.

User avatar
elysiansmiles
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby elysiansmiles » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:23 pm

Hit 75% today! I guess I can officially stop studying now, my success is guaranteed.

TheBeard
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby TheBeard » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:31 pm

For those of you who did the simulated essay exam today, did you print out the packets and typed up your answers on a Word doc as Themis suggested? If so, did you then have to copy and paste your answers onto Themis to get credit? I'm going to do the sim tomorrow since I had a lot of crap to take care of today and I'm wondering how I should go about doing it.

GertrudePerkins
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:38 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby GertrudePerkins » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:47 pm

(Question ID#4247)
A husband and his business partner owned a large technology company together. After a personally tumultuous but professionally successful decade working together, the husband discovered that the business partner had been fraudulently transferring company funds to the business partner’s personal account for years. Before he confronted his business partner about this, he called his own wife to tell her what he had learned. His wife reminded him that the company had a $2 million life insurance policy on the business partner. The couple formed a plan to murder the business partner for the insurance proceeds when he was alone in the office building. On the day that they planned to carry out the murder, the husband told the business partner that he had to leave early and asked the business partner to stay late to finish up a presentation. He knew that by doing so, the business partner would be alone at the office. Later that night, the wife went in and shot the business partner. She then panicked and fled the country. The husband was later charged with the murder and conspiracy to commit the murder, but the wife was never apprehended. The jurisdiction recognizes the majority rule regarding conspirator liability.
Is the husband likely to be found guilty of conspiracy and murder?
A. No, because the husband and wife were married.
B. No, because the wife was never convicted of the murder.
C. Yes, because the husband persuaded the business partner to stay late at the office.
D. Yes, because it is not necessary that the husband committed an overt act in furtherance of the crime.
Incorrect: Answer choice C is correct. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose with the intent to accomplish that purpose. The majority rule requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, although the common law does not. A conspirator can be convicted of both the offense of conspiracy and all substantive crimes committed by any other co-conspirators acting in furtherance of the conspiracy. In this case, the husband and wife formed a plan to murder the business partner, and the husband committed an overt act when he asked the business partner to stay late one night to carry out the murder. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the common law did not consider husband and wife as co-conspirators, nearly every jurisdiction has abolished this common-law concept. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although a conspirator cannot be convicted of conspiracy if all other conspirators are acquitted at the same trial, a co-conspirator can be convicted if other co-conspirators are never tried or apprehended. Answer choice D is incorrect because the husband did commit an overt act when he persuaded the business partner to stay late at the office. Further, majority rule does require an overt act; the common law does not.


I don't understand how to distinguish between C and D. I understand that under the majority rule (as opposed to common law) an overt act is necessary. But any co-conspirator can commit the overt act, and here the wife effing shot the dude! I know that his asking the partner to stay late is also a valid overt act, but I'm still left confused about whether there's any precise way to distinguish C and D. His asking the partner to stay late might seem like a necessary condition as a factual matter (i.e., maybe the plot wouldn't have worked if he hadn't done it), but it doesn't seem like a necessary condition as a legal matter (i.e., if he had said nothing but partner had stuck around late anyway and been shot by wife, he would still be guilty of conspiracy and murder). Anyone see something I'm missing?

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:13 pm

Probably a case of 'C is a better answer', I imagine. Sure, it's not necessary that the husband be the one who commit the overt act, but he did, so screw him he's guilty. I've seen a couple questions where I really can't differentiate at all between two answers or they're both describing the same rule of law but one is just 'a better answer' as the explanation maddeningly tells me.

Also his overt act is what solidified the conspiracy because he was the first of the two to act, so any overt acts committed afterwards are moot points, may be what they're getting at. Answer D is essentially disregarding his behavior. She was never apprehended or tried, so basing it off of her overt act, even though it would be enough to form a conspiracy and he'd be screwed, isn't the stronger argument as his act is what makes it seem like a conspiracy to someone looking at it from the outside rather than 'my wife randomly shot a dude'. But that may be over thinking it.

hlsperson1111
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby hlsperson1111 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:16 pm

Question:

The President of the United States entered into a federal treaty with a foreign island nation. Under the treaty, a U.S. territory that bordered that foreign island nation could freely trade with the island nation certain agricultural products, including bananas. Shortly thereafter, a nearby U.S. state passed a law allowing for a free transfer of goods between the state, the territory, and the island nation. Several years later, Congress passed a statute requiring a mark of origin on all agricultural products from all foreign countries. Last year, the President of the United States entered an executive agreement with the leader of a second foreign country, promising that the United States, including its territories, would buy all of the bananas that the United States requires from this foreign country, and would only buy bananas from other foreign countries if the United States’ demand exceeded the country’s supply. In exchange, the foreign country would first buy its wheat supply from the United States. Citizens of the U.S. territory want to continue to freely buy bananas from the island nation. Which of the laws is likely to govern whether the U.S. territory can buy bananas from the island nation?

