.

calibred
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:34 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby calibred » Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:33 pm

Quick question guys... I'm not understanding this contracts rule.

94. (Question ID#2730)

A victim injured his back at a grocery store when the victim slipped and fell. He employed an attorney to represent him in the matter. The victim was chronically insolvent and expressed doubt whether he could promptly get the necessary treatment for his back injury. Accordingly, the attorney wrote into their contract his promise to the victim "to pay from any settlement with the grocery store compensation to any medical professional who provides services for the victim's injuries." The contract also provided that the attorney's duties were "non-assignable." The attorney immediately filed suit against the grocery store. The victim then sought and received medical treatment, reasonably valued at $3,000, from a chiropractor, but failed to inform the chiropractor of the attorney's promise. After receiving a bill from the chiropractor for $3,000, the victim immediately wrote the chiropractor explaining that he was unable to pay and enclosing a copy of his contract with the attorney. The victim then asked the attorney about payment of this bill, but the attorney requested a release from their employment contract, stating that he would like to refer the victim's claim to another attorney and that this attorney was willing to represent the victim in the pending lawsuit. The victim wrote a letter to the first attorney releasing him from their contract and agreeing to the second attorney's representation. A copy of this letter was sent to the doctor. The second attorney subsequently promised the first attorney to represent the victim and soon negotiated a settlement of the victim's claim against the grocery store which netted $3,000, all of which was paid by the victim to creditors other than the chiropractor. The victim remains insolvent.

In an action by the chiropractor against the first attorney upon the first attorney's employment contract with the victim, the first attorney is likely to argue in defense that

A. the anti-assignment clause in the first attorney's contract with the victim is void as against public policy.
B. the first attorney has relied to his detriment on the victim's letter of release.
C. third parties cannot acquire valid claims under an attorney-client contract.
D. the doctor has not materially changed his position in reliance upon the first attorney's employment contract.

Correct: Answer choice D is correct. The general rule is that only an intended beneficiary has a right to bring an action on the contract. The rights of an intended beneficiary vest when the beneficiary: (i) detrimentally relies on the rights created; (ii) expressly assents to the contract at of one of the parties' request; or (iii) files a lawsuit to enforce the contract. Here, as an intended beneficiary, the chiropractor would have a valid claim unless she has not done anything to rely on the contract.


My question is, why doesn't the third factor apply here? Isn't the chiropractor filing a lawsuit to enforce the contract? Thanks!

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:39 pm

Me today, and for the next 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwXD0hCvtX4

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby as stars burn » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:32 pm

Wow. Absolutely dominated on the MBE Set 7 (granted, I'm not alone, which helps soothe my pain). That brought me down from the refreshing high I had from feeling good about the simulated essay exam. I hate multiple-choice :cry:

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby as stars burn » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:32 pm

kalvano wrote:Is there some way to see, on the mixed MBE PQ's, your overall percent right, not just the breakdown by subject? I get the default screen that shows the total questions and the amount I got right split up by topic, but is there some way to see just the overall correct percentage for each PQ set?


Just add up all your correct answers by subject and divide by the number of questions in the set. That'll give you your overall percentage!

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby as stars burn » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:33 pm

Bikeflip wrote:Me today, and for the next 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwXD0hCvtX4


:lol: Thank you so much for this. I love Anchorman SO MUCH. Now I feel like watching it....but.....must.....study.......

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:16 pm

This is the worst sentence I've seen in the past two years. (some judges wrote worse in 1L casebooks)

"A beverage distributor agreed, in writing, with a cola company to serve for three years as a distributor in a six-county area of the cola company's cola, which contains a small amount of caffeine."

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Dr. Review » Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:36 pm

Reinhardt wrote:This is the worst sentence I've seen in the past two years. (some judges wrote worse in 1L casebooks)

"A beverage distributor agreed, in writing, with a cola company to serve for three years as a distributor in a six-county area of the cola company's cola, which contains a small amount of caffeine."


