.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:22 pm

Bikeflip wrote:Haha. Themis just made a classic issue spotter. The model answer had 6 crimes and 3 defenses. 9900 characters total.


It's getting absurd the number of essays I'm running into where the model answer is significantly longer than the 5000 characters we get for each essay. I'm not sure if it makes me feel better or worse. On the one hand it's probably not really possible for me to take 10,000 character essay and distill it down to 5000 characters while still maintaining a "stellar" level of analysis. On the other hand I'll probably get docked because I can't.

I'm really approaching a point where I don't think I can learn anymore and it's just a crapshoot anyways. If they ask about shit that I know or can at least bullshit? Fantastic. If they don't? The odds of me learning it between now and Tuesday given the sheer number of topics is pretty slim. I'm pretty happy with my MBE scores, just going to have to hope that it makes up for shitty, shitty essay writing.

CrawlIntoAHole
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:34 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby CrawlIntoAHole » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:23 pm

ChaotiCait wrote:Hey everyone. Just found this, not sure if its been posted but figured I would want to know. For NY commercial paper, the Themis outline states-

If an employer (or principal) entrusts an employee (or agent) with responsibility for the instrument, and the employee (or a person acting in concert with the employee) makes a fraudulent indorsement of the instrument, then the indorsement may be effective as the indorsement of the person to whom the instrument is payable if it is made in the name of that person. N.Y. U.C.C. § 3-405(1)(c).

However, if you look at the statute, it says-

(1) An indorsement by any person in the name of a named payee is effective if
.....
(c) an agent or employee of the maker or drawer has supplied him with the name of the payee intending the latter to have no such interest.

I found this after doing some research after doing the NY commercial paper practice essay, which is addressed by section c of the statute.


Great catch! It seems that the rule that Themis cited is based on the section of the UCC, not as adopted by New York. UCC 3-405 seems to be much more broad: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-405.html

Doesn't seem like NY's UCC 3-405 covers the case of payee's employee fraudulently indorsing the instrument, or the case of drawer's employee indorsing an instrument to a real unless such employee intends that the payee have no interest in the instrument.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:23 pm

Talar wrote:This may be a silly question but is there any way to keep a contract for the sale of land to not merge with the deed? I'm especially wondering for commercial transactions, where you would assume the Buyer may want things beyond the ones provided in the six warranties.


No, contract always merges with the deed (doctrine of merger keeps parties from suing on the contract--instead they have to sue on the deed). But the deed can contain whatever you want, so if there's something you want beyond the protections provided in the six warranties, put it in the deed. The deed is NOT limited to the six covenants--those are just defaulted in a general warranty deed.

I believe there's an exception that I don't believe Themis nor the outline really taught for contemporaneously issued writings that make it clear there's a final satisfaction that still needs to occur. But that's just kind of a for-funsies statement (a product of taking multiple real estate based classes). You're not going to come across it, so I wouldn't worry about it. If there's something the parties still want to be able to sue on, they need to put it in the deed. Just remember that part. If termites are super important to me and I want to sue because there's termites...put a clause in the deed that says 'seller warrants that there are no termites'. If there turns out to be termites, now I can sue on the deed.
Last edited by releasethehounds on Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bronx Bum » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:28 pm

Anyone taking the ny mbe on their laptop?

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:47 pm

A consumer became physically ill after drinking part of a bottle of soda that contained a large decomposed snail.


Oh COME ON, I just opened my Coke Zero.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:50 pm

SPOILER MIXED MBE QUESTION

A threatening telephone call that purports to be from the defendant to a witness is most likely to be admitted against the defendant if
A. the caller identified himself as the defendant.
B. the witness had previously given damaging testimony against the defendant in another lawsuit.
C. the witness had given his unlisted number only to the defendant and a few other persons.
D. the witness believes that the defendant is capable of making such threats.

Incorrect: Answer choice C is correct. Oral statements may need to be authenticated as to the identity of the speaker in cases where that identity is important, such as in the case at hand. A voice is most often identified by someone who has heard that voice before. Because there are no facts to indicate that the witness recognized the caller's voice, the court must look to circumstantial evidence to authenticate the caller's identity. Under these facts, the strongest circumstantial evidence, given that the caller purported to be the defendant, is that only a few persons, the defendant among them, knew the witness's phone number. Answer choice A is incorrect because, since the witness did not recognize the caller's voice, the caller's identification of himself would likely not be enough without additional independent circumstantial evidence to prove his identity. Answer choice C is a stronger argument because it provides such evidence. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although such previous testimony might provide a motive for the defendant to make such a call, it is very weak evidence of the caller's identity. Answer choice D is incorrect because the witness's belief alone is irrelevant as to identifying the caller.