Answers:
A. The executive agreement
B. The federal statute passed by Congress
C. The federal treaty
D. The state law


How can C be correct if the fact pattern doesn't state that the treaty was ratified by the Senate?

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:25 pm

releasethehounds wrote:Probably a case of 'C is a better answer', I imagine. Sure, it's not necessary that the husband be the one who commit the overt act, but he did, so screw him he's guilty. I've seen a couple questions where I really can't differentiate at all between two answers or they're both describing the same rule of law but one is just 'a better answer' as the explanation maddeningly tells me.

Also his overt act is what solidified the conspiracy because he was the first of the two to act, so any overt acts committed afterwards are moot points, may be what they're getting at. Answer D is essentially disregarding his behavior. She was never apprehended or tried, so basing it off of her overt act, even though it would be enough to form a conspiracy and he'd be screwed, isn't the stronger argument as his act is what makes it seem like a conspiracy to someone looking at it from the outside rather than 'my wife randomly shot a dude'. But that may be over thinking it.



The majority rule says an overt act must occur to be convicted of conspiracy. The common law minority is that an overt act need not occur; you just need the agreement to commit a crime to be convicted of conspiracy.

The question asks for the majority rule. Which means you need an act. That's why C is correct, as it has some act, and D is wrong. D is the law for the common law minority.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:30 pm

hlsperson1111 wrote:How can C be correct if the fact pattern doesn't state that the treaty was ratified by the Senate?


I guess we should assume treaties have been ratified and in force unless the fact pattern suggests otherwise.

GertrudePerkins
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:38 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby GertrudePerkins » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:37 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
releasethehounds wrote:Probably a case of 'C is a better answer', I imagine. Sure, it's not necessary that the husband be the one who commit the overt act, but he did, so screw him he's guilty. I've seen a couple questions where I really can't differentiate at all between two answers or they're both describing the same rule of law but one is just 'a better answer' as the explanation maddeningly tells me.

Also his overt act is what solidified the conspiracy because he was the first of the two to act, so any overt acts committed afterwards are moot points, may be what they're getting at. Answer D is essentially disregarding his behavior. She was never apprehended or tried, so basing it off of her overt act, even though it would be enough to form a conspiracy and he'd be screwed, isn't the stronger argument as his act is what makes it seem like a conspiracy to someone looking at it from the outside rather than 'my wife randomly shot a dude'. But that may be over thinking it.



The majority rule says an overt act must occur to be convicted of conspiracy. The common law minority is that an overt act need not occur; you just need the agreement to commit a crime to be convicted of conspiracy.

The question asks for the majority rule. Which means you need an act. That's why C is correct, as it has some act, and D is wrong. D is the law for the common law minority.
Right, but there was an overt act even without his asking the partner to stay; namely, the wife shooting the partner. That's about as overt as it gets. And any party to the conspiracy can commit the overt act that triggers liability for all co-conspirators.

ETA: I grudgingly accept that C is the better answer in an impressionistic sense, but what irritates me is that it's true that the husband need not have committed an overt act to be guilty of conspiracy; it's enough that any member of the conspiracy have committed an overt act.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:51 pm

GertrudePerkins wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:
releasethehounds wrote:Probably a case of 'C is a better answer', I imagine. Sure, it's not necessary that the husband be the one who commit the overt act, but he did, so screw him he's guilty. I've seen a couple questions where I really can't differentiate at all between two answers or they're both describing the same rule of law but one is just 'a better answer' as the explanation maddeningly tells me.

Also his overt act is what solidified the conspiracy because he was the first of the two to act, so any overt acts committed afterwards are moot points, may be what they're getting at. Answer D is essentially disregarding his behavior. She was never apprehended or tried, so basing it off of her overt act, even though it would be enough to form a conspiracy and he'd be screwed, isn't the stronger argument as his act is what makes it seem like a conspiracy to someone looking at it from the outside rather than 'my wife randomly shot a dude'. But that may be over thinking it.



The majority rule says an overt act must occur to be convicted of conspiracy. The common law minority is that an overt act need not occur; you just need the agreement to commit a crime to be convicted of conspiracy.

The question asks for the majority rule. Which means you need an act. That's why C is correct, as it has some act, and D is wrong. D is the law for the common law minority.
Right, but there was an overt act even without his asking the partner to stay; namely, the wife shooting the partner. That's about as overt as it gets. And any party to the conspiracy can commit the overt act that triggers liability for all co-conspirators.

ETA: I grudgingly accept that C is the better answer in an impressionistic sense, but what irritates me is that it's true that the husband need not have committed an overt act to be guilty of conspiracy; it's enough that any member of the conspiracy have committed an overt act.


Hm. True. I always read the majority rule to as that the defendant had to commit the overt act.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:54 pm

I'm lazy so I just wikipedia'd it to be sure:

"Under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime."

antonious13
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby antonious13 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:55 pm

80% correct on Property, and 33% correct on Con Law??

Dufuq just happened there?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby 09042014 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:56 pm

Did we ever come to a consensus about how difficult the simulated MBE was compared to a real one?

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:03 pm

The average scores are lower than the real MBE, but that might be because people don't know stuff 3 weeks before the test.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:04 pm

Jesus. 42% correct on the New York multiple choice. Shit's hard.

Themis goal: 70% -- LOL

User avatar
Sogui
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Sogui » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:25 pm

Question

Using a path frequented by students, a college student decides to take a short cut through the back yard of a homeowner. The homeowner is cleaning out the cage of a rattlesnake he is keeping at his house. The homeowner has carelessly allowed the snake to roam free. The snake, hidden from the student's view by a tree, is startled by the student as the student walks past and strikes the student. The student is seriously injured by the snakebite. The applicable jurisdiction permits the keeping of a rattlesnake as a pet. In a strict liability action by the student against the homeowner, who will prevail?

Answers

The student, because the homeowner possessed a wild animal.
The student, because the homeowner, aware that students frequently used the path, failed to act with reasonable care.
The homeowner, because the student was trespassing.
The homeowner, because the homeowner's possession of the rattlesnake is legal.

Rationale:

Answer choice C is correct because an owner of a wild animal is generally not strictly liable to an undiscovered trespasser who is injured by the wild animal, except for injuries caused by a vicious watchdog. Here, the student was an undiscovered trespasser and the homeowner’s animal was not a vicious watchdog. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while the possessor of a wild animal generally is strictly liable to a licensee or invitee who is injured by the wild animal, the possessor is not strictly liable to an undiscovered trespasser. Answer choice B is incorrect because the action brought by the student was based on strict liability, not negligence. Consequently, the homeowner's failure to act with reasonable care is irrelevant. Answer choice D is incorrect because, even though the homeowner's possession of the rattlesnake is legal, the rattlesnake is a wild animal. As such, the possessor of a wild animal may be strictly liable for harm caused by the animal, unless the individual harmed is an undiscovered trespasser.


From the Handout:

In a majority of jurisdictions, when a landowner should reasonably know that trespassers are consistently entering his land (e.g., frequent trespassers using a footpath to cut across the corner of the property), the landowner owes a duty to the trespasser, regardless of the landowner’s actual knowledge, just as if the trespasser were a licensee.

This is just one of many incorrect answers I've given that frustrate me. I get that the handout is talking about duties of care which don't matter for strict liability, but the language suggests that courts treat "known trespassers" as licensees nonetheless and so I was extremely reluctant to choose C since every other area of the law suggests that he's not going to be treated as a trespasser.
Last edited by Sogui on Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
as stars burn
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby as stars burn » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:27 pm

Holy shit. I just completed MBE Set 6 with 20 minutes left to spare!? I usually always need every second, but I was obviously racing through that set and landed a 62% (LOL at 33% Property and 40% Crim Law though...I fucking give up on Property).

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:32 pm

75%. At least I have that, soul sucking bar exam. At least I have that.

Also it's incredibly disconcerting to be reading a fact pattern of an MEE essay question and find half of it irrelevant. Because you're sitting there, knowing you're missing a huge issue because all these facts would not be in this fact pattern were they actually irrelevant. A few irrelevant things? Sure. That happens. Paragraphs of irrelevant information? Unlikely. And there's no BS you can cobble together in that situation because it's all, to you, irrelevant as hell.

Also, lulz, security transactions. Hope I don't see you on the 30th.
Last edited by releasethehounds on Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Agoraphobia
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:36 pm

I just don't know where we go from here. 3 people I have talked to have had major breakdowns about the exam already. Ironically, these people have been studying as diligently as anyone I know. I myself had a mini meltdown on Monday where I burst out crying for no reason at all. Hardly get dressed anymore. Live on cupcakes and cheerios. I go outside when I take my dogs out and bringing my trash to the street was a huge event for me this evening. I do brush my hair. It just doesn't seem like this Bar Exam thing can get any Bar-Exam-ier. Know what I mean?

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:42 pm

Agoraphobia wrote:I just don't know where we go from here. 3 people I have talked to have had major breakdowns about the exam already. Ironically, these people have been studying as diligently as anyone I know. I myself had a mini meltdown on Monday where I burst out crying for no reason at all. Hardly get dressed anymore. Live on cupcakes and cheerios. I go outside when I take my dogs out and bringing my trash to the street was a huge event for me this evening. I do brush my hair. It just doesn't seem like this Bar Exam thing can get any Bar-Exam-ier. Know what I mean?