I had to read that about 12 times when it came up on a practice MBE

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:59 pm

calibred wrote:Quick question guys... I'm not understanding this contracts rule.

94. (Question ID#2730)

A victim injured his back at a grocery store when the victim slipped and fell. He employed an attorney to represent him in the matter. The victim was chronically insolvent and expressed doubt whether he could promptly get the necessary treatment for his back injury. Accordingly, the attorney wrote into their contract his promise to the victim "to pay from any settlement with the grocery store compensation to any medical professional who provides services for the victim's injuries." The contract also provided that the attorney's duties were "non-assignable." The attorney immediately filed suit against the grocery store. The victim then sought and received medical treatment, reasonably valued at $3,000, from a chiropractor, but failed to inform the chiropractor of the attorney's promise. After receiving a bill from the chiropractor for $3,000, the victim immediately wrote the chiropractor explaining that he was unable to pay and enclosing a copy of his contract with the attorney. The victim then asked the attorney about payment of this bill, but the attorney requested a release from their employment contract, stating that he would like to refer the victim's claim to another attorney and that this attorney was willing to represent the victim in the pending lawsuit. The victim wrote a letter to the first attorney releasing him from their contract and agreeing to the second attorney's representation. A copy of this letter was sent to the doctor. The second attorney subsequently promised the first attorney to represent the victim and soon negotiated a settlement of the victim's claim against the grocery store which netted $3,000, all of which was paid by the victim to creditors other than the chiropractor. The victim remains insolvent.

In an action by the chiropractor against the first attorney upon the first attorney's employment contract with the victim, the first attorney is likely to argue in defense that

A. the anti-assignment clause in the first attorney's contract with the victim is void as against public policy.
B. the first attorney has relied to his detriment on the victim's letter of release.
C. third parties cannot acquire valid claims under an attorney-client contract.
D. the doctor has not materially changed his position in reliance upon the first attorney's employment contract.

Correct: Answer choice D is correct. The general rule is that only an intended beneficiary has a right to bring an action on the contract. The rights of an intended beneficiary vest when the beneficiary: (i) detrimentally relies on the rights created; (ii) expressly assents to the contract at of one of the parties' request; or (iii) files a lawsuit to enforce the contract. Here, as an intended beneficiary, the chiropractor would have a valid claim unless she has not done anything to rely on the contract.


My question is, why doesn't the third factor apply here? Isn't the chiropractor filing a lawsuit to enforce the contract? Thanks!


Are they getting at the idea that the K was modified before the chiropractor's rights vested? Like...they modified the K before the chiropractor filed suit to enforce it? If they modified before the chiropractor detrimentally relied on his rights under the K (which perhaps he didn't, because he had already rendered help to the victim before he ever even knew about the K), then his suit now is a moot point: he no longer has rights that can vest as they have been modified away and he is no longer an intended beneficiary?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:03 pm

as stars burn wrote:
kalvano wrote:Is there some way to see, on the mixed MBE PQ's, your overall percent right, not just the breakdown by subject? I get the default screen that shows the total questions and the amount I got right split up by topic, but is there some way to see just the overall correct percentage for each PQ set?


Just add up all your correct answers by subject and divide by the number of questions in the set. That'll give you your overall percentage!



LOL. Math. LOL.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:34 pm

Pretty simple crim law question:

Voluntary intoxication can be used as a defense to specific intent crimes, but my understanding is that's only if the intoxication actually negated the required mens rea. Should we assume that it does in a sparse MBE hypo? Like if it says "D was wasted at a party. He goes up to V and grabs his wallet and runs off. What crimes is D guilty of?"

(I seem to remember a problem like that)

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:49 pm

Reinhardt wrote:Pretty simple crim law question:

Voluntary intoxication can be used as a defense to specific intent crimes, but my understanding is that's only if the intoxication actually negated the required mens rea. Should we assume that it does in a sparse MBE hypo? Like if it says "D was wasted at a party. He goes up to V and grabs his wallet and runs off. What crimes is D guilty of?"

