BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam Forum

[td6624]

I've barely looked at the CMR. Seems counterproductive. If I miss out on stuff that's in there but not in the lectures, I doubt that will cause me to fail.

[kaiser]

I've barely looked at the CMR. Seems counterproductive. If I miss out on stuff that's in there but not in the lectures, I doubt that will cause me to fail.

I'm sure thats true, but the CMR is very helpful for filling in the gaps in your knowing with some really concise and useful nuggets of info. For example, I didn't feel like the torts lecture sufficiently covered strict and products liability, and it took all of 3-4 pages and about 30 min of CMR to totally fill that gap. I wouldn't use it if you are solid in an area, but where you are weak, its a great way to improve before going back to practice questions.

[Matteliszt]

New York people who have done Question R-4 (on our paced program set for Monday 6/24) can you please PM me? I have a question

[BaiAilian2013]

NY Question: In Criminal Law II, on p. 40 of the handout, in Hypo 26 under factual impossibility, where it asks "Is Dudley guilty of attempted larceny":

The lecturer seems to say "no" here. Could he maybe mean "yes"??? Maybe that's a lot to hope for lol, but otherwise I'm lost.

ETA: ok he just corrected himself right after the break, I'm a goober.

[mirodh]

Three weeks behind Barbri schedule. How fucked?

[Matteliszt]

Three weeks behind Barbri schedule. How fucked?

Not at all

[daphne]

I did Property Set 5 and I found so many rules not mentioned in the lecture. (e.g. RAP doesn't apply to option to purchase attached to leasehold, the waiver of strict compliance, the holdover of commercial lease is different from residential lease, time is not of essence in real estate contract). I was thinking about whether I should read CMR......

[stratocophic]

Three weeks behind Barbri schedule. How fucked?

Just as fucked as me bro

If you're not a TTToiletier you'll be fine, just channel your inner aspie and lose yourself to the SCHOLARSHIP after the 4th.

Don't let the kids talking about doing every AMP question and completing their 3rd round of practice essays get you down, they're the same paranoid lawl students you've dealt with for the past 3 years.

[kaiser]

I just got 7/18 on property set 1. And those are supposedly the easiest ones. I hate everything.

[usuaggie]

I just got 7/18 on property set 1. And those are supposedly the easiest ones. I hate everything.

I got 8

[daphne]

I'm reviewing Corporation handout. Regarding who can authorize the permissive reimbursement, the handout provided that a) The board (with a quorum of directors being non-parties); or, if there is no such quorum, b) Shareholders or a quorum of those directors who are disinterested.
How is the board part in a and b different? I am totally lost.

[shepdawg]

Three weeks behind Barbri schedule. How fucked?

Not bad if you can get 8 weeks of work done in 5 weeks.

[Matteliszt]

New York people - Can anyone explain essay R-4 to me? Shouldn't the fact that she had a previous contract with the law firm make the subsequent contract an oral modification not an entirely new contract?

[5ky]

New York people - Can anyone explain essay R-4 to me? Shouldn't the fact that she had a previous contract with the law firm make the subsequent contract an oral modification not an entirely new contract?

It doesn't make any difference to the actual question, does it? I think what's important is just that there was a double executory employment contract. Whether it came via a modification or a a contract on its own right doesn't seem that important.

[Matteliszt]

New York people - Can anyone explain essay R-4 to me? Shouldn't the fact that she had a previous contract with the law firm make the subsequent contract an oral modification not an entirely new contract?

It doesn't make any difference to the actual question, does it? I think what's important is just that there was a double executory employment contract. Whether it came via a modification or a a contract on its own right doesn't seem that important.

I'm confused to what you mean, the reasoning is different, right? If its an oral modification to a written contract it's unvalid under the Statute of Frauds requirement that written contracts require written modification. If it is a new stand alone contract it's unvalid because it could be accomplished in under 1 year. You're saying that it's irrelevant as long as you recognize it's unenforceable?

[5ky]

New York people - Can anyone explain essay R-4 to me? Shouldn't the fact that she had a previous contract with the law firm make the subsequent contract an oral modification not an entirely new contract?

It doesn't make any difference to the actual question, does it? I think what's important is just that there was a double executory employment contract. Whether it came via a modification or a a contract on its own right doesn't seem that important.

I'm confused to what you mean, the reasoning is different, right? If its an oral modification to a written contract it's unvalid under the Statute of Frauds requirement that written contracts require written modification. If it is a new stand alone contract it's unvalid because it could be accomplished in under 1 year. You're saying that it's irrelevant as long as you recognize it's unenforceable?

That's not the SoF rule for modifications. Modifications only have to be in writing if the contract, as modified, would have to be in writing. If you conceive of this situation as a modification, it wouldn't have to be in writing.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "unvalid." If you mean to say the contract is void, that's not correct. A contract failing to meet the SoF is still a valid contract, it just isn't enforceable -- there's a difference.

[BeenDidThat]

New York people - Can anyone explain essay R-4 to me? Shouldn't the fact that she had a previous contract with the law firm make the subsequent contract an oral modification not an entirely new contract?

It doesn't make any difference to the actual question, does it? I think what's important is just that there was a double executory employment contract. Whether it came via a modification or a a contract on its own right doesn't seem that important.

I'm confused to what you mean, the reasoning is different, right? If its an oral modification to a written contract it's unvalid under the Statute of Frauds requirement that written contracts require written modification. If it is a new stand alone contract it's unvalid because it could be accomplished in under 1 year. You're saying that it's irrelevant as long as you recognize it's unenforceable?

That's not the SoF rule for modifications. Modifications only have to be in writing if the contract, as modified, would have to be in writing. If you conceive of this situation as a modification, it wouldn't have to be in writing.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "unvalid." If you mean to say the contract is void, that's not correct. A contract failing to meet the SoF is still a valid contract, it just isn't enforceable -- there's a difference.

A K is a legally enforceable agreement. If it's not legally enforceable, it's not a contract.

[5ky]

A K is a legally enforceable agreement. If it's not legally enforceable, it's not a contract.

No, that's not right. SoF is a waivable defense. If you waive it, a court will enforce both parties to the K

[daphne]

New York people - Can anyone explain essay R-4 to me? Shouldn't the fact that she had a previous contract with the law firm make the subsequent contract an oral modification not an entirely new contract?

It doesn't make any difference to the actual question, does it? I think what's important is just that there was a double executory employment contract. Whether it came via a modification or a a contract on its own right doesn't seem that important.

I'm confused to what you mean, the reasoning is different, right? If its an oral modification to a written contract it's unvalid under the Statute of Frauds requirement that written contracts require written modification. If it is a new stand alone contract it's unvalid because it could be accomplished in under 1 year. You're saying that it's irrelevant as long as you recognize it's unenforceable?

Written contract does not necessarily require written modification.

[BeenDidThat]

A K is a legally enforceable agreement. If it's not legally enforceable, it's not a contract.

No, that's not right. SoF is a waivable defense. If you waive it, a court will enforce both parties to the K

We're both right, with the exception of you saying I'm not right. My definition is literally that given by the BarBri lecturer of what a contract is.

There's really no conflict if you look at it from a court's point-of-view. If the D pleads SoF and there is no writing evidencing the agreement (which would otherwise fall w/in the SoF), the court will hold that there's no legally enforceable agreement and no contract. It's not passing judgment on whether there was an agreement. Just on whether there's a legally enforceable one.

In lots of these cases (specifically where P has already conferred a benefit on D), the aggrieved party could still recover under a restitution claim.

[5ky]

A K is a legally enforceable agreement. If it's not legally enforceable, it's not a contract.

No, that's not right. SoF is a waivable defense. If you waive it, a court will enforce both parties to the K

We're both right, with the exception of you saying I'm not right. My definition is literally that given by the BarBri lecturer of what a contract is.

There's really no conflict if you look at it from a court's point-of-view. If the D pleads SoF and there is no writing evidencing the agreement (which would otherwise fall w/in the SoF), the court will hold that there's no legally enforceable agreement and no contract. It's not passing judgment on whether there was an agreement. Just on whether there's a legally enforceable one.

In lots of these cases (specifically where P has already conferred a benefit on D), the aggrieved party could still recover under a restitution claim.

You're right, but Barbri tests on the fine distinction, like in MPQ1 Set 2, Q4. It's a formation question that assumes a contract has been formed even though it would fail under SoF.

[Joe Quincy]

In lots of these cases (specifically where P has already conferred a benefit on D), the aggrieved party could still recover under a restitution claim.

If you're recovering under restitution, it was by definition not a contract because you're seeking either an equitable remedy or a remedy under quasi-contract.

A K is a legally enforceable agreement, SoF is a defense to enforcement not to formation hence why it can be waived (and forfeited). You're correct though that if it fails under either prong (enforceable or agreement), it isn't a contract.

[Joe Quincy]

New York people - Can anyone explain essay R-4 to me? Shouldn't the fact that she had a previous contract with the law firm make the subsequent contract an oral modification not an entirely new contract?

It doesn't make any difference to the actual question, does it? I think what's important is just that there was a double executory employment contract. Whether it came via a modification or a a contract on its own right doesn't seem that important.

I'm confused to what you mean, the reasoning is different, right? If its an oral modification to a written contract it's unvalid under the Statute of Frauds requirement that written contracts require written modification. If it is a new stand alone contract it's unvalid because it could be accomplished in under 1 year. You're saying that it's irrelevant as long as you recognize it's unenforceable?

Written contract does not necessarily require written modification.

Correct, only if the resulting modification would be within the SoF or the contract itself demands written modifications (and even then this isn't always effective).

[BaiAilian2013]

I'm reviewing Corporation handout. Regarding who can authorize the permissive reimbursement, the handout provided that a) The board (with a quorum of directors being non-parties); or, if there is no such quorum, b) Shareholders or a quorum of those directors who are disinterested.
How is the board part in a and b different? I am totally lost.

I think it's that in a, you take the whole board and see if the number who are disinterested can make up a quorum of the whole board, whereas in b, you look at ONLY the directors who ARE disinterested and need a quorum of that smaller group.

[daphne]

I'm reviewing Corporation handout. Regarding who can authorize the permissive reimbursement, the handout provided that a) The board (with a quorum of directors being non-parties); or, if there is no such quorum, b) Shareholders or a quorum of those directors who are disinterested.
How is the board part in a and b different? I am totally lost.

I think it's that in a, you take the whole board and see if the number who are disinterested can make up a quorum of the whole board, whereas in b, you look at ONLY the directors who ARE disinterested and need a quorum of that smaller group.

Got it. Thanks!