My problem is my stress gets so high that I literally start to shut down and it gets impossible for me to actually work. Which stresses me out more. And i keep fixating on what I don't know. In reality we've all learned so much that it's ridiculous. We're able to have intelligent conversation back and forth about exam answers and what makes sense and what doesn't. We're able to be right on exam sets more often than not (maybe not every subject every time, and maybe not those ridiculous NY questions I keep hearing about). We're so much better at this than we were a week ago, a month ago, a year ago. Statistically most if not all of us on this board will pass our tests.

And yet, all it takes for me is one secured transaction essay about consignment rights to make me go "Welp, I know fucking nothing."

User avatar
as stars burn
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby as stars burn » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:44 pm

Agoraphobia wrote:I just don't know where we go from here. 3 people I have talked to have had major breakdowns about the exam already. Ironically, these people have been studying as diligently as anyone I know. I myself had a mini meltdown on Monday where I burst out crying for no reason at all. Hardly get dressed anymore. Live on cupcakes and cheerios. I go outside when I take my dogs out and bringing my trash to the street was a huge event for me this evening. I do brush my hair. It just doesn't seem like this Bar Exam thing can get any Bar-Exam-ier. Know what I mean?


Totally. I feel like crap mainly, and I'm a huge worrier just in my own right--this exam has magnified that times 1,000. If it weren't for going for a run a couple times a week and taking breaks to watch Regular Show I think I'd completely lose it. This exam wouldn't be so bad if they just cut the subjects we needed to know in half, but the sheer volume of information is so incredibly overwhelming, and I'm terrified to face an entire essay or question that I literately don't know. I also feel really bad for my husband who has to deal with me like this for another week.

antonious13
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby antonious13 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:56 pm

Agoraphobia wrote:I just don't know where we go from here. 3 people I have talked to have had major breakdowns about the exam already. Ironically, these people have been studying as diligently as anyone I know. I myself had a mini meltdown on Monday where I burst out crying for no reason at all. Hardly get dressed anymore. Live on cupcakes and cheerios. I go outside when I take my dogs out and bringing my trash to the street was a huge event for me this evening. I do brush my hair. It just doesn't seem like this Bar Exam thing can get any Bar-Exam-ier. Know what I mean?


You lasted slightly longer than people I talked to who took it (and passed) last year. They said the breakdowns usually occur a day or two after the Fourth. I think I'm on the verge of mine. Although, I'm there with the whole don't go outside much or get dressed.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:00 am

80% done with this course, and can't fathom doing another day more. 12 more days, really?

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:57 am

Started freaking out after going through BarEssays today. On the one hand, most are scored 60+. On the other, I can't really find much difference between 55s and 50s as compared to their higher scored brethren. At least it's hard to get a 40. One of the 40s was just a half page outline.

User avatar
cardinalandgold
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby cardinalandgold » Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:58 am

In a written contract, a designer agreed to deliver to a buyer 25 described fur coats at $1,000 each F.O.B. the designer's place of business. The contract provided that "neither party will assign this contract without the written consent of the other." The designer placed the coats onboard a carrier on January 30 and properly notified the buyer of the shipment. On February 1 the designer said in a signed writing, "I hereby assign to [a friend] all my rights under the [designer-buyer] contract." The designer did not request and did not get the buyer's consent to this transaction. On February 2 the coats, while in transit, were destroyed in a derailment of the carrier's railroad car.

In an action by the friend against the buyer, the friend probably will recover
A. $25,000, the contract price.
B. the difference between the contract price and the market value of the coats.
C. nothing, because the coats had not been delivered.
D. nothing, because the designer-buyer contract forbade an assignment.

Incorrect: Answer choice A is correct. Though the assignment from the designer to the friend was improper, the general rule is that assignments are allowed unless doing so materially increases the duty or right of the obligor or materially reduces the obligor's chances of obtaining performance. Thus, answer choice D is incorrect. While the assignment is a breach of contract, here the question calls for the impact of the destruction of the goods. As an assignee, the friend stands in the same shoes as the signer and can sue for the $25,000 contract price. This result is proper because under the UCC, the FOB shipment contract provision here shifts the risk of loss to the buyer. Answer choice B is incorrect because it contemplates expectancy damages, which are not proper here. Answer C is incorrect because although the coats were not delivered, the risk of loss fell to the buyer, not the seller. [The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.]

I thought that if a contract does not allocate risk of loss, a breach by either party (here the seller has breached by assigning) shifts the risk of loss to the breaching party? If so, how is A right?

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:10 am

FOB (location) contracts tell you where the risk of loss shifts. If it's FOB [seller's workshop] then risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are shipped.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TheSpanishMain and 2 guests