow strategy for exams: suck horribly but get really, really lucky.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:58 pm

I tried a study group thing, it was ok but I think I get more out of doing stuff solo.

I hear people saying good things about them at school though, so who knows. Maybe they work for some more than others.

One thing I always do before a test is arrive early, out of paranoia of being late, and isolate myself from everyone before the test. I barely study while waiting. On my first final I did this and as it got to 30 minutes before the test started I set up my laptop and left because everyone was freaking the **** out asking last minute questions. I quickly left and some people followed me asking me questions and I politely responded that I would give my thought on what they asked, but I didn't want them to elaborate on it. Anyone want to guess what they did? I'm not being stuck up and I'm sure your insight is just as valuable as my own, but I dont want to be distracted 10 minutes before my final! Do people really think frantically asking questions 10 minutes before a final from another 1L will benefit them? I didn't say that but I did slowly walk away.

These aren't dumb people either and we probably scored roughly the same, but I only see a negative in discussing the final right before the test begins.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11753
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:08 pm

ph14 wrote:I'm going with the Tim Tebow strategy for exams: suck horribly but get really, really lucky.

:lol: I appreciate this comment.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:14 pm

Question regarding the Parol Evidence Rule.

A has a contract with B that contains a merger clause. There was an oral agreement at the time the contract was signed. Does this agreement come in? I know if it was written it would be treat as part of the contract, but would an oral agreement change the situation?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:25 pm

Fuck... sureness and bravado are quickly wearing off. The panic is setting in over the fact that I have my first final tomorrow. Gah! At least it's Torts, so I feel I have a pretty basic understanding of the subject matter. If CivPro was first I think I might just /self. So not looking forward to CivPro on Monday.

User avatar
FeelTheHeat
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:32 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby FeelTheHeat » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:26 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:Question regarding the Parol Evidence Rule.

A has a contract with B that contains a merger clause. There was an oral agreement at the time the contract was signed. Does this agreement come in? I know if it was written it would be treat as part of the contract, but would an oral agreement change the situation?


Depends on a number of factors. Merger clauses are rebuttable, so if, say, the oral agreement regarded a condition to the contract (such as if A tells B that the sale of the house is contingent on his uncle dying and him receiving the will), it will be admissible.

User avatar
pinkcamellia
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby pinkcamellia » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:27 pm

Panic has set in. I'm so worried I didn't type as much as other people. Ughhhhhhhhhh

User avatar
TheFutureLawyer
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby TheFutureLawyer » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:39 pm

This is a bit embarrassing, but I need to be sure on something.

Interpreting Contracts: looking at Restatement 201, 202.

§201 – whose meaning prevails:
(1) If parties share same meaning then that meaning prevails – even if the shared meaning is really bizarre
(2) If parties had different understandings, but A knew, or had reason to know, that B had a different understanding but A never told b – then B’s manifest intentions wins over A’s secret understanding
(3) They have different understandings and had no idea about the difference, or if they knew about difference but never reached an agreement, then there’s no meeting of the minds – no mutual assent so no K


So I read this, and I take it to mean that when the parties claim to have different understandings (like in subsection 3), we go through S202 (Rules in Aid of Interpretation) to try and see if they can fairly be said to have shared the same meaning (as long as one of the parties has always claimed that meaning, as required by the modern objective approach).

Is that right?

adonai
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:09 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby adonai » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:46 pm

Having trouble with measuring lives in the RAP. How do I know who the measuring life is when there are multiple lives in being? Freakin HATE property!!

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:47 pm

TheFutureLawyer wrote:This is a bit embarrassing, but I need to be sure on something.

Interpreting Contracts: looking at Restatement 201, 202.

§201 – whose meaning prevails:
(1) If parties share same meaning then that meaning prevails – even if the shared meaning is really bizarre
(2) If parties had different understandings, but A knew, or had reason to know, that B had a different understanding but A never told b – then B’s manifest intentions wins over A’s secret understanding
(3) They have different understandings and had no idea about the difference, or if they knew about difference but never reached an agreement, then there’s no meeting of the minds – no mutual assent so no K


So I read this, and I take it to mean that when the parties claim to have different understandings (like in subsection 3), we go through S202 (Rules in Aid of Interpretation) to try and see if they can fairly be said to have shared the same meaning (as long as one of the parties has always claimed that meaning, as required by the modern objective approach).

Is that right?


Yes. The court can use gap-fillers to save the contract if the parties didn't know and had no reason to know of the others understanding.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11753
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:48 pm

adonai wrote:Having trouble with measuring lives in the RAP. How do I know who the measuring life is when there are multiple lives in being? Freakin HATE property!!

I totally messed up on this on my property test. I felt like it was so easy and I freaked out when I saw the test and wrote it down incorrectly. Do as many examples as possible, with the e&e, crunch time and cali if you're having trouble understanding it.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:51 pm

I offer you $100 to paint my house, but I ask for you performance, not your promise. You begin to paint but have a heart attack which prevents you from finishing the last 1% of the job. I paint it myself. Could you recover? Would it have to be in restitution? If we say the value of your services were $1,000, would I have to pay 990?

I know if it was a bilateral K and the painter breached, he would be limited to restitution damages offset by the K agreement. What happens in unilateral K's?

User avatar
TheFutureLawyer
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby TheFutureLawyer » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:53 pm

ilovesf wrote:
adonai wrote:Having trouble with measuring lives in the RAP. How do I know who the measuring life is when there are multiple lives in being? Freakin HATE property!!

I totally messed up on this on my property test. I felt like it was so easy and I freaked out when I saw the test and wrote it down incorrectly. Do as many examples as possible, with the e&e, crunch time and cali if you're having trouble understanding it.


Next semester, for sure, I'm getting hornbooks and doing E&Es. It hasn't been until very recently that a lot of things started really making sense, and that shouldn't be happening only days before the exam (or less than a day, as my question above :oops: ).

oh yeah,

Extension_Cord wrote:
Yes. The court can use gap-fillers to save the contract if the parties didn't know and had no reason to know of the others understanding.


TY

User avatar
TheFutureLawyer
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby TheFutureLawyer » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:20 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:I offer you $100 to paint my house, but I ask for you performance, not your promise. You begin to paint but have a heart attack which prevents you from finishing the last 1% of the job. I paint it myself. Could you recover? Would it have to be in restitution? If we say the value of your services were $1,000, would I have to pay 990?

I know if it was a bilateral K and the painter breached, he would be limited to restitution damages offset by the K agreement. What happens in unilateral K's?


I think you got mixed up (or I did). Bilateral K is promise for promise. In that case, you couldn't get restitution, as it doesn't apply to Ks. The situation you described is a unilateral K, of a binding option K. There is no K stating that offeror will pay offeree UNTIL offeree finishes the work, then that K comes into existence. But it never happened. So I think it's just a straight Restitution claim.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby acrossthelake » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:46 pm

jjlaw wrote:One thing: I hate study groups. I am not going to be in one next semester. Too much bullshit when so much shit is already hitting the fan.

/end rant


I think it depends on the study group. Maybe try another one? I love mine. I really learn from the other members, and it keeps me on task because I'm obligated to stick to the schedule we set. I'll do a practice test, think I saw everything, and then they'll point out things I didn't see, and it makes me better on the next one.

orderofthings
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:18 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby orderofthings » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:05 am

TheFutureLawyer wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:I offer you $100 to paint my house, but I ask for you performance, not your promise. You begin to paint but have a heart attack which prevents you from finishing the last 1% of the job. I paint it myself. Could you recover? Would it have to be in restitution? If we say the value of your services were $1,000, would I have to pay 990?

I know if it was a bilateral K and the painter breached, he would be limited to restitution damages offset by the K agreement. What happens in unilateral K's?


I think you got mixed up (or I did). Bilateral K is promise for promise. In that case, you couldn't get restitution, as it doesn't apply to Ks. The situation you described is a unilateral K, of a binding option K. There is no K stating that offeror will pay offeree UNTIL offeree finishes the work, then that K comes into existence. But it never happened. So I think it's just a straight Restitution claim.


Why couldn't you have restitution damages for a bilateral K? "Restitution seeks to return to the plaintiff the value of any benefit conferred on the defendant under the breached contract." That seems like it could be an appropriate route to try and get damages. Is it because the homeowner didn't breach?

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:12 am

Are subcontractor bids always under common law even if the bid is to provide goods?

User avatar
TheFutureLawyer
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby TheFutureLawyer » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:30 am

Extension_Cord wrote:Are subcontractor bids always under common law even if the bid is to provide goods?


I don't see how that's possible. Nothing I ever heard of saying that subs aren't subject to UCC.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby piccolittle » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:37 am

TheFutureLawyer wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:Are subcontractor bids always under common law even if the bid is to provide goods?


I don't see how that's possible. Nothing I ever heard of saying that subs aren't subject to UCC.


But is there a UCC provision on subcontractors' bids? The UCC only governs to the extent that it actually covers something... so this would be really good to know as I've been analyzing everything under common law.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:45 am

piccolittle wrote:
TheFutureLawyer wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:Are subcontractor bids always under common law even if the bid is to provide goods?


I don't see how that's possible. Nothing I ever heard of saying that subs aren't subject to UCC.


But is there a UCC provision on subcontractors' bids? The UCC only governs to the extent that it actually covers something... so this would be really good to know as I've been analyzing everything under common law.


Im looking at a question from my K professors review and he had a question where subcontractor was to supply widgets to contractor and it was governed by CL, I missed it because I said firm offer.

I do recall him always saying a bid = option K, which is only in CL.

It doesn't make a lot of sense though.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby piccolittle » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:53 am

Extension_Cord wrote:
piccolittle wrote:
TheFutureLawyer wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:Are subcontractor bids always under common law even if the bid is to provide goods?


I don't see how that's possible. Nothing I ever heard of saying that subs aren't subject to UCC.


But is there a UCC provision on subcontractors' bids? The UCC only governs to the extent that it actually covers something... so this would be really good to know as I've been analyzing everything under common law.


Im looking at a question from my K professors review and he had a question where subcontractor was to supply widgets to contractor and it was governed by CL, I missed it because I said firm offer.

I do recall him always saying a bid = option K, which is only in CL.

It doesn't make a lot of sense though.


I think the difference here is that the reason subcontractors' bids become option contracts is the reliance portion. The bids don't conform to the UCC requirements because they aren't irrevocable until the general contractor relies on them in forming a bid. It's more like promissory estoppel (offertory estoppel?) - once the GC relies, they are estopped at common law from revoking (even though it's totally revocable before that), rather than having an irrevocable firm offer from the get-go under the UCC.

If the offer said "this is irrevocable," I think it would be a different story.
Last edited by piccolittle on Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheFutureLawyer
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby TheFutureLawyer » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:55 am

orderofthings wrote:
TheFutureLawyer wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:I offer you $100 to paint my house, but I ask for you performance, not your promise. You begin to paint but have a heart attack which prevents you from finishing the last 1% of the job. I paint it myself. Could you recover? Would it have to be in restitution? If we say the value of your services were $1,000, would I have to pay 990?

I know if it was a bilateral K and the painter breached, he would be limited to restitution damages offset by the K agreement. What happens in unilateral K's?


I think you got mixed up (or I did). Bilateral K is promise for promise. In that case, you couldn't get restitution, as it doesn't apply to Ks. The situation you described is a unilateral K, of a binding option K. There is no K stating that offeror will pay offeree UNTIL offeree finishes the work, then that K comes into existence. But it never happened. So I think it's just a straight Restitution claim.


Why couldn't you have restitution damages for a bilateral K? "Restitution seeks to return to the plaintiff the value of any benefit conferred on the defendant under the breached contract." That seems like it could be an appropriate route to try and get damages. Is it because the homeowner didn't breach?


