California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum

[funkyturds]

The K was for "all crops grown on farmer's land next season" (or whatever). He didn't actually promise to grow anything, right?

breach of good faith by not planting anything. also, CMR says anticipatory repudiation can be indicated by words or CONDUCT, which i'd assume would include acting in such a way as to make performance impossible.

[usuaggie]

The K was for "all crops grown on farmer's land next season" (or whatever). He didn't actually promise to grow anything, right?

he promised to give all crops he grew on his land.

i felt like that meant he didnt have to give crops if he didnt grow any, but no answer choice reflected that.

Output K comes with a duty to act in good faith

[Old Gregg]

The K was for "all crops grown on farmer's land next season" (or whatever). He didn't actually promise to grow anything, right?

he promised to give all crops he grew on his land.

i felt like that meant he didnt have to give crops if he didnt grow any, but no answer choice reflected that.

Output K comes with a duty to act in good faith

phew thank goodness.

[chass]

The K was for "all crops grown on farmer's land next season" (or whatever). He didn't actually promise to grow anything, right?

Yeah, I don't think he was actually in breach yet? Maybe breach of the implied covenant to act in good faith?

Answer choice D had no breach because performance was not due and farmer can still perform but I changed it after reading the word impossible over and over and convinced myself to change it to allow buyer to sue for breach. fu

[chass]

my last one but some question asked about cowhinds and a seller raising the price after the K because there was a shortage. I forgot what i put but there was specific performance and some shit about rare goods.

[Old Gregg]

my last one but some question asked about cowhinds and a seller raising the price after the K because there was a shortage. I forgot what i put but there was specific performance and some shit about rare goods.

i put no SP because wasn't feasible. bro breached in year 2 of a 5 year output K.

[usuaggie]

The K was for "all crops grown on farmer's land next season" (or whatever). He didn't actually promise to grow anything, right?

Yeah, I don't think he was actually in breach yet? Maybe breach of the implied covenant to act in good faith?

Answer choice D had no breach because performance was not due and farmer can still perform but I changed it after reading the word impossible over and over and convinced myself to change it to allow buyer to sue for breach. fu

I allowed it because of anticipatory repudiation

[Old Gregg]

I seriously think we can self-score this if you combine all these threads. But who wants to see the dead spider under the textbook...

[Emma.]

my last one but some question asked about cowhinds and a seller raising the price after the K because there was a shortage. I forgot what i put but there was specific performance and some shit about rare goods.

i put no SP because wasn't feasible. bro breached in year 2 of a 5 year output K.

Yeah, I said the same.

[Old Gregg]

my last one but some question asked about cowhinds and a seller raising the price after the K because there was a shortage. I forgot what i put but there was specific performance and some shit about rare goods.

i put no SP because wasn't feasible. bro breached in year 2 of a 5 year output K.

Yeah, I said the same.

I think we're wrong though.

[funkyturds]

my last one but some question asked about cowhinds and a seller raising the price after the K because there was a shortage. I forgot what i put but there was specific performance and some shit about rare goods.

i put no SP because wasn't feasible. bro breached in year 2 of a 5 year output K.

Yeah, I said the same.

I think we're wrong though.

why? difficulty of obtaining cover only = more damages, not necessarily SP

[Old Gregg]

But am reading through outline: what if there's enough of a shortage? IDK im not going to argue this. Of course I want to be right.

[Emma.]

But am reading through outline: what if there's enough of a shortage? IDK im not going to argue this. Of course I want to be right.

Right. This is why the MBE sucks. You have to make assumptions, and if you make the wrong one you get the question wrong. It is a shitty way to write a test.

[Old Gregg]

Tangerine, I completely agree, but am reading compelling args on xo.

[madison12991]

I'm a total moron: Oakland folks, what time do we need to be there tomorrow? I remember him saying doors open at 7:45 but can't remember if we're supposed to be there at 8:15 or 8:30. I think 8:30?

[TaipeiMort]

I said the same. Court overseeing a 3-yr output obligation for not exactly unique or even impossible to get goods? No way.

Edit: would be easier to argue if this was a discrete shipment of already-ready goods. But an output contract? Sounds like an equity nightmare. REALLy doubt SP here.

I changed it to SP from this answer. I don't think they wouldve highlight the dirth of cowskins if they didn't want to select SP for difficult to find d alternative source of supply. It is too obscure of an exception to be a fake answer.

