New York Bar Day 1 Thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
brassmonkey7
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:38 am

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby brassmonkey7 » Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:59 pm

.
Last edited by brassmonkey7 on Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Twistersodacan
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:22 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby Twistersodacan » Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:37 am

Anyone else accidentally put their name in the memo format on the MPT section? I did and I informed the new York bar and they said they'll try to redact it.

Anyone have experience with this?

Please don't quote.

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

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby kaiser » Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:18 am

Cogburn87 wrote:
kaiser wrote:
phonepro wrote:can you commit a robbery by stealing property you own?


Nope. B was trying to reclaim property over which he believed he had a claim of right (and over which he did in fact have a claim of right). Robbery is simply a form of larceny, after all. You can't be guilty of robbery for stealing what you believe to be your own stuff.


Pretty sure this is incorrect. See http://www.nycrimblog.com/nycrim/2010/1 ... bbery.html


I highly doubt they were looking for us to say that a claim of right over money isn't viable because money is fungible. Tons of Barbri questions hit the notion of robbery or larceny when the supposed robber was just takint back his own stuff and the answer was always the same. Dont overthink the essays. They only test on generalized points for the most part. And nowhere in the CMR distionctions does it say anything about money being fungible and falling outside the general principle. And even if claim of right is not a standalone defene in itself, it can still function to negate the intent requirement.

Cogburn87
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:26 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby Cogburn87 » Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:23 pm

kaiser wrote:I highly doubt they were looking for us to say that a claim of right over money isn't viable because money is fungible. Tons of Barbri questions hit the notion of robbery or larceny when the supposed robber was just takint back his own stuff and the answer was always the same. Dont overthink the essays. They only test on generalized points for the most part. And nowhere in the CMR distionctions does it say anything about money being fungible and falling outside the general principle. And even if claim of right is not a standalone defene in itself, it can still function to negate the intent requirement.


I'm not over thinking anything. They were looking for us to apply NY law to a fact pattern. And that is the law that applies to the facts they presented, regardless of what Barbri says.

brassmonkey7
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:38 am

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby brassmonkey7 » Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:45 pm

..
Last edited by brassmonkey7 on Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby kaiser » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:50 pm

Cogburn87 wrote:
kaiser wrote:I highly doubt they were looking for us to say that a claim of right over money isn't viable because money is fungible. Tons of Barbri questions hit the notion of robbery or larceny when the supposed robber was just takint back his own stuff and the answer was always the same. Dont overthink the essays. They only test on generalized points for the most part. And nowhere in the CMR distionctions does it say anything about money being fungible and falling outside the general principle. And even if claim of right is not a standalone defene in itself, it can still function to negate the intent requirement.


I'm not over thinking anything. They were looking for us to apply NY law to a fact pattern. And that is the law that applies to the facts they presented, regardless of what Barbri says.


I just cant imagine them testing on such an insanely narrow point. And I don't understand how the mens rea is met either. But thank you for the info on this, as it was totally off my radar.

Cogburn87
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:26 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby Cogburn87 » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:24 pm

We cool. I was just trying to point out that according to the Court of Appeals, there is at least an argument that a robbery took place because self-help wasn't appropriate. (LinkRemoved)

User avatar
IrwinM.Fletcher
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:55 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby IrwinM.Fletcher » Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:58 am

TwisterSodaCan-

Bro I probably did the same thing on my MPT. Was crunched for time at the end and am pretty sure I fudged up and entered my real name in the header instead of "Applicant" or whatever. I'm in a different state, but my licensure analyst said it's no big deal and a ton of people do it. No chance of it getting disqualified.

k9999
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:33 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby k9999 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:40 pm

I thought that I had read that in the Wills essay the insurance proceeds were paid out several weeks before death?? Originally I thought it had said after death but then I re-looked and thought it said before death. Am I incorrect?

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

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby kaiser » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:44 pm

k9999 wrote:I thought that I had read that in the Wills essay the insurance proceeds were paid out several weeks before death?? Originally I thought it had said after death but then I re-looked and thought it said before death. Am I incorrect?


First off, it doesn't matter because the gift was sold away by testator during his lifetime. That insurance proceeds were paid out for the 2012 porsche don't matter since that wasn't the specific 2009 porsche in the will. Second, I also think it was before death payment, in which case, even if we disregard the first point, it still wouldn't have gone to the son.

k9999
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:33 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby k9999 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:49 pm

Okay, yes that was what I was thinking too. Thanks for the clarification.

piree1223
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:08 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby piree1223 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:01 pm

..
Last edited by piree1223 on Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby kaiser » Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:13 pm

piree1223 wrote:
kaiser wrote:
k9999 wrote:I thought that I had read that in the Wills essay the insurance proceeds were paid out several weeks before death?? Originally I thought it had said after death but then I re-looked and thought it said before death. Am I incorrect?


