KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
silky bruh
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:17 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby silky bruh » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:44 pm

Tanicius wrote:
barprepbiddy wrote:Anyone have any advice for learning commercial paper and secured transactions? I am seriously regretting not taking these classes. I listened to the lectures, read the outlines, did the flashcards, and it's like they're in a different language. I know I can memorize the rules but I still won't really know how to apply them. It's really starting to stress me out.


Here's my best attempt to explain Commercial Paper:

I think the hardest thing to get a handle on is what the disputes are even about and who they're between. Basically, you want to proceed in this way:

1. Who is suing whom, exactly? (Is the bank that had to pay the check the one suing? Is someone who unknowingly indorsed an invalid check pissed off? Is there a thief getting sued, or are other people getting sued for indorsing a thief or taking a check from a thief?)

2. Are they suing over a negotiable instrument? Apply elements of a negotiable instrument. If it's not a valid negotiable instrument, then your Commercial Paper problem has officially ended and the plaintiff will need some other type of action, such as a contract breach.

3. Is the plaintiff (the person suing because they got screwed) a holder of the instrument? (Does the plaintiff have a right to sue over the instrument?) Apply elements for a holder. (In plain English, it's not like I can pick up a check off the sidewalk that was written to someone named Timothy, and sue on his behalf. I have to be a valid holder of the check. This usually means I paid value for the check, or someone wrote it out to me, or someone who was a previous holder indorsed me on the check.)

4. Did the person sued do anything -- i.e. sign, create or guaranty (warranty) anything -- to make them accountable to the plaintiff? In other words, did the defendant sign, create, present or indorse a valid negotiable instrument and give it or cause it to be given to someone else?

5. If yes, does the defendant have any defenses or waivers against being held liable they can make? (Make sure they didn't waive liability in the indorsement of the check. Meanwhile, fraud in the factum and fraud in the inducement are going to be the most common defenses, especially if a thief is involved. But remember, there are two types of defenses, and the distinction between them matters.)

6. Is the person suing them a holder in due course? (This matters because it limits the defenses; fraud in the inducement is the big one that doesn't apply to protect you when the plaintiff is a holder in due course.) Apply the elements to HDC status, the most important being: did a valid holder give value for the check?

7. Okay, so the defendant's getting sued and has no defenses that apply, either because the plaintiff is a HDC that limits his available defenses, or because the plaintiff is just a regular holder but no defenses of any kind are applicable. But can the defendant kick liability down to someone else? (Ex: A presentment warranty is typically violated by the person who presents the non-payable check to the bank, so the presenter is the first to get sued, but they may in turn have an action against the person who transferred to them the check, and that transferor may in turn have another action against a previous transferor or perhaps the drawer of the check.)


Review one of your previous or current Commercial Paper essay problems, and try just issue spotting for an issue involving one of those seven steps. Hope this helps.


DAMN. Much obliged.

Do you have the same for freedom of expression analysis :D

User avatar
JenDarby
Posts: 13317
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:02 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby JenDarby » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:45 pm

Pokemon wrote:
JenDarby wrote:
Pokemon wrote:So is there an online version of additional mbe exam? I like the analysis tools.

It's under "Practice" and then "Additional Practice Tests"



Thanks! You need to send Kaplan a link to this thread so that they reimburse you. You have probably provided more technical info than their reps combined.

:lol: being a rep seemed like a pretty easy/sweet gig. A few people I know who were reps didn't even manage to sign ONE person up but still received their free course.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Tanicius » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:48 pm

Bro Bono wrote:DAMN. Much obliged.

Do you have the same for freedom of expression analysis :D



Literally started trying to memorize freedom of expression analysis yesterday. The differing and seemingly arbitrary scrutiny standards that get applied to each problem form really piss me off. One thing that helps me is to read my long outline and pretend I'm an advocate for free speech, so I try to come up with policy arguments for why this tougher standard of scrutiny should apply in Situation X, but not Situation Y. Like, how would someone who works for the ACLU try to convince me that this standard of scrutiny should be applied? (Ex: When class is in session at a public school, we simply don't fuck around, and any activity involving religion of almost any kind will be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause, period.) Helps calcify the standard you're supposed to remember.

JJDancer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby JJDancer » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:53 pm

I was hoping you guys could help me with something. How to keep my cool and make up a succinct rule when I don't remember the elements of the rule? For example, I got 0 points for the Rule here. Sorry for the long post.

On one of the essays for the final kaplan exam I got a 55. I looked at the grading/my response and realized that despite not remembering the specific rule for the topic (partnerships) I was able to get 0.75 for each of the analysis sections in the grading chart. So I was able to apply to facts pretty well and had a basic gist of the rules.

But I got a 55 because when I don't know the rules well I seem to forget about organization. The topic itself was really segmented and I put basic headings like "Confidentiality" or "Duty to supervise" but I didn't write the issue statement (I did for the example below but most of the other issues) and my Rule section was more like this:

"A. Is D a Partner?

As stated, A B and C have inadvertently only formed a general partnership so they are personally liable for the debts and obligations of the partnership, this includes liability for malpractice of fellow partners.

While, D was not part of that original agreement, he may be a partner if ABC (the people) agreed to share the profits of the business with him and co own a business for profit.

However, D was not a partner because he only shared a percentage of his profits in order to pay rent which is explicitly excluded as one of the types of sharing profits that does NOT lead to one becoming a co-owner. In a general partnership, all partners can bind the partnership and can co manage the business. However, no facts suggest D was included in this way or given these rights. D simply used his profits to pay rent. Thus, he was not a partner.

Partners are liable for the malpractice of others in a general partnership but since D is not a partner, A, B and C are immune from liability for his malpractice."

I feel pretty uncomfortable making up a rule when I don't remember it so I seem to do a mixed R/A with Rulepart1 then Analysis, Rule part 2 Analysis But they end up looking more like "considerations" or "factors" than rules. Any tips for me please?

I'm thinking I should quickly get through the essay and save the last 10 minutes to go back and re-read my essay and pick out the factors/rules I used and make sure I have a
Issue
Law
Here,
Therefore,
thing going on...?

semplice
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby semplice » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:55 pm

I have an evidence question. The slide Fromm gave us for impeachment with criminal convictions has a square for misdemeanors that are not crimes of falsehood. The slide suggests such crimes are admissible to impeach subject only to the ten year rule and 403 balancing. But rule 609 seems to be silent on this category, and so are the outlines. Is this just a mistake in the chart? Do any of you recall him saying something in the lecture to explain this?

User avatar
bazinga!
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:14 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby bazinga! » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:57 pm

barprepbiddy wrote:Anyone have any advice for learning commercial paper and secured transactions? I am seriously regretting not taking these classes. I listened to the lectures, read the outlines, did the flashcards, and it's like they're in a different language. I know I can memorize the rules but I still won't really know how to apply them. It's really starting to stress me out.


I learned all of UCC-9 stuff last night and it wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. When I was just reviewing the outline it made no sense and made my brain hurt. Then I pulled up an essay prompt, read it, then read the outline and model answer to get situated in what type of stuff actually can happen and it was like a switch flipped. I looked through the main book (not the bar points) situated in that essay prompt and read through it (it's a pretty short section) with the parties from the prompt in mind. While I read through with that essay prompt in mind I made notes by hand of just the main points to remember (what type of collateral, is it perfected? how do you know?, is there attachment? how do you know? Is it a PMSI? How do you know?)Then did another essay prompt and tried to scratch down all I could think of. The second essay prompt really solidified a lot of those points, and after I jotted down all the things I could think of while also liberally looking at the piece of paper I had written notes on, I read the sample outline and essay just to reinforce the type of language used, structure of how you introduce these points, etc. Then I did a third essay and felt really good about it. My answer aligned with the sample. Woke up this morning did another essay and also felt good about it. I plan on doing another one tomorrow evening just to make sure I don't forget all this stuff. All told it took me about 4 hours of concentrated effort to get to where I felt like I could handle most essay questions thrown at me. I know I don't have that kind of time for all the MEE topics, but then again I don't need that kind of time for something like FRCP where I'm familiar with the language, or Family Law where again the concepts are familiar and it's just a matter of memorizing the main points.

