BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
td6624
Posts: 551
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:45 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby td6624 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:01 pm

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
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby kaiser » Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:06 pm

td6624 wrote: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.

User avatar
Matteliszt
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:38 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Matteliszt » Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:11 pm

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

User avatar
BaiAilian2013
Posts: 921
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby BaiAilian2013 » Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:24 pm

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
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby mirodh » Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:35 pm

Three weeks behind Barbri schedule. How fucked?

User avatar
Matteliszt
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:38 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Matteliszt » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:04 pm

mirodh wrote:Three weeks behind Barbri schedule. How fucked?


Not at all

User avatar
daphne
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:00 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby daphne » Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:35 am

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......

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby stratocophic » Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:47 am

mirodh wrote: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
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby kaiser » Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:18 am

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

User avatar
usuaggie
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby usuaggie » Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:17 am

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


I got 8

User avatar
daphne
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:00 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby daphne » Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:03 pm

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.

User avatar
shepdawg
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:00 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby shepdawg » Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:07 pm

mirodh wrote:Three weeks behind Barbri schedule. How fucked?

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

User avatar
Matteliszt
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:38 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Matteliszt » Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:53 pm

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?

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6385
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby 5ky » Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:01 pm

Matteliszt wrote: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.

User avatar
Matteliszt
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:38 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Matteliszt » Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:29 pm

5ky wrote:
Matteliszt wrote: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?

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6385
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby 5ky » Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:48 pm

Matteliszt wrote:
5ky wrote:
Matteliszt wrote: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
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby BeenDidThat » Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:12 pm

5ky wrote:
Matteliszt wrote:
5ky wrote:
Matteliszt wrote: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.

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6385
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby 5ky » Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:16 pm

BeenDidThat wrote:
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

User avatar
daphne
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:00 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby daphne » Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:19 pm

Matteliszt wrote:
5ky wrote:
Matteliszt wrote: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
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby BeenDidThat » Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm

5ky wrote:
BeenDidThat wrote:
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.

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6385
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby 5ky » Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:39 pm

BeenDidThat wrote:
5ky wrote:
BeenDidThat wrote:
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.

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Joe Quincy » Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:03 pm

BeenDidThat wrote:
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.
Last edited by Joe Quincy on Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Joe Quincy » Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:08 pm

daphne wrote:
Matteliszt wrote:
5ky wrote:
Matteliszt wrote: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).

User avatar
BaiAilian2013
Posts: 921
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby BaiAilian2013 » Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:19 pm

daphne wrote: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.

User avatar
daphne
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:00 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby daphne » Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:21 pm

BaiAilian2013 wrote:
daphne wrote: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!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CharlieAvocado, deadthrone7, electriklemon, Fireworks2016, Google [Bot], newhere21, wg6524 and 5 guests