.

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

releasethehounds wrote: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.


Shit! What bar are you taking?

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:18 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.



Bummer dude. Here's a set of questions I use to at least bullshit on those essays.

Was there a note or a draft?
Was the note or draft valid to be a negotiable instrument? (Proper words, unconditional etc)
Who is the holder?
Are they a good guy holder (and can get holder in due course status) or bad guy holder (say a thief or awful employee)?
Was the negotiable instrument transferred or negotiated?
If transferred or negotiated, is the new holder aware of any problems on the note? Should they have been aware of problems? In other words, can the new holder become a holder in due course? (Even from a bad guy holder?)
What happens if the maker or drawer ("debtor") doesn't wanna pay? What (personal) defenses may she assert against a holder? What (real) defenses may she assert against a holder in due course?
What happens if the maker or drawer wasn't the only person to sign the negotiable instrument? (say I sign promising to pay if you don't) Who is liable, and when are they liable?
What happens if a thief cashes a check? Who is liable under presentment warranties? Under transfer warranties? (Think about these questions as if you just had money stolen out of your bank account, you want every mother fucker who touched that check to reimburse you)?
What happens if there was no thief, but the holder was stupid and lost the check?

If you can answer those questions, and you can give various rules surrounding the questions, you're halfway there.

releasethehounds wrote:
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.



IIRC, UCC 3 & 4 changed here recently. Dunno how much those changes will be incorporated into the bar, but I think the changes were "minor" enough to not cause too much trouble. I only say this b/c the author went to lawl skool b/w 2003 & 2006.
Last edited by Bikeflip on Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:21 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 11:21 pm

TheBeard wrote:
releasethehounds wrote: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.


Shit! What bar are you taking?


Arizona. It's a UBE state, so no state specific essays. If by some weird moment of boredom you ever look at how many essays you've taken, it's probably in the ballpark of that. Actually it's probably more since most people have the state specific stuff too. I'm at around 77% finished with Ze Practice Essays.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby 09042014 » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:25 pm

Damn Secured Transactions is hard as fuck. I thought the lecture was simple, but the essays test every small exceptions there is.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:30 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Damn Secured Transactions is hard as fuck. I thought the lecture was simple, but the essays test every small exceptions there is.


http://sdrv.ms/13g1ODi

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:31 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
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.



Bummer dude. Here's a set of questions I use to at least bullshit on those essays.

Was there a note or a draft?
Was the note or draft valid to be a negotiable instrument? (Proper words, unconditional etc)
Who is the holder?
Are they a good guy holder (and can get holder in due course status) or bad guy holder (say a thief or awful employee)?
Was the negotiable instrument transferred or negotiated?
If transferred or negotiated, is the new holder aware of any problems on the note? Should they have been aware of problems? In other words, can the new holder become a holder in due course? (Even from a bad guy holder?)
What happens if the maker or drawer ("debtor") doesn't wanna pay? What (personal) defenses may she assert against a holder? What (real) defenses may she assert against a holder in due course?
What happens if the maker or drawer wasn't the only person to sign the negotiable instrument? (say I sign promising to pay if you don't) Who is liable, and when are they liable?
What happens if a thief cashes a check? Who is liable under presentment warranties? Under transfer warranties? (Think about these questions as if you just had money stolen out of your bank account, you want every mother fucker who touched that check to reimburse you)?
What happens if there was no thief, but the holder was stupid and lost the check?

If you can answer those questions, and you can give various rules surrounding the questions, you're halfway there.