TL;DR - do some essay prompts first and read the samples provided, then go back and review the material so you have some real life concepts to situate your understanding of the material. HTH!

JJDancer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby JJDancer » Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:03 pm

I also got 0 points for analysis and conclusion of anticipatory repudiation on the Danco Contracts essay (for CA):

3. D DID NOT PROPERLY RESPOND TO P’s ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION

D had 3 options in the case that P anticipatorily repudiated. D did not demand assurances, and D also did not communicate to P that D considered the breach final. Instead D stated that “I’ll have to live with that” meaning they essentially accepted the new delivery date of May 15. While this may be barred by the terms of the K since it wasn’t in signed writing. It does give P a claim for reliance damages (discussed below).

D ANTICIPATORILY REPUDIATED IF P HAD REASON TO RELY ON D’S ASSENT TO THE MAY 15 date (which P did):

See rule for anticipatory repudiation above.

Since D on April 28, before the May 1 contract date, told P that they would start looking for another consultant and not pay him anything, P can treat this as a final repudiation, tell them he so considers it and then sue for breach.

*I had written the rule for anticipatory repudiation earlier as "Anticipatory repudiation occurs when a party clearly manifests that they will not perform the contract as promised. It is anticipatory because this manifestation by words or conduct occurs prior to the performance due date."

Is this whole paragraph, while not eloquent, actually worth ZERO POINTS - WTH? I find it hard to believe that it would not get me any points on the actual exam. Is Kaplan just messing with my already bruised psyche???

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby northwood » Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:05 pm

JJDancer wrote:I was hoping you guys could help me with something. How to keep my cool and make up a succinct rule when I don't remember the elements of the rule? For example, I got 0 points for the Rule here. Sorry for the long post.

On one of the essays for the final kaplan exam I got a 55. I looked at the grading/my response and realized that despite not remembering the specific rule for the topic (partnerships) I was able to get 0.75 for each of the analysis sections in the grading chart. So I was able to apply to facts pretty well and had a basic gist of the rules.

But I got a 55 because when I don't know the rules well I seem to forget about organization. The topic itself was really segmented and I put basic headings like "Confidentiality" or "Duty to supervise" but I didn't write the issue statement (I did for the example below but most of the other issues) and my Rule section was more like this:

"A. Is D a Partner?

As stated, A B and C have inadvertently only formed a general partnership so they are personally liable for the debts and obligations of the partnership, this includes liability for malpractice of fellow partners.

While, D was not part of that original agreement, he may be a partner if ABC (the people) agreed to share the profits of the business with him and co own a business for profit.

However, D was not a partner because he only shared a percentage of his profits in order to pay rent which is explicitly excluded as one of the types of sharing profits that does NOT lead to one becoming a co-owner. In a general partnership, all partners can bind the partnership and can co manage the business. However, no facts suggest D was included in this way or given these rights. D simply used his profits to pay rent. Thus, he was not a partner.

Partners are liable for the malpractice of others in a general partnership but since D is not a partner, A, B and C are immune from liability for his malpractice."

I feel pretty uncomfortable making up a rule when I don't remember it so I seem to do a mixed R/A with Rulepart1 then Analysis, Rule part 2 Analysis But they end up looking more like "considerations" or "factors" than rules. Any tips for me please?

I'm thinking I should quickly get through the essay and save the last 10 minutes to go back and re-read my essay and pick out the factors/rules I used and make sure I have a
Issue
Law
Here,
Therefore,
thing going on...?