Can someone please tell me where in the facts it says that? I realize that 'purport' can encompass a false claim, but it doesn't always (an 'often false' claim does not to me mean an 'always false' claim).

Talar
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Talar » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:54 pm

releasethehounds wrote:
Talar wrote:This may be a silly question but is there any way to keep a contract for the sale of land to not merge with the deed? I'm especially wondering for commercial transactions, where you would assume the Buyer may want things beyond the ones provided in the six warranties.


No, contract always merges with the deed (doctrine of merger keeps parties from suing on the contract--instead they have to sue on the deed). But the deed can contain whatever you want, so if there's something you want beyond the protections provided in the six warranties, put it in the deed. The deed is NOT limited to the six covenants--those are just defaulted in a general warranty deed.

I believe there's an exception that I don't believe Themis nor the outline really taught for contemporaneously issued writings that make it clear there's a final satisfaction that still needs to occur. But that's just kind of a for-funsies statement (a product of taking multiple real estate based classes). You're not going to come across it, so I wouldn't worry about it. If there's something the parties still want to be able to sue on, they need to put it in the deed. Just remember that part. If termites are super important to me and I want to sue because there's termites...put a clause in the deed that says 'seller warrants that there are no termites'. If there turns out to be termites, now I can sue on the deed.


Sweet. Thank you!

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:55 pm

OK, I'm just losing it here. I just did SO BADLY on MBE mixed 13, 14, 15. What happened, did I forget everything I knew? I feel like I am going to fail and I have not felt that way through the majority of this process.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:58 pm

Agoraphobia wrote:OK, I'm just losing it here. I just did SO BADLY on MBE mixed 13, 14, 15. What happened, did I forget everything I knew? I feel like I am going to fail and I have not felt that way through the majority of this process.


You won't. The mixed MBE sets that far along are not representative of a normal test. They're testing nitpicking rules and they're throwing what you're bad at at you. Remember the real test doesn't know what you're good and bad at and won't adjust accordingly. So all those questions about topics you know cold will still be there.

Talar
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Talar » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:20 pm

Agreed. These last few sets have been insanely difficult. Don't let them get you down. I feel like the only reason I'm passing is because I'm getting pretty lucky; this fact is confirmed after I read the explanation and it's not the reason I picked the right answer. :)

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:23 pm

Starting with MBE set 7 I was getting wrongful life and wild deed questions. I have noticed disproportionate amount of issues that are far removed from the basics that likely encompass 80-90% of the real MBE.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby 09042014 » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:27 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:Starting with MBE set 7 I was getting wrongful life and wild deed questions. I have noticed disproportionate amount of issues that are far removed from the basics that likely encompass 80-90% of the real MBE.


People are theorizing that they are just testing on shit you got wrong, so you don't get it wrong on the real thing.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby TheBeard » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:02 pm

Yo, WTF is up with this 55 page handout for PA CivPro? I've been avoiding this shit, but after two consecutive essays that were heavy on PA Civ Pro stuff, I realized there's no sense in avoiding it anymore.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:07 pm

Texas people, help me understand this:

Question ID: 675

Alex owned an 800-acre tract of land in Bell County, Texas, bounded on the north by the County Road and on the south by the State Highway. Alex sold and conveyed parts of the tract by properly executed and recorded deeds as follows:

• In 2004, he sold the north 400 acres to Carlos (the “North Tract”).
• In 2005, he sold to Bella the south 100 acres along the State Highway (the “South Tract”).
• To provide access to the otherwise landlocked 300-acre tract retained by Alex, Alex reserved in the warranty deed to Bella a perpetual nonexclusive easement 50 feet in width along the entire western boundary of the South Tract (the “Easement”). The reservation stated that the easement was for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress from the State Highway to and from the 300-acre tract retained by Alex.
• After these conveyances, Alex retained only the 300-acre tract and the Easement.

In 2007, Alex and Carlos each executed separate leases with Oil Co. for the lease of their respective mineral interests. The leases allowed for pooling because it was believed that drilling on Alex’s land might drain Carlos’ land and vice-versa. In 2008, Oil Co. drilled a producing oil well on Alex’s property. No well has been drilled on the land leased from Carlos, and Carlos’ land has not been pooled with Alex’s property. To facilitate transporting the oil, Oil Co. wants to construct a pipeline either within the Easement from Alex’s property to the State Highway or across the North Tract to the County Road.

1. Is Oil Co. entitled to construct the proposed pipeline on either the Easement or the North Tract? Explain fully as to each.
2. If Oil Co. does not drill a well on the land leased from Carlos, what obligations, if any, does it have to Carlos arising from the production on Alex’s land? Explain fully.