This has to be my last response here, but I got this under Rest: "there was no express agreement or promise made – duty to compensate is implied". You can get Rest. in an implied in fact K, which is sortta like a K, or an implied in law K, which is not really a K at all. Either way, there is no real K.

In this hypo, what would have been the K?

You need to look up bilateral K: "bargain for mutual promises – a promise for a promise." In the hypo, there is a promise (of giving offeree sole authority to complete the performance) for a partial performance (though part perform does usually also contain implied or express promise to complete, this doesn't matter in terms of making a bilateral K b/c the offeror isn't seeking a promise at all, and so there is no consideration for that)(see Restat 45). This is a unilateral K.

The K of a promise (of money) for a complete performance is never made. Thus, no K for this.

This is what I have for Rest:

based on concept of unjust enrichment – person performs services that are known to and accepted by another, law implies promise to pay for such services (if person expects compensation) – elements:
a) D benefited from the services of P
b) when P performed services he intended to be compensated (if intent was purely gratuitous or charitable, then no restitution – no good Samaritan restitution) – would reasonable person expect to be compensated?
c) reasonable person in D’s position would have known that P intended to be compensated.
d) unjust enrichment – it is unjust /inequitable for D to retain benefit w/o compensating P

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby piccolittle » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:59 am

TheFutureLawyer wrote:
The K of a promise (of money) for a complete performance is never made. Thus, no K for this.

This is what I have for Rest:

based on concept of unjust enrichment – person performs services that are known to and accepted by another, law implies promise to pay for such services (if person expects compensation) – elements:
a) D benefited from the services of P
b) when P performed services he intended to be compensated (if intent was purely gratuitous or charitable, then no restitution – no good Samaritan restitution) – would reasonable person expect to be compensated?
c) reasonable person in D’s position would have known that P intended to be compensated.
d) unjust enrichment – it is unjust /inequitable for D to retain benefit w/o compensating P


But isn't it restitution if, say, you make a contract with someone to buy their house and you pay them a deposit? You have a contract there. Are we talking about restitution as in quasi-contract or as in a damages measure? As a damages measure I thought it would apply in cases like the deposit scenario... I so confused :(

User avatar
TheFutureLawyer
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby TheFutureLawyer » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:05 am

piccolittle wrote:
TheFutureLawyer wrote:
The K of a promise (of money) for a complete performance is never made. Thus, no K for this.

This is what I have for Rest:

based on concept of unjust enrichment – person performs services that are known to and accepted by another, law implies promise to pay for such services (if person expects compensation) – elements:
a) D benefited from the services of P
b) when P performed services he intended to be compensated (if intent was purely gratuitous or charitable, then no restitution – no good Samaritan restitution) – would reasonable person expect to be compensated?
c) reasonable person in D’s position would have known that P intended to be compensated.
d) unjust enrichment – it is unjust /inequitable for D to retain benefit w/o compensating P


But isn't it restitution if, say, you make a contract with someone to buy their house and you pay them a deposit? You have a contract there. Are we talking about restitution as in quasi-contract or as in a damages measure? As a damages measure I thought it would apply in cases like the deposit scenario... I so confused :(


Yeah, we are talking about a quasi-contract / implied in law K: Implied-in-law ("quasi-contract") – not a true contract but an obligation imposed by a court despite the absence of a promise in order to avoid an injustice.

I dunno shit about damages measures, but the hypo you put is the same as hypo as above: an option K is created.

Please god let me stop checking this site for hypos.

User avatar
TheFutureLawyer
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby TheFutureLawyer » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:38 am

I feel like I'm prepared enough to do hypos with a study group and not make a complete ass out of myself. Taking an exam? FML. I guess I should sleep for a few hours though, seeing as I have a cold and everything.

First thing to listen to when I wake up will be this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O21t_xQK2Xw




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Downstairs_Mixup, flashyguy21, manuel390, marmarmv, narddawg, pd_1023, pvnyc, sr1986, Trippel, weneedahealer and 32 guests