First off, it doesn't matter because the gift was sold away by testator during his lifetime. That insurance proceeds were paid out for the 2012 porsche don't matter since that wasn't the specific 2009 porsche in the will. Second, I also think it was before death payment, in which case, even if we disregard the first point, it still wouldn't have gone to the son.


Didn't the act of independent significance apply to save the car from ademption? I thought the gift was saved b/c still a car -> insurance paid after death -> son gets the proceeds...


The will didn't grant the son "a car" though. The will granted him specifically a "2009 porsche". The testator traded away his 2009 porsche, so that narrow and specific gift was subject to ademption. If a car is a car is a car, that would lead to some absurd consequences. It would be one thing if the grant said "whatever car I own upon death", but its another thing entirely to say "my 2009 Porsche". Ademption is a cold and rough principle, and I don't recall there being much leeway, aside from the 3 narrow exceptions provided to us.

Were the insurance proceeds paid out after death? I don't really recall. But as per the above point, I don't think it matters.

User avatar
tfer2222
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:20 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby tfer2222 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 4:11 pm

kaiser wrote:
piree1223 wrote:
kaiser wrote:
k9999 wrote:I thought that I had read that in the Wills essay the insurance proceeds were paid out several weeks before death?? Originally I thought it had said after death but then I re-looked and thought it said before death. Am I incorrect?


First off, it doesn't matter because the gift was sold away by testator during his lifetime. That insurance proceeds were paid out for the 2012 porsche don't matter since that wasn't the specific 2009 porsche in the will. Second, I also think it was before death payment, in which case, even if we disregard the first point, it still wouldn't have gone to the son.


Didn't the act of independent significance apply to save the car from ademption? I thought the gift was saved b/c still a car -> insurance paid after death -> son gets the proceeds...


The will didn't grant the son "a car" though. The will granted him specifically a "2009 porsche". The testator traded away his 2009 porsche, so that narrow and specific gift was subject to ademption. If a car is a car is a car, that would lead to some absurd consequences. It would be one thing if the grant said "whatever car I own upon death", but its another thing entirely to say "my 2009 Porsche". Ademption is a cold and rough principle, and I don't recall there being much leeway, aside from the 3 narrow exceptions provided to us.

Were the insurance proceeds paid out after death? I don't really recall. But as per the above point, I don't think it matters.


I said independent significance saved the car as well. Had a hypo on a law school exam almost exactly like that. Though not sure how NY's version works. Oh well.

and yeah, the proceeds were paid out after death.

lol i can't believe you people are still discussing answers. let it go already. (although i guess i did just chime in. dammit)

crytown
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby crytown » Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:25 am

For K sub-issue I put perfect tender rule improper delivery due to quantity. Buyer can then accept, reject, or partially accept or reject. However, here under ucc 2-508 (1) seller may seasonably notify the buyer of his intention to cure and may then within the K time make a conforming delivery (2) where the buyer rejects a nonconforming tender which the seller has reasonable grounds to believ would be acceptable with or without money allowance the seller may if he seasonably notifies the buyer have a further reasonable time to substitute a conforming tender. So the accommodation or replacement here is valid bc seller notified the buyer that he would accommodate him with the remaining goods (hinges)within 30 days. In addition, a mentioned that time was not of the essence in this dealing.

For Corporations, I put duty of loyalty, self dealing, usurping business opportunity, derivative action (demand/futile), did NOT put piercing the corporate veil.

Did anyone get anything different?

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:59 pm

crytown wrote:For K sub-issue I put perfect tender rule improper delivery due to quantity. Buyer can then accept, reject, or partially accept or reject. However, here under ucc 2-508 (1) seller may seasonably notify the buyer of his intention to cure and may then within the K time make a conforming delivery (2) where the buyer rejects a nonconforming tender which the seller has reasonable grounds to believ would be acceptable with or without money allowance the seller may if he seasonably notifies the buyer have a further reasonable time to substitute a conforming tender. So the accommodation or replacement here is valid bc seller notified the buyer that he would accommodate him with the remaining goods (hinges)within 30 days. In addition, a mentioned that time was not of the essence in this dealing.

For Corporations, I put duty of loyalty, self dealing, usurping business opportunity, derivative action (demand/futile), did NOT put piercing the corporate veil.

Did anyone get anything different?

I'm genuinely sorry that you still remember what you wrote for these questions.

crytown
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby crytown » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:14 pm

Well thank you for your concern. Would you like comment on the question I posed? And again thank you for your interest.

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: New York Bar Day 1 Thread

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:34 am

crytown wrote:Well thank you for your concern. Would you like comment on the question I posed? And again thank you for your interest.

Sorry, what I meant was I can barely even remember what the questions were anymore. Now that you mention it though, I do think your corps response sounds right. It was definitely about usurpation of corporate opportunities and futility of the demand requirement. And I don't remember any reason veil piercing would have been relevant. That contracts stuff I have literally no memory of.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests