I'm in the process of assembling the huge (huge) amount of Contracts stuff that I've learned since September, and it's all a big jumble that makes no sense - possibly because we started with remedies and are now slowly working backwards, haven't even touched offer and acceptance yet. I feel like I know what we've done so far, and yet it seems to be so over-complicated. And my Ks professor doesn't have any practice exams out, so I don't know exactly how to outline for his exam.
These will be really vague and possible confusing questions, but I will give you guys (2Ls and 3Ls) major karma points if you just bear with me for a sec.
How are you supposed to think for a Ks exam? My Ks prof said we don't have to cite to the UCC or case law, but in that case how do you state the rule? Do you just say, "So this is a violation of the lost-volume rule," and leave it at that without referring to Neri? I ask because I really think not citing would save me time on the exam and I'm glad the professor said we don't have to cite.
And do I have to memorize the Restatement and UCC? It is OVERWHELMING. How much do you need to know to get an A? My prof said the best exam responses aren't that long...but god help me, he won't show us any model answers! And if the best exam responses aren't that long, how do they cram in a discussion of everything? Professor said it shouldn't need to be longer than 900 words. But the damages/remedies chapter itself is enormously complex!
Okay, when you look at the typical Ks exam, what exactly is your thought process? How deep/complex does your analysis go? Do you debate the existence of every single type of rule/exception?
Please tell me how you studied for Contracts in particular. I'm starting to use CrunchTime because Chirelstein and the E&E and my casebook are not giving me the big picture of how everything fits together.
Thanks people. I think I want to cry.
(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Cosmo Kramer
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:11 am
Sounds a whole lot like my K class 1L year, doing a whole lot on remedies first then only a little of the rest. The way I approached it, and the way my professor inferred I do it, is to first think about the problem from a common sense perspective (gasp..not like a "lawyer"). Ask yourself "what doesn't seem right here?" "Why do I not like how this turned out?" and then once you've identified this, try and find a doctrine/rule/whatever to support why it's a legal problem and what rules will fix it. Talking to your professor would be the best way to ensure you're doing it right.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: alawstudent2222 and 3 guests