Just...none of it makes any sense. Every time I think have the right rule, it's some other goddamn thing because of a forger or whatever. I think I just need to sketch out a flowchart of what happens when.

ragnarok545
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:29 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby ragnarok545 » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:38 pm

A neighbor, who lived next door to a homeowner, went into the homeowner's garage without permission and borrowed the homeowner's chain saw. The neighbor used the saw to clear broken branches from the trees on the neighbor's own property. After he had finished, the neighbor noticed several broken branches on the homeowner's trees that were in danger of falling on the homeowner's roof. While the neighbor was cutting the homeowner's branches, the saw broke.
In a suit for conversion by the homeowner against the neighbor, will the homeowner recover?
A. Yes, for the actual damage to the saw.
B. Yes, for the value of the saw before the neighbor borrowed it.
C. No, because when the saw broke the neighbor was using it to benefit the homeowner.
D. No, because the neighbor did not intend to keep the saw.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. A defendant is liable for conversion if he intentionally commits an act depriving the plaintiff of possession of her chattel or interfering with the plaintiff’s chattel in a manner so serious as to deprive the plaintiff of the use of the chattel. The plaintiff’s damages are the chattel’s full value at the time of the conversion. Here, the neighbor took the homeowner’s chain saw without permission. In the course of using the chain saw, the saw broke. As a result, the homeowner is entitled to recover the chain saw’s full value at the time the neighbor took it. Answer choice A is incorrect because it does not state the correct measure of damages in an action for conversion. Answer choice C is incorrect because the benefit to the homeowner does not negate the neighbor's intent to interfere with the chain saw, and therefore is not a defense. Answer choice D is incorrect because the neighbor need only intend to interfere with the homeowner's possession for there to be a conversion; the neighbor's intent to return the saw is irrelevant.


E. No, because the homeowner is a dunce for filing a conversion claim in the first place. The neighbor broke the saw, he didn't steal it or destroy it for good. Interference with Chattels, come on!

lionelhutz123
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby lionelhutz123 » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:47 pm

Just did MBE 14. I'm still fluctuating between as low as 60 and as high as 80. Got 150 on the full day practice.

Not really worried, since I'm barely paying attention at this point, but question - Is it me or are the later MBE mixed sets increasingly ridiculous? It's not even that they're harder, they're just more freaking random and often on topics that are never asked in other MBE sets. I got multiple Wills questions and a severely disproportionate number of questions where there was an explanation saying "None of the answer choices adequately answers the question, but answer X is the most correct." They also seemed to have more obtuse phrasing.

Anyone else notice this? Am I getting paranoid?

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:56 pm

lionelhutz123 wrote:Just did MBE 14. I'm still fluctuating between as low as 60 and as high as 80. Got 150 on the full day practice.

Not really worried, since I'm barely paying attention at this point, but question - Is it me or are the later MBE mixed sets increasingly ridiculous? It's not even that they're harder, they're just more freaking random and often on topics that are never asked in other MBE sets. I got multiple Wills questions and a severely disproportionate number of questions where there was an explanation saying "None of the answer choices adequately answers the question, but answer X is the most correct." They also seemed to have more obtuse phrasing.

Anyone else notice this? Am I getting paranoid?


You're not alone on that. It's been a topic of frequent discussion for a couple of weeks now.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:02 am

It's not helpful to determine a correct percentage when they only have 3 questions on something.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:26 am

The owner of Blackacre needed money. Blackacre was fairly worth $100,000, so the owner tried to borrow $60,000 from a lender on the security of Blackacre. The lender agreed, but only if the owner would convey Blackacre to the lender outright by warranty deed, with the lender agreeing orally to reconvey to the owner once the loan was paid according to its terms. The owner agreed, conveyed Blackacre to the lender by warranty deed, and the lender paid the owner $60,000 cash. The lender promptly and properly recorded the owner's deed. Now, the owner has defaulted on repayment with $55,000 still due on the loan. The owner is still in possession.