I think the key is to remember that they will not test you on the same rule twice in the same essay. So if you see yourself writing the same rule statement twice, remember that you only get points once. Here you mentioned liability and malpractice. define those terms, and know that if the question is talking about a malpractice you need to remember ( or create) a malpractice test to deterimine when ad how a partner is liable for malpractice of aother... or ask is any of these people an agent and not a partner? if so, how do they get their aurhoirty to act? when they overstep the bounds of their authority they are not liable, so when does this occur? partners are vicariously liable fo the actions of the other paretner, but they make seek indemnification or contribution from the tortious partner. so if there is an agent AND a another partner involved then define ( or make up) and explain and go.

use Under to signal rule statemetns, Here for application and therefore to signal your conclusion.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Tanicius » Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:54 pm

This is my attempt to put together a comprehensive First Amendment's Freedom of Expression list of scrutiny standards:

These are the basic TYPES of regulations of speech:
1. Regulation of expressive CONDUCT: Intermediate scrutiny
2. Regulation of the MEANS (time/place/manner) of one's expression: Intermediate or Strict for public forums depending on content-neutrality; usually rational basis for non-public.
3. Regulation of the actual CONTENT (the subject matter or viewpoint): Strict, with some obvious exceptions like child porn and defamation.
4. Regulation of media: Strict; generally struck down unless the media is breaking the law or knowingly using information that broke the law.
5. Regulation of association: Strict. Don't join a terrorist organization.

Those are the four categories we have to worry about. So let's dive in:


1. Expressive CONDUCT (not actual speech). Test: Intermediate scrutiny. Ex: Flag burning versus burning draft cards.

Exact wording of test: (1) The government has an enacted power; (2) it's furthering an important government interest; the act is unrelated to suppression of ideas; and the burden is no greater than necessary to accomplish the goal.

Policy illustration, to help you remember: Why is conduct expressing a communicative idea subject to a lower standard that conduct regulating normal speech? Are they not fundamentally the same thing? NO! Conduct is more dangerous than just normal speech/writing, because conduct has a capacity to do physical damage to people and can economically disrupt society really easily. This is why it is NOT legal to burn your draft cards, but it IS legal to burn an American flag. Burning your draft card disables the military's ability to effectively implement a draft. That's bad. On the other hand, burning a flag does nothing to harm people; it doesn't really disrupt any government function at all. Similarly, burning a cross is going to be protected too, unless you are actually burning the cross in order to threaten a person (like back in the KKK terrorism days).

**__**__**__**

2. The MEANS (time/place/manner) are restricted. Test: It depends. Ex: No protests on the courthouse lawn at 8-8:30 am and 4:30-5 pm.

A.) The types: Public Forum, and Non-Public Forum.

Policy for public/non-public: T/P/M restrictions usually don't regulate the speech itself. These restrictions usually exist in order to ensure that your speech does not disrupt society. Accordingly, it makes sense that it should be harder to get away with regulating public arenas of speech. A park, for example, should have greater protection than a courthouse, which is open for functions beyond just allowing you to speak your mind.

B.) The breakdown for scrutiny standards of T/P/M:

Public Forum: CN = Intermediate, Not CN = Strict Scrutiny.] If you're in a public forum, two different standards exist. If the regulation isn't content neutral (it bans either a subject matter of debate, or it bans a particular view of debate), you're looking at straight up, vanilla Strict Scrutiny. The lesson here is, the government should never get embroiled in the actual discussion. If it's content-neutral -- if the government truly isn't regulating anyone's choice of subject matter or their views on that subject -- then it's intermediate scrutiny.

Non-public: Rational Basis. If you're in a non-public forum, the most common test is rational basis. The government may lawfully prohibit certain topics of discussion. In other words, the government can limit the SUBJECT MATTER you are discussing to certain topics, so long as it does not prohibit certain VIEWS or perspectives on the subject matters that are allowed. For example: It can ban you from talking about abortion in a public university classroom, but it can't force you to only espouse pro-choice views in a university classroom.

What's up with this designated and traditional public forum distinction? Doesn't this matter in our analysis? Not really. I used to think it did, but it really doesn't matter. The scrutiny standard never hinges on the type of public forum. All that matters is whether it's a public forum. You only apply this test if you're having trouble determining whether the forum is public or not. A school gymnasium, for example, isn't traditionally the place to talk air grievances against the mayor, but maybe the gym is converted once a month on the first Tuesday to a town hall meeting, in which case it becomes a public forum during that specific time window.

What about government employees? I thought I remember reading something about government employees in high-security positions not being allowed to espouse certain opinions? Is that true? YES! Obama gets to pick a Secretary of State who agrees with his foreign policy position. A senator gets to hire aides who self-identify with his political party. And even public school teachers may be required to take a very general oath to support the Constitution!

**__**__**__**

3.) Regulation of actual speech and writing (regulation related directly to the content): Strict scrutiny, always.... except for a few things you already know are banned for really obvious reasons:

Exact wording of test: Don't worry about this. It's strict scrutiny, period. Has to be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest, just like with racial discrimination under Equal Protection.

Policy illustration: Why is a lack of content-neutrality always going to trigger Strict Scrutiny? Because think about it: It's fucked up that the government could force you to say that you agree a political issue, or that it could force you not to say something, just because it wants you to.

The super obvious exceptions:
- Child porn. Really, needs no explanation.
- "Obscenity". Apply that dumb test: The speech (1) appeals to the purient interest, (2) is patently offensive, and (3) lacks serious literary, political, scientific or artistic value.
- Fighting words. No real test. Just remember, these always get struck down for vagueness and overbreadth, especially on your essay questions!
- Defamation. Derp, don't carelessly say bad shit about people. This shit affects the economic wellbeing of the people you talk about, so the gov is allowed to regulate it.
- Commercial speech. This is its own thing, explained directly below:

The Commercial Speech Exception: The only complicated exception. Write this shit down 15 times on your computer or write it out by hand: The test is, commercial activity (1) must concern lawful activity and can't be false or misleading; (2) the government is asserting a substantial interest; (3) the regulation directly advances asserted interest; and (4) regulation must be narrowly tailored.

Policy behind Commercial Speech: We don't want companies lying to consumers. But at the same time, we hate Europeans and their socialism, so we only moderate a little bit of commercial speech and will only rarely step in to protect consumers. We basically need fairly blatant misrepresentation, probably involving safety of a product's use or pricing of a product, to prevent fraud and physical injuries.

**__**__**__**

4. Regulation of the Media. Unnecessarily complicated and worth just skimming your outline to look it over. In short, the media are under the same standards as anyone else. If they are doing expressive conduct, then it's intermediate. If their stories are being suppressed or gagged, then it's strict scrutiny (clear and present danger, for example). The most important thing to remember about the media is, they do not have a privilege to break the law, and nor do they have a privilege to keep their sources in confidence if they know their source has broken the law.

**__**__**__**

5. Freedom of Association. Standard: Strict scrutiny, period. Ex: Basically, don't join a terrorist group, and you're probably safe under almost all circumstances.
Last edited by Tanicius on Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
bazinga!
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:14 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby bazinga! » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:12 pm

Tanicius wrote:This is my attempt to put together a comprehensive First Amendment's Freedom of Expression list of scrutiny standards:
. . .


This was actually really helpful. Thanks!

User avatar
silky bruh
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:17 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby silky bruh » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:33 pm

Tanicius, that is supremely good. LOVE the policy examples, that's the kind of stuff that'll help me guess the right answer if I get stuck on test day and can't remember the exact rule.

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby northwood » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:34 pm

Tanicius... thank you so much for that. very helpful indeed it is ( yes you have been granted yoda status)

ahduke99
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby ahduke99 » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:59 pm

soccerfreak wrote:
ahduke99 wrote:The one thing that puzzles me about Kaplan is why they'd ask me to write essays on Crim Pro in my final study plan when it's not an essay topic on my bar exam. In fact, most of the essays it's asking me to self grade over the next few days are all MBE subjects. I don't see how that would help me, but I guess it forces me to learn the rules.

MBE subjects can be essays on the bar exam.


Not on the South Carolina bar. They tell us which topics are being tested beforehand. Of course, you can apply MBE elements to essays but here, we don't have any essays concerning evidence, constitutional law(except to know fed cts are limited jurisdictions for civ pro), or tort/criminal law.

User avatar
fish tacos
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:47 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby fish tacos » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:00 pm

semplice wrote:I have an evidence question. The slide Fromm gave us for impeachment with criminal convictions has a square for misdemeanors that are not crimes of falsehood. The slide suggests such crimes are admissible to impeach subject only to the ten year rule and 403 balancing. But rule 609 seems to be silent on this category, and so are the outlines. Is this just a mistake in the chart? Do any of you recall him saying something in the lecture to explain this?