The answer to question 2 is:

2. Oil Co. may be liable to Carlos arising from the production on Alex’s land under the implied covenant to protect against drainage.
Texas courts impose duties upon lessees to ensure that leased properties are properly and fairly developed, maintained, and administered. Absent express provisions to the contrary, Texas courts impose an implied covenant to protect against drainage. Accordingly, Oil Co., as the lessee of both tracts of land, has the duty to prevent drainage or waste despite the absence of a duty to produce in the primary term. To maintain the action, Carlos would need to show (i) substantial drainage, (ii) that a reasonably prudent operator would drill to protect against drainage, and (iii) damages measured by the yield of production absent waste.
Here, Oil Co.’s drilling on Alex’s land clearly results in substantial drainage from the adjacent tract, owned by Carlos. A reasonably prudent operator would have exercised the pooling clause of the lease to ensure that Carlos’s rights were protected. If Carlos and Alex’s tracts are pooled together, Carlos and Alex would each receive royalties in proportion to the size of their respective tracts.
Further, Carlos could argue that Oil Co. could have protected against drainage by drilling an offset well that would have produced a definite quantity of oil and that would have resulted in profit to Carlos. Because pooling the tracts together would be an easier and less-expensive alternative to drilling an offset well, Oil Co. should pool the tracts together and pay royalty payments to Carlos and Alex.



What the fuck? Where did they get "clearly results in drainage?" Nothing in the facts says that there is drainage; only that it was maybe sort-of possible.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:27 pm

Contracts essay questions about a bunch of hidden family bullshit? I hate you, Themis. Also, lolsy essays where I just can't recall easy shit. I hate this test.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:47 pm

Bikeflip wrote:Contracts essay questions about a bunch of hidden family bullshit? I hate you, Themis. Also, lolsy essays where I just can't recall easy shit. I hate this test.


Lesson learned: don't buy penthouses with people who want their names kept off the deed.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:48 pm

releasethehounds wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:Contracts essay questions about a bunch of hidden family bullshit? I hate you, Themis. Also, lolsy essays where I just can't recall easy shit. I hate this test.


Lesson learned: don't buy penthouses with people who want their names kept off the deed.



I just laughed at the question and closed it. No idea how to answer it. My brain is so fried right now. All I wanna do is watch baseball.
Last edited by Bikeflip on Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:53 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
releasethehounds wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:Contracts essay questions about a bunch of hidden family bullshit? I hate you, Themis. Also, lolsy essays where I just can't recall easy shit. I hate this test.


Lesson learned: don't buy penthouses with people who want their names kept off the deed.



I just laughed at the question and closed it. No idea how to answer it. My brain is so right now. All I wanna do is watch baseball.


I think I ended up spending too much time on a property angle, to be honest with you. I feel like a lot of hte contracts questions aren't actually testing contracts.

:[ I wish my team didn't suck this year.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:44 pm

Fuck you, Commercial Paper. Just fuck you.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:47 pm

kalvano wrote:Fuck you, Commercial Paper. Just fuck you.



What's givin' ya trouble, Texas breh?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:48 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
kalvano wrote:Fuck you, Commercial Paper. Just fuck you.



What's givin' ya trouble, Texas breh?


Everything. I don't understand it one goddamn bit, and every time I try and answer any questions, it's always wrong. It makes no fucking sense at all.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:56 pm

TheBeard wrote:Yo, WTF is up with this 55 page handout for PA CivPro? I've been avoiding this shit, but after two consecutive essays that were heavy on PA Civ Pro stuff, I realized there's no sense in avoiding it anymore.


PA Civ Pro can go die.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:04 pm

kalvano wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:
kalvano wrote:Fuck you, Commercial Paper. Just fuck you.



What's givin' ya trouble, Texas breh?


Everything. I don't understand it one goddamn bit, and every time I try and answer any questions, it's always wrong. It makes no fucking sense at all.


http://marissabracke.com/law-school-outlines I found her comm paper outline pretty helpful :) and pretty short.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:05 pm

In a moment of boredom I determined how many essays i've done. And it's in the neighborhood of 120, with around 40 left to do. can't no one tell me I didn't put practice work in.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby TheBeard » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:06 pm

locusdelicti wrote:
TheBeard wrote:Yo, WTF is up with this 55 page handout for PA CivPro? I've been avoiding this shit, but after two consecutive essays that were heavy on PA Civ Pro stuff, I realized there's no sense in avoiding it anymore.


PA Civ Pro can go die.


Indeed. To be honest, I'm probably going to use the Fed Rules as a default. I had a summary judgment question and could not remember PA's dumb ass standard, so I dropped the fed one. I'm sure that'll give me some points. A little points here and there can go a long way!




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests