Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:38 am
Yea, I could do without conlawDanger Zone wrote:I enjoyed the break from discussing Prop/Crim/Con Law though.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=196998
Yea, I could do without conlawDanger Zone wrote:I enjoyed the break from discussing Prop/Crim/Con Law though.
Maybe because MPC only defines what is not voluntary in the exceptions rather than giving a positive definition of voluntariness?laxbrah420 wrote:my prof mentioned in passing that mpc's framing for voluntary action is broader than traditional common law's...i cannot figure out how. can anyone help?
I'm pretty sure it defines whats voluntary and then only defines omissions by what is not an omission could be wrong though.Nelson wrote:Maybe because MPC only defines what is not voluntary in the exceptions rather than giving a positive definition of voluntariness?laxbrah420 wrote:my prof mentioned in passing that mpc's framing for voluntary action is broader than traditional common law's...i cannot figure out how. can anyone help?
It doesn't actually expressly define voluntary. 1.13(3) directs you to 2.01 which basically tells you what actions are not voluntary (see 2.01(2)). Etc.Lacepiece23 wrote:I'm pretty sure it defines whats voluntary and then only defines omissions by what is not an omission could be wrong though.Nelson wrote:Maybe because MPC only defines what is not voluntary in the exceptions rather than giving a positive definition of voluntariness?laxbrah420 wrote:my prof mentioned in passing that mpc's framing for voluntary action is broader than traditional common law's...i cannot figure out how. can anyone help?
yea, voluntariness is defined by outlining what is not voluntary: acts while unconscious, hypnotized, etc.Danger Zone wrote:Though, if I recall correctly, 2.01(2) only gives examples of non-volitional acts, not an exclusive list of them.
TLS wrote:Hey all,
1st exam in the next few days. I REALLY could use help with two things:
1) Does anyone have any good formulas for calculating damages in contracts? Specifically, Expectation, Consequential, Incidental, Reliance, Restitution, and Liquidated damages? For some reason I am really struggling with finding good, straightforward formulas on how to calculate these.
2)This is such a newb question, but how are you all structuring your rule sections? Obviously, for Contracts, you'd be using the Restatement and UCC (or whichever is relevant), but do you also put relevant caselaw in your rule section? If not, where would you recommend putting relevant caselaw rules?
Thanks for all your help! (I really need it )
1) the restatement sections are pretty clear on how damages are calculated. Not sure if its any different for the UCC though.TLS wrote:Hey all,
1st exam in the next few days. I REALLY could use help with two things:
1) Does anyone have any good formulas for calculating damages in contracts? Specifically, Expectation, Consequential, Incidental, Reliance, Restitution, and Liquidated damages? For some reason I am really struggling with finding good, straightforward formulas on how to calculate these.
2)This is such a newb question, but how are you all structuring your rule sections? Obviously, for Contracts, you'd be using the Restatement and UCC (or whichever is relevant), but do you also put relevant caselaw in your rule section? If not, where would you recommend putting relevant caselaw rules?
Thanks for all your help! (I really need it )
By rule area do you mean like in an IRAC on an exam? You shouldn't spend more than a sentence stating a rule of law on an exam. If you're using more than that, you aren't applying law to fact. Focus on digging into the fact pattern.TLS wrote:Thanks Mephistopheles and Robert Paulson. I'd say my prof is definitely pretty realist about it. Mephistopheles, we'll have some damages questions in the multiple choice section, so it's going to be a pretty specific answer she's looking for. I'm struggling to find a really cut and dry, concise formula.
Robert Paulson, thanks that does help. Does that mean you didn't put case law in your rule area? Did you just discuss it further down in the analysis section?
Yeah, I don't want to spend too much time stating the rule, but I'm wondering if it should be like:Nelson wrote:By rule area do you mean like in an IRAC on an exam? You shouldn't spend more than a sentence stating a rule of law on an exam. If you're using more than that, you aren't applying law to fact. Focus on digging into the fact pattern.TLS wrote:Thanks Mephistopheles and Robert Paulson. I'd say my prof is definitely pretty realist about it. Mephistopheles, we'll have some damages questions in the multiple choice section, so it's going to be a pretty specific answer she's looking for. I'm struggling to find a really cut and dry, concise formula.
Robert Paulson, thanks that does help. Does that mean you didn't put case law in your rule area? Did you just discuss it further down in the analysis section?
I mean the cases are usually applying a restatement rule or UCC rule. So I basically IRAC'ed the restatement or UCC or whatever, then I would IRAC the applicable cases and do like a bigger conclusion at the end of the analysis. It seems kind of repetitive but its not bad if your succinct and it's easier to organize. I would ask your prof how they want the analysis done if your not sure.TLS wrote:Thanks Mephistopheles and Robert Paulson. I'd say my prof is definitely pretty realist about it. Mephistopheles, we'll have some damages questions in the multiple choice section, so it's going to be a pretty specific answer she's looking for. I'm struggling to find a really cut and dry, concise formula.
Robert Paulson, thanks that does help. Does that mean you didn't put case law in your rule area? Did you just discuss it further down in the analysis section?
On an exam, unless your professor is really weird, I would just state the rule you're using (Per R(S)C, reliance damages are expenditures made in preparation for performance minus any loss that would have been suffered in performance). If the rule is really simple, like for reliance damages, I would just frame your answer in the form of the rule and not even bother to state it separately ("X can claim reliance damages for the loss they incurred in preparing for the contract when they [facts]"). You get points for spotting issues and applying law to facts, not for stating variations on rules of law.TLS wrote:Yeah, I don't want to spend too much time stating the rule, but I'm wondering if it should be like:
"The UCC states (blah blah blah). In (blank case) the court found (blah blah blah). In (other blank case) the court found (blah blah blah).
*Start Analysis/comparison of facts of case to law and case law*
Or, should I just save the holdings of the case law to put in the analysis section instead of the rule section?
The scope is limited to the resource they agreed on.chiguy99 wrote:PROP: When dealing with "profits" I know the to access the other's prop to extract resources is limited to taking the resource... but how does that work if ... "A has right to come onto B's prop to take gold" but while there A is enticed by his delicious spring water?
I'm guessing he is limited to the resource they agreed on, but all my notes simply say he is limited to taking resources and not really specifying the particular one at hand.
Congrats on getting it over with. Hope you did good.SportsFan wrote:Whew, just got out of con law. 4 hours, and 3 hypos (1 was split into 4 parts), each with a 1200 word limit (so 3600 words in 4 hours). That was boring, to say the least. I feel like I did really well though, and I definitely utilized all the extra time I had to reword things (to make them shorter so I could fit more arguments, and to delete facts that I had stated that I didn't need to) and make sure I hit all the right things. I feel really good about it, but then, most people do. I do think an A- is attainable though, unless my professor just hates what I had to say.
I feel like I should make the grade waiting thread now that I'm half done with finals. Me and Nelson will be the only ones in there, though.Nova wrote:Congrats on getting it over with. Hope you did good.SportsFan wrote:Whew, just got out of con law. 4 hours, and 3 hypos (1 was split into 4 parts), each with a 1200 word limit (so 3600 words in 4 hours). That was boring, to say the least. I feel like I did really well though, and I definitely utilized all the extra time I had to reword things (to make them shorter so I could fit more arguments, and to delete facts that I had stated that I didn't need to) and make sure I hit all the right things. I feel really good about it, but then, most people do. I do think an A- is attainable though, unless my professor just hates what I had to say.
ON TO THE NEXT ONE
LOL, yeah. That must be nice.SportsFan wrote:I feel like I should make the grade waiting thread now that I'm half done with finals. Me and Nelson will be the only ones in there, though.
SportsFan wrote: I feel like I should make the grade waiting thread now that I'm half done with finals. Me and Nelson will be the only ones in there, though.
Halfway done here too...so far so good I think (hope)SportsFan wrote:I feel like I should make the grade waiting thread now that I'm half done with finals. Me and Nelson will be the only ones in there, though.Nova wrote:Congrats on getting it over with. Hope you did good.SportsFan wrote:Whew, just got out of con law. 4 hours, and 3 hypos (1 was split into 4 parts), each with a 1200 word limit (so 3600 words in 4 hours). That was boring, to say the least. I feel like I did really well though, and I definitely utilized all the extra time I had to reword things (to make them shorter so I could fit more arguments, and to delete facts that I had stated that I didn't need to) and make sure I hit all the right things. I feel really good about it, but then, most people do. I do think an A- is attainable though, unless my professor just hates what I had to say.
ON TO THE NEXT ONE