[Torvon]

I said the same. Court overseeing a 3-yr output obligation for not exactly unique or even impossible to get goods? No way.

Edit: would be easier to argue if this was a discrete shipment of already-ready goods. But an output contract? Sounds like an equity nightmare. REALLy doubt SP here.

I changed it to SP from this answer. I don't think they wouldve highlight the dirth of cowskins if they didn't want to select SP for difficult to find d alternative source of supply. It is too obscure of an exception to be a fake answer.

Was this the second SP answer? Weren't there two? One was "because it's a rare good" and can't remember the other.

[JDCA2012]

What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure

fuck, forgot about this one. i put down couldn't prove that more disclosure would've prevented injury or something like that, reasoning the more limited disclosure wasn't a but for cause--would've consented to the operation with the more complete disclosure about the 25% chance of a bent finger either way.

That's what I put, but I thought the reasoning (assuming thats the correct answer) was bullshit. Just because dude is willing to risk a 25% chance of having a fucked hand, doesn't mean he'd be willing to take that same risk as well as an additional 25% risk of having a gimpy finger. That's 50% chance of some level of bad outcome, which seemed kind of a lot to me.

Didn't say it could be both. Could have been either or - it's like, maybe you either hit a nerve and you lose all hand function, or you hit the nerve and have a bent finger. Maybe not necessarily 50% all, but rather 25% either or. I don't know. I made it up.
I also did whatever someone else did and said consent mattered for battery but this was negligence, which is stupid in hindsight for me to think because obviously Dr. owes duty of disclosure yadda.

Whatever, fuck the MBE.
And fuck that mortgages. With them clogging the equity of redemption.

[JDCA2012]

I said the same. Court overseeing a 3-yr output obligation for not exactly unique or even impossible to get goods? No way.

Edit: would be easier to argue if this was a discrete shipment of already-ready goods. But an output contract? Sounds like an equity nightmare. REALLy doubt SP here.

I changed it to SP from this answer. I don't think they wouldve highlight the dirth of cowskins if they didn't want to select SP for difficult to find d alternative source of supply. It is too obscure of an exception to be a fake answer.

Was this the second SP answer? Weren't there two? One was "because it's a rare good" and can't remember the other.

One was for difficulty to cover, and one was for unique goods. I don't even remember what I picked.

[JDCA2012]

Anyone have a q about a waiver of right to confront witness and waiver of hearsay for killing the victim? think they tried to introduce victims prior statements.

Oh yeah, I'm trying to block that one out. Purely getting, I said it was not a waiver of either because no proof that the intent to kill was to prevent testimony.

Boom, TITCR. They didn't even try to put on any intent to show that he killed him to prevent him from testifying. You don't waive via 804(b)(6) simply because you kill someone. Have to kill with intent to prevent them from testifying to waive hearsay objections for wrongful unavailability.

[a male human]

does NCBE ever throw out questions that are too whack?

[Old Gregg]

Boom, TITCR. They didn't even try to put on any intent to show that he killed him to prevent him from testifying. You don't waive via 804(b)(6) simply because you kill someone. Have to kill with intent to prevent them from testifying to waive hearsay objections for wrongful unavailability.

yeah, but the question actually said dude was killed for something related to money (cant remember)

[UnfetteredDiscretion]

The K was for "all crops grown on farmer's land next season" (or whatever). He didn't actually promise to grow anything, right?

Yeah, I don't think he was actually in breach yet? Maybe breach of the implied covenant to act in good faith?

Answer choice D had no breach because performance was not due and farmer can still perform but I changed it after reading the word impossible over and over and convinced myself to change it to allow buyer to sue for breach. fu

u r right buyer can pursue breach immediately when farmer's conduct is anticipatory repudiation. also in this output contract not planting anything is not good faith.

[UnfetteredDiscretion]

does NCBE ever throw out questions that are too whack?

On adaptibar one old official question had two accepted answers.

[JDCA2012]

Boom, TITCR. They didn't even try to put on any intent to show that he killed him to prevent him from testifying. You don't waive via 804(b)(6) simply because you kill someone. Have to kill with intent to prevent them from testifying to waive hearsay objections for wrongful unavailability.

yeah, but the question actually said dude was killed for something related to money (cant remember)

I know, but the defendant hadn't forfeited his confrontation rights as to the person he killed. Killing for money = / = intent to make them unavailable for future prosecution.