BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam Forum

[jawsthegreat]

Question for anyone in NY that did Essay R-19:

On the third issue (summary judgment), I thought the issue was whether the suit is barred by no-fault insurance (i.e., Paul can only bring suit if you suffer serious injury or damages in excess of basic economic loss), not whether Paul has stated a negligence claim (as indicated in the model answer). Can anyone explain why I'm wrong (or, agree with me that Barbri is wrong)?

That one sort of threw me as well. The only thing I could think of is that a driver can bring a suit against another driver, it's the passengers and pedestrians that are barred from suing for negligence unless it exceeds the thresholds.

[kaiser]

Question for anyone in NY that did Essay R-19:

On the third issue (summary judgment), I thought the issue was whether the suit is barred by no-fault insurance (i.e., Paul can only bring suit if you suffer serious injury or damages in excess of basic economic loss), not whether Paul has stated a negligence claim (as indicated in the model answer). Can anyone explain why I'm wrong (or, agree with me that Barbri is wrong)?

That one sort of threw me as well. The only thing I could think of is that a driver can bring a suit against another driver, it's the passengers and pedestrians that are barred from suing for negligence unless it exceeds the thresholds.

I think its a pretty safe bet to say that, unless it is blatantly a no-fault issue, don't even bother with it. And no-fault has come up on 5 essays out of 182 possible ones, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[tfer2222]

NY Takers: This is a real off topic question, but how do they choose the attorney for the "uninterested attorney" requirement for conflicts checks? Can I just nominate Tfer2222?

lol is this a serious question. if it is, i don't know the answer. or the even understand the question really.

[sundevil77]

Wow. Just took my first NCBE exam, #3. That was much harder than I expected. The fact patterns are markedly different, and random bits of knowledge were tested in ways I've never encountered in a Barbri question. Quite honestly, I'm disappointed that Barbri's questions are not a very good representation of what I just saw.

[tfer2222]

Anybody know of any cool wednesday-night bars in Buffalo?

[Matteliszt]

NY Takers: This is a real off topic question, but how do they choose the attorney for the "uninterested attorney" requirement for conflicts checks? Can I just nominate Tfer2222?

lol is this a serious question. if it is, i don't know the answer. or the even understand the question really.

Not serious really - I just did some essay on conflicts of interests and apparently you can accept a case that's a conflict if (1) a disinterested attorney would the lawyer can competently represent the clients' interests and (2) the client consents after fully disclosure of the potential conflict. When I read that I thought "this is stupid, why wouldn't just get someone to be like oh yeah no conflict, he's good" every time. Obviously the court must appoint someone you don't know or something.

[tfer2222]

NY Takers: This is a real off topic question, but how do they choose the attorney for the "uninterested attorney" requirement for conflicts checks? Can I just nominate Tfer2222?

lol is this a serious question. if it is, i don't know the answer. or the even understand the question really.

Not serious really - I just did some essay on conflicts of interests and apparently you can accept a case that's a conflict if (1) a disinterested attorney would the lawyer can competently represent the clients' interests and (2) the client consents after fully disclosure of the potential conflict. When I read that I thought "this is stupid, why wouldn't just get someone to be like oh yeah no conflict, he's good" every time. Obviously the court must appoint someone you don't know or something.

ahhhh yes i forgot about that stuff. yikes. maybe i should review PR.

i think its just a reasonable attorney standard though. no need to actually get someone to come sign off on it.

in any event I accept your nomination.

[conwaystern]

Wow. Just took my first NCBE exam, #3. That was much harder than I expected. The fact patterns are markedly different, and random bits of knowledge were tested in ways I've never encountered in a Barbri question. Quite honestly, I'm disappointed that Barbri's questions are not a very good representation of what I just saw.

I found the NCBE exam markedly easier than the Barbri questions. The Barbri questions added tons of fine points and other fact-modifying answer choices. Like I said in an earlier thing -- one of the videos with Guzman basically said "underline everything after the word 'if' and re-read the question"

There wasn't a single "if" modifier on the practice test, and I read online that the MBE did away with "if" answer choices years ago.

[Matteliszt]

The thing all of you guys need to remember when comparing Barbri to NCBEX is that Barbri is designed to teach you something and the NCBEX questions are designed to test you on something. The NCBEX answer stems are not tricky, if you know the rule you apply the rule and get the answer correct. If you don't know the rule you kind of take a 3 pointer on the rule and hope. the Barbri questions by contrast are designed to test specific nuances to teach you a principle behind them.

[Joe Quincy]

The thing all of you guys need to remember when comparing Barbri to NCBEX is that Barbri is designed to teach you something and the NCBEX questions are designed to test you on something. The NCBEX answer stems are not tricky, if you know the rule you apply the rule and get the answer correct. If you don't know the rule you kind of take a 3 pointer on the rule and hope. the Barbri questions by contrast are designed to test specific nuances to teach you a principle behind them.