Misdemeanors that are not crimen falsi are technically subject to the balancing test but will always lose. I believe Fromm said something along the lines of "just draw an X over that square because it will never come in."

semplice
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby semplice » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:06 pm

Tanicius wrote:This is my attempt to put together a comprehensive First Amendment's Freedom of Expression list of scrutiny standards: . . .


Nice work-- thank you!

semplice
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby semplice » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:07 pm

fish tacos wrote:
semplice wrote:I have an evidence question. The slide Fromm gave us for impeachment with criminal convictions has a square for misdemeanors that are not crimes of falsehood. The slide suggests such crimes are admissible to impeach subject only to the ten year rule and 403 balancing. But rule 609 seems to be silent on this category, and so are the outlines. Is this just a mistake in the chart? Do any of you recall him saying something in the lecture to explain this?


Misdemeanors that are not crimen falsi are technically subject to the balancing test but will always lose. I believe Fromm said something along the lines of "just draw an X over that square because it will never come in."


Ah, okay. Thanks.

User avatar
fish tacos
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:47 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby fish tacos » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:08 pm

semplice wrote:
fish tacos wrote:
semplice wrote:I have an evidence question. The slide Fromm gave us for impeachment with criminal convictions has a square for misdemeanors that are not crimes of falsehood. The slide suggests such crimes are admissible to impeach subject only to the ten year rule and 403 balancing. But rule 609 seems to be silent on this category, and so are the outlines. Is this just a mistake in the chart? Do any of you recall him saying something in the lecture to explain this?


Misdemeanors that are not crimen falsi are technically subject to the balancing test but will always lose. I believe Fromm said something along the lines of "just draw an X over that square because it will never come in."


Ah, okay. Thanks.


It's question 181 if you want to hear his analysis.

annalisa
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:06 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby annalisa » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:59 pm

Tanicius, your First Amendment breakdown is AWESOME. Thanks so much for posting!

Has anyone done the additional practice test?? I just finished, thinking it was MUCH harder than the final, but I got 8 points higher on the additional.

User avatar
Grenadine
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:08 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Grenadine » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:08 pm

More thanks for the 1st amendment/UCC 3 breakdowns; this was really good!

And yes, I also thought the extra practice test was harder but somehow did a little better on it. So, like, I'm hoping it was actually much harder than the actual exam because I need to stop doing multiple choice and actually learn these essay areas.

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby lisjjen » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:35 pm

I did all the videos on subject areas and the final test review. Are there any other videos worth watching? I got started on the videos on writing essays in June but it was all stuff that I learned in 1L and so I turned it off.

shock259
Posts: 1737
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:30 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby shock259 » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:39 pm

annalisa wrote:Has anyone done the additional practice test?? I just finished, thinking it was MUCH harder than the final, but I got 8 points higher on the additional.


I just did it. I actually thought it was much easier while I was taking it! Or at least the first 100 questions seemed that way. The last 50 or so were HARD. But even with the extra difficulty, I could usually eliminate two answer choices immediately. The questions were hard but a lot of the answer choices seemed particularly bad. If that makes sense.

Anyway, I just put in my answers online and got the exact same score on that as I did on the final MBE (130). But I guess I get to add 25 points to this test for scaling and to adjust for the difficulty? So, based on this score and my final MBE score, I should be somewhere between 145 and 155. Pretty big difference between those two scores. According to Separac's data, it's either median or all the way in the top 1/4.

Guess I'll have to think about what to do next (focus on MBEs? Essays?).

sidhesadie
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby sidhesadie » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:52 pm

JJDancer wrote:I also got 0 points for analysis and conclusion of anticipatory repudiation on the Danco Contracts essay (for CA):

3. D DID NOT PROPERLY RESPOND TO P’s ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION

D had 3 options in the case that P anticipatorily repudiated. D did not demand assurances, and D also did not communicate to P that D considered the breach final. Instead D stated that “I’ll have to live with that” meaning they essentially accepted the new delivery date of May 15. While this may be barred by the terms of the K since it wasn’t in signed writing. It does give P a claim for reliance damages (discussed below).

D ANTICIPATORILY REPUDIATED IF P HAD REASON TO RELY ON D’S ASSENT TO THE MAY 15 date (which P did):

See rule for anticipatory repudiation above.

Since D on April 28, before the May 1 contract date, told P that they would start looking for another consultant and not pay him anything, P can treat this as a final repudiation, tell them he so considers it and then sue for breach.

*I had written the rule for anticipatory repudiation earlier as "Anticipatory repudiation occurs when a party clearly manifests that they will not perform the contract as promised. It is anticipatory because this manifestation by words or conduct occurs prior to the performance due date."

Is this whole paragraph, while not eloquent, actually worth ZERO POINTS - WTH? I find it hard to believe that it would not get me any points on the actual exam. Is Kaplan just messing with my already bruised psyche???


So, without adding any additional info to what you said, I really think your problem is coming down to structure and IRAC. I got full points (as in 100% of points) on one where my rule and conclusion were both wrong because my IRAC and structure were what they wanted.

So, for example, on the second part, I can't tell if this is really all you wrote, and I can't tell what exactly the hypo was about, but you needed to say something like (and this may not be quite right bc I can't tell what the problem was)

The issue is whether plaintiff was justified in treating defendant's repudiation as a breach. The general rule is if defendant repudiates with a definitive statement indicating he will breach, the plaintiff is justified in immediately treating the anticipatory repudiation as a breach. Here, defendant clearly indicated to plaintiff, prior to the date for performance in the contract, that they would not pay him and would hire another consultant. This statement was sufficient to constitute an anticipatory repudiation. Therefore, plaintiff was justified in treating the repudiation as a breach and is entitled to the same rights and remedies as for breach of contract.

annalisa
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:06 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby annalisa » Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:07 pm

shock259 wrote:
annalisa wrote:Has anyone done the additional practice test?? I just finished, thinking it was MUCH harder than the final, but I got 8 points higher on the additional.


I just did it. I actually thought it was much easier while I was taking it! Or at least the first 100 questions seemed that way. The last 50 or so were HARD. But even with the extra difficulty, I could usually eliminate two answer choices immediately. The questions were hard but a lot of the answer choices seemed particularly bad. If that makes sense.

Anyway, I just put in my answers online and got the exact same score on that as I did on the final MBE (130). But I guess I get to add 25 points to this test for scaling and to adjust for the difficulty? So, based on this score and my final MBE score, I should be somewhere between 145 and 155. Pretty big difference between those two scores. According to Separac's data, it's either median or all the way in the top 1/4.

Guess I'll have to think about what to do next (focus on MBEs? Essays?).


My rep told me to add 12-15 points, I'm not sure if that is based on my jurisdiction though. I'd rather have the 25 points!! That would give me a 161!! I still sort of think this was a fluke!

Every time I got it down to two choices I'd think to myself, "which one is ice cream and which is mint chocolate chip?" lol.

Going forward I think I need to do more practice essays, I'm thinking two per day plus 50 MBE per day. At this point I don't think I'll learn anything new and I am worried about burn out.

shock259
Posts: 1737
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:30 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby shock259 » Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Just emailed my rep. Good plan! Will post back with his response.

And I know what you mean about burn out. I think I am going to take the next 1-2 days off entirely. I know I'm not going to learn much of anything new at this point either. Just want to keep it all in my head and keep it fresh.

And bahaha @ ice cream versus mint chocolate chip.

User avatar
JenDarby
Posts: 13317
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:02 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby JenDarby » Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:14 pm

shock259 wrote:Just emailed my rep. Good plan! Will post back with his response.

And I know what you mean about burn out. I think I am going to take the next 1-2 days off entirely. I know I'm not going to learn much of anything new at this point either. Just want to keep it all in my head and keep it fresh.

And bahaha @ ice cream versus mint chocolate chip.

Yea I took it easy today. I'm just doing some MBE and reading the discussion of MPT in the workbook since I haven't paid much attention it the MPT.

I felt the burn out coming this morning.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: highfashionlover and 8 guests