(I seem to remember a problem like that)


Usually in a vague question like that, the answer choices will supply the missing information; like one of the answer choices will be "None, if because of his intoxication, he thought his friend wanted him to take it" or something like that.

User avatar
Catleesi
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Catleesi » Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:16 pm

I'm blanking on everything. Just... everything.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:32 pm

Not totally sure why voluntary intoxication is even a thing then. The bottom line is specific intent crimes require the specific intent.

Kretzy
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Kretzy » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:01 pm

I am LAUGHABLY bad at Contracts MBE questions. Jeepers.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby antonious13 » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:30 pm

Kretzy wrote:I am LAUGHABLY bad at Contracts MBE questions. Jeepers.


Opposite for me, Contracts is turning into my best subject.

Now, Property and Torts on the other hand. Shit is messed up. And I tend to pull some boneheaded garbage when I do Criminal law, but that's mostly because I tend to rush to the answer and miss a huge detail that fits into an exception or defense.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby antonious13 » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:32 pm

kalvano wrote:
as stars burn wrote:
kalvano wrote:Is there some way to see, on the mixed MBE PQ's, your overall percent right, not just the breakdown by subject? I get the default screen that shows the total questions and the amount I got right split up by topic, but is there some way to see just the overall correct percentage for each PQ set?


Just add up all your correct answers by subject and divide by the number of questions in the set. That'll give you your overall percentage!



LOL. Math. LOL.


Calculators man. Put those numbers correct into it then divide by 34, 50, or 100.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby as stars burn » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:36 pm

Motivation is shot. My brain and body just can't do this anymore. I barely did anything today :?

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:50 pm

as stars burn wrote:Motivation is shot. My brain and body just can't do this anymore. I barely did anything today :?


Right there with you.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:57 pm

Soooo....Is it good or bad that this MBE question set is quickly turning into me going "Answer choice A....what? No. That's stupid. Answer choice B...Abatement has nothing to do with evidence, go away. Answer choice C.....maybe. Answer choice D...No, that's stupid too. Welp. Answer Choice C it is."

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:58 pm

Process of elimination is a good thing.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:12 pm

In the spirit of sharing, anyone wants an IL Evidence "condensed" (25 pages :shock: ) outline, here ya go. Also some very bad mnemonics that may or may not work for you. https://www.dropbox.com/s/c4y1w9x42u9ve ... TLINE.docx

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Dr. Review » Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:21 pm

Agoraphobia wrote:In the spirit of sharing, anyone wants an IL Evidence "condensed" (25 pages :shock: ) outline, here ya go. Also some very bad mnemonics that may or may not work for you. https://www.dropbox.com/s/c4y1w9x42u9ve ... TLINE.docx


Clover bullets, nice touch.

User avatar
Bronx Bum
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:02 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bronx Bum » Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:30 pm

Anyone here doing NY/NJ? How far along are you? Are you bothering with the NJ essays? I feel like a jerkoff because I'm only at 71% but I've come to realize that this is only because if the NJ essays.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:40 pm

A friend in education told me about this:

http://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_foer_fe ... an_do.html

Have never tried it, first I've heard of it actually, but might give it a go on one of the essay topics I'm trying to remember rules/elements for, maybe in combination with some mnemonics. Thought I would share & if nothing else it's an interesting 20 minute study break :)

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby as stars burn » Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:15 am

Wow, I literately felt like I didn't know what the fuck I was doing on MBE Set 8 and ended up with a 70%. My scores are STILL all over the place! The only subjects I've been able to stay reasonably consistent in is Contracts, Crim Pro and Con Law. The only thing that I know for sure has improved is my timing--in the beginning I really couldn't finish any sets on time, and now I'm finishing with 10-15 minutes left. I guess that could still be construed as a bad thing. Oh hell, I don't know how to feel about these MBE sets anymore. :roll:

Edit: I also forgot to add that I had six C's selected in a row...knew for sure I messed up in there somewhere.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bananasplit19 and 4 guests