This is giving way too much credit to barbri. The barbri questions are designed to freak you out into studying so their pass-rate stays up and you tell your friends how hard studying was and how much the course helped.

What makes many of the barbri questions difficult is not the concept they are teaching...its the shitty wording and assumptions required to get the answer they want.

[jc1988]

guys a bit confusion:
so the SOL for breach of express warranty under UCC: is it 3 or 4 years after delivery?

[kaiser]

guys a bit confusion:
so the SOL for breach of express warranty under UCC: is it 3 or 4 years after delivery?

4 years

[tfer2222]

guys a bit confusion:
so the SOL for breach of express warranty under UCC: is it 3 or 4 years after delivery?

4.

[jc1988]

thanks guys, essay answer for one of the released questions says 3 years. really confused

[BenJ]

thanks guys, essay answer for one of the released questions says 3 years. really confused

It's four years by default but can be modified by the warranty itself. If the warranty says it's only good for three years, the statute of limitations is also three years (e.g.).

I'm not sure if it can be increased beyond four years; probably not.

[Matteliszt]

Question for anyone in NY that did Essay R-19:

On the third issue (summary judgment), I thought the issue was whether the suit is barred by no-fault insurance (i.e., Paul can only bring suit if you suffer serious injury or damages in excess of basic economic loss), not whether Paul has stated a negligence claim (as indicated in the model answer). Can anyone explain why I'm wrong (or, agree with me that Barbri is wrong)?

That one sort of threw me as well. The only thing I could think of is that a driver can bring a suit against another driver, it's the passengers and pedestrians that are barred from suing for negligence unless it exceeds the thresholds.

I just did this and was confused as well.


(Warning, Spoilers if you haven't done this essay)
I looked it up in the CMR. A lawsuit is permitted between a covered person and a non covered person for all damages including basic economic loss and pain and suffering (even in the absence of serious injury). However, the insurer has a lien against recovery for all first party benefits paid or payable by it to a covered person.

So, Dan was an "uncovered person" because he had State X insurance (AutoCo) and therefore would not have No Fault Insurance. Paul can therefore sue him because an insured may sue an uninsured and recover for anything, but the No Fault company has a lien on the damages award.

That's how i understand it anyway.

[tfer2222]

the feb 2013 essays seem so easy, for the most part. why did they get all the easy issues. the RAP question was a joke.

[Joe Quincy]

thanks guys, essay answer for one of the released questions says 3 years. really confused

It's four years by default but can be modified by the warranty itself. If the warranty says it's only good for three years, the statute of limitations is also three years (e.g.).

I'm not sure if it can be increased beyond four years; probably not.

You can't lengthen beyond 4 years or decrease below 1 year.

[Matteliszt]

the feb 2013 essays seem so easy, for the most part. why did they get all the easy issues. the RAP question was a joke.

Dude look at July 2012, it's pretty much the same thing if not easier. There are a few NY distinctions that are pretty critical but the essays are straightforward. I hope ours are as straightforward.

[kaiser]

the feb 2013 essays seem so easy, for the most part. why did they get all the easy issues. the RAP question was a joke.

Dude look at July 2012, it's pretty much the same thing if not easier. There are a few NY distinctions that are pretty critical but the essays are straightforward. I hope ours are as straightforward.

+1 to that

The only time I get really tripped up with the essays is when I misunderstand or misinterpret the factual situation, and then apply the wrong law. Usually leads to an analysis that clearly feels off to me. Here's hoping it is straightforward, that the issues literally jump out of the page and bite us.

[JollyGreenGiant]

For those of you who can see "median" graded essays -- can you confirm that those essays are dogshit? I feel like a friggin' idiot trying to do these essays and looking at the analysis.

[phonepro]

the feb 2013 essays seem so easy, for the most part. why did they get all the easy issues. the RAP question was a joke.

Dude look at July 2012, it's pretty much the same thing if not easier. There are a few NY distinctions that are pretty critical but the essays are straightforward. I hope ours are as straightforward.

Where can if I find these?

=[

[tfer2222]

the feb 2013 essays seem so easy, for the most part. why did they get all the easy issues. the RAP question was a joke.

Dude look at July 2012, it's pretty much the same thing if not easier. There are a few NY distinctions that are pretty critical but the essays are straightforward. I hope ours are as straightforward.

Where can if I find these?

=[

http://www.nybarexam.org/ExamQuestions/ ... stions.htm

[rnf1292]

Can an oral restrictive covenant on land ever be enforceable? i.e. you sell someone a piece of land on the condition that they only use it for residential purposes but this is not stated anywhere in the deed?

[tfer2222]

Can an oral restrictive covenant on land ever be enforceable? i.e. you sell someone a piece of land on the condition that they only use it for residential purposes but this is not stated anywhere in the deed?

off the top of my head:

real covenants must be written promises.

whether or not its in the DEED will mostly just affect whether or not the burden/benefit runs to successors