California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
spartjdawg
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:28 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:39 pm

jmhendri wrote:
Foosters Galore wrote:does a fixture filing (or whatever the fuck its called) not have priority over other mortgages?


WHAT THE EVER LOVING FUCK WAS THAT QUESTION ABOUT? I have never even heard of a fixture filing.


UCC Fixture filings in counties where the fixture (and land) sits. Secures fixtures for mortgages, but the mortgage usually must prime, I believe.

Article 9 changes common law rule first to file to: mortgages over fixtures not filed w/in 20 days. Not sure the MBE covers Article 9.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby jmhendri » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:40 pm

JDCA2012 wrote:
jmhendri wrote:
Foosters Galore wrote:does a fixture filing (or whatever the fuck its called) not have priority over other mortgages?


WHAT THE EVER LOVING FUCK WAS THAT QUESTION ABOUT? I have never even heard of a fixture filing.


From my MBE rule notes:
U.C.C. Article 9 gives a holder of a security interest in fixtures the right to remove the fixtures after default, as long as the fixtures are removable.
Purchase money mortgage to purchase fixtures → Art. 9 gives priority to a purchase money security interest in removable fixtures even over a prior recorded mortgage, but only as to those fixtures.


Good god. I vaguely remember this. But the term fixture filing threw me

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:41 pm

So fixture filing had priority? fuck me.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby jmhendri » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:41 pm

So long as the answer was that the mortgage had priority I eliminated to the right answer
Edit: gah

JDCA2012
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:44 pm

jmhendri wrote:So long as the answer was that the mortgage had priority I eliminated to the right answer
Edit: gah


I can't recall, was the mortgage a PMM? If not, the fixture filed promptly took priority

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:47 pm

JDCA2012 wrote:
jmhendri wrote:So long as the answer was that the mortgage had priority I eliminated to the right answer
Edit: gah


I can't recall, was the mortgage a PMM? If not, the fixture filed promptly took priority


Mortgage was a PMSI.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:47 pm

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

lawdawg09
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:49 pm

This MBE was way harder than I expected. What is going on? Did everyone lie to me about how easy the bar is or is there something going on this administration? Between the PT and some of the questions today...

I do not think the essays tomorrow morning will be fun either.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby jmhendri » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:50 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby usuaggie » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:50 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Don't know. Same with K about royalties when fed ex screwed up the comic book publishing.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:50 pm

jmhendri wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Consequential dmgs require the breaching parties awareness of any special circumstance


yesss. but what about where the shipper didn't get the book out on time? author entitled to royalties from the shipper?

UnfetteredDiscretion
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby UnfetteredDiscretion » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:51 pm

huckabees wrote:I feel like a bunch of property questions must have been experimental, bc torts is supposed to be slightly more than all the others, and I for some reason noticed those the least, followed by perhaps Con law. For some reason, it felt that every other question was either property or evidence.


Constitutional Law (31), Contracts (33), Criminal Law and Procedure (31), Evidence (31), Real Property (31), and Torts (33). Supposedly.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby jmhendri » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:51 pm

usuaggie wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Don't know. Same with K about royalties when fed ex screwed up the comic book publishing.


Consequential damages were ok here because the authorized agent was aware of the special circumstance

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:51 pm

usuaggie wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Don't know. Same with K about royalties when fed ex screwed up the comic book publishing.


Yeah but in that Q the author was a tool and kept telling fedex "this needs to go out on time or it wont get published and im fucked."

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:52 pm

jmhendri wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance


Wasn't that a torts question though? About the installer's negligence? Does that change the rule? Probably not, but I guess I was thinking of this as kind of an eggshell plaintiff situation.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:52 pm

how come i don't remember the fixture stuff...
Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

for some reason i answered all questions related to economic damages as you cannot recover economic damages for negligence. hope it's right.

also, Q100 in AM was about how much P could recover maximum. reliance/restitutionary/combined? i seemed to remember you can get either expectation and/or reliance OR restitutionary, so i picked C (the higher of reliance/restitutionary)

her??
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby her?? » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:53 pm

jmhendri wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance

is this true for torts? i thought the singer's job was like his having a special unknown medical condition that would also result in a lot of damages, and if the damages were proved with reasonable certainty then he could recover. i remember this problem being from a negligence action

okay yes haha

User avatar
softey
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:03 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby softey » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:55 pm

Emma. wrote:
jmhendri wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance


Wasn't that a torts question though? About the installer's negligence? Does that change the rule? Probably not, but I guess I was thinking of this as kind of an eggshell plaintiff situation.


same.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby jmhendri » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:55 pm

Emma. wrote:
jmhendri wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance


Wasn't that a torts question though? About the installer's negligence? Does that change the rule? Probably not, but I guess I was thinking of this as kind of an eggshell plaintiff situation.



Oh snap, you might be right. I zeroed in on the installation aspect. Still should be ok though. The type of damage was foreseeable even if the extent of the future loss wasn't. Right?
Last edited by jmhendri on Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

UnfetteredDiscretion
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby UnfetteredDiscretion » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:58 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
usuaggie wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Don't know. Same with K about royalties when fed ex screwed up the comic book publishing.


Yeah but in that Q the author was a tool and kept telling fedex "this needs to go out on time or it wont get published and im fucked."


I went with "cover" damages (costs to mitigate w/ another publisher), reasoning that royalties are too speculative. What do I know though, probably going to be dealing with this shit again come feb.

SLShopeful
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:00 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby SLShopeful » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:59 pm

jmhendri wrote:
Emma. wrote:
jmhendri wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance


Wasn't that a torts question though? About the installer's negligence? Does that change the rule? Probably not, but I guess I was thinking of this as kind of an eggshell plaintiff situation.



Oh snap, you might be right. I zeroed in on the installment aspect. Still should be ok though. The type of damage was foreseeable even if the extent of the future loss wasn't. Right?


c'mon fellas... you know tort plaintiffs can recover for lost wages (that wasn't a Ks question)

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:59 pm

Anyone else gamble on there being no unilateral conspiracy under common law?

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:00 am

a male human wrote:Anyone else gamble on there being no unilateral conspiracy under common law?


Oh snap. I couldn't remember if the Wharton Rule applied under the CL or not. I said no.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby usuaggie » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:00 am

softey wrote:
Emma. wrote:
jmhendri wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance


Wasn't that a torts question though? About the installer's negligence? Does that change the rule? Probably not, but I guess I was thinking of this as kind of an eggshell plaintiff situation.


same.


Took the you take the victim as they are approach. Since it is torts, don't need to know she's a singer, just like don't need to know the car you hit is worth 100k for them to fully recover.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby usuaggie » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:01 am

a male human wrote:Anyone else gamble on there being no unilateral conspiracy under common law?


CL: bilateral but no act. Liability at agreement
Now: unilateral but overt act




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adub5 and 9 guests