Which of the following best states the parties' rights in Blackacre?
A. The lender's oral agreement to reconvey is invalid under the Statute of Frauds, so the lender owns Blackacre outright.
B. The owner, having defaulted, has no further rights in Blackacre, so the lender may obtain summary eviction.
C. The attempted security arrangement is a creature unknown to the law, hence a nullity; the lender has only a personal right to $55,000 from the owner.
D. The lender may bring whatever foreclosure proceeding is appropriate under the laws of the jurisdiction.


thought i'd share. It obviously isn't the answer, but got a good laugh out of that.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby antonious13 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:04 am

I dunno if this helps anyone, but my stress level has been eased slightly. I frequent a facebook group some of my fellow graduates made for bar exam purposes, similar to this thread. One person posted this:

"Okay guys. In a fit of anxiety I just plunked down some big money for a subscription to http://www.baressays.com. They have a database of essays collected from people who have failed bar exam and gotten their essays back. The database contains scores from 55 to 80, from what I've seen so far. I've read a few from each score category for the Feb 2012 Real Property essay, and I noticed a few things.
The essays that score 50 just completely missed the boat. Like, completely. Like the boat was scheduled to leave on Friday and these people were ready to go a week later. One person talked about contracts... it was a landlord/tenant essay. There was a lease so I can see... no. Just no.
The people who scored 55 missed some major issues. For instance, there was an assignment of the lease in the fact pattern, and most of the 55s just flat out omitted it.
The essays scored at 60 were either sparse on their issue spotting or sparse in their use of the facts, but not both.
The essays that scored 65... well one in particular missed a whole slew of issues, but argued THE FUCK out of the facts lol. Missed some issues but used every single fact in the fact pattern.
And of course the essays that scored above 65 were gleaming examples of what happens when the American education system goes right.
This is a long wall of text but I just wanted to share in case another freaker outer here finds it helpful. I think, I *think* we need not worry."


This helped ease my stress when, paired with my simulated MBE and PT grade (estimated), I realized my essays don't have to be that great. Plus, I've fiddled with this site - http://one-timers.com/calculate-your-final-bar-exam-grade - a bit.

While it's good to be as prepared as possible... maybe we're freaking ourselves out a bit too much most days.

lionelhutz123
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby lionelhutz123 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:17 am

Just went 19/25 on an NY Q problem set.





Fuck yes.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:07 am

virginia bar examiners wrote:Mandatory Dress Code
Notice to All Applicants

The Board is aware that many law firms and other professional offices have "dress down" policies of varying descriptions. There is no "dress down" or "casual dress" policy at the Virginia Bar Exam.

Applicants who come to the Virginia Bar Exam are expected to dress in proper attire. For men, proper attire is coat and tie. For women, proper attire is traditional business attire.

Recognizing the high calibre of professionalism that has traditionally characterized the bar, the Board is confident that no further discussion of this topic will be necessary.



DEAR ARIZONA I LOVE YOU FOR NOT MAKING ME WEAR A SUIT TO TAKE THIS FUCKING TEST.


Huh. Well I'm feeling better about the essay exam themis gave. It was the July 2012 UBE MEE in its entirety.

http://www.law2.byu.edu/page/categories ... alyses.pdf

Gives some better insight into how it's graded.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby antonious13 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:18 am

releasethehounds wrote:
virginia bar examiners wrote:Mandatory Dress Code
Notice to All Applicants

The Board is aware that many law firms and other professional offices have "dress down" policies of varying descriptions. There is no "dress down" or "casual dress" policy at the Virginia Bar Exam.

Applicants who come to the Virginia Bar Exam are expected to dress in proper attire. For men, proper attire is coat and tie. For women, proper attire is traditional business attire.

Recognizing the high calibre of professionalism that has traditionally characterized the bar, the Board is confident that no further discussion of this topic will be necessary.



DEAR ARIZONA I LOVE YOU FOR NOT MAKING ME WEAR A SUIT TO TAKE THIS FUCKING TEST.


Huh. Well I'm feeling better about the essay exam themis gave. It was the July 2012 UBE MEE in its entirety.



Maybe Arizona doesn't want to be responsible for the deaths of thousands.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:20 am

I hate these broken up answer choices:

The defendant operates a residential rehabilitation center for emotionally disturbed and ungovernable children who have been committed to his custody by their parents or by juvenile authorities. The center's purpose is to modify the behavior of the children through a teaching program carried out in a family-like environment. Though the children are not permitted to leave the center without his permission, there are no bars or guards to prevent them from doing so. It has been held in the state where the center is located that persons having custody of children have the same duties and responsibilities that they would have if they were the parents of the children.
A 12-year-old child who had been in the defendant's custody for six months left the center without permission. The defendant became aware of the child's absence almost immediately, but made no attempt to locate him or secure his return, though reports reached him that the child had been seen in the vicinity. Thirty-six hours after the child left the center, the child committed a brutal assault upon the plaintiff, a five-year-old child, causing the plaintiff to suffer extensive permanent injury.
If an action is brought against the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff to recover damages for the plaintiff's injuries, will the plaintiff prevail?
A. No, because parents are not personally liable for their child's intentional torts.
B. Yes, if the 12-year-old child was old enough to be liable for battery.
C. Yes, because the 12-year-old child was in the defendant's custody.
D. No, unless the defendant knew or had reason to know that the 12-year-old child had a propensity to attack younger children.
Incorrect: Answer choice D is correct. Parents are liable for their own negligence with respect to their minor child’s conduct. A parent is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent a minor child from intentionally or negligently harming a third party, provided the parent has the ability to control the child and knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. In this case, the defendant was the legal guardian of the 12-year-old child and acted as the child's parent. If the defendant knew or had reason to know that the child had a propensity to attack younger children, then the defendant will be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries because he failed to take reasonable measures to ensure that the child was supervised, did not ensure that the child was unable to leave the facility without authorization, and failed to secure his return. Answer choice A is incorrect because it is an incorrect statement of law; parents can be liable for the intentional torts of their children. Answer choice B is incorrect because it is an incorrect statement of law; the defendant's liability does not depend on whether the child is old enough to be liable. Answer choice C is incorrect because it is incomplete. Although the 12-year-old child was in the defendant's custody, in order for the plaintiff to recover, the defendant must have known or had reason to know that the child had tendencies to attack others.
Last edited by Bikeflip on Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:20 am

As others have expressed, just want to fast forward to the bar so I can be done with it. I'm not actually done reviewing at all, but this shit has gone on long enough.

JD_done
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 9:04 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby JD_done » Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:39 am

SPOILER MBE SET 11 (Contracts)

(Question ID#3181)
A manufacturer of plywood ordered an adhesive from a commercial seller. The seller shipped the adhesive with an invoice. Printed on the invoice was a notice that limited the manufacturer’s right to bring any action arising from the sale to one year after the accrual of the cause of action. The manufacturer paid the invoice without objection. The statutory period for bringing a cause of action based on sale of goods contracts is four years. The manufacturer filed a suit that arose from the contract two years after the cause of action accrued.

Can the seller successfully challenge the suit as time barred?
A. Yes, because the manufacturer failed to object to the invoice notice.
B. Yes, because merchants are free to set whatever limitations period for bringing an action that arises from a sale of goods.
C. No, because the one-year limitation term is not part of the contract.
D. No, because the statutory limitations period cannot be shortened.
Incorrect: Answer choice A is correct. As between merchants, an additional term contained in the acceptance is automatically included in the contract unless the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer, the offeror has already objected to the additional terms or does so within a reasonable time, or the term materially alters the original contract. A seller can accept a buyer’s offer by shipping the goods, which the commercial seller did in this case. Since the manufacturer did not object to the notice regarding the shortened limitations period and since a term that limits remedies, such as this notice, typically does not constitute a material alteration of a contract, the seller is likely to be able to successfully raise the one-year limitations period contained in the notice as a defense to the manufacturer’s lawsuit. Answer choice B is incorrect because, while any parties to a sale of goods, not just merchants, can shorten the limitations period in which a lawsuit can be brought, there is a one-year floor below which the period cannot be reduced. In addition, parties to a sale of goods cannot extend the limitations period beyond four years. Answer choice C is incorrect because, as noted with respect to answer choice A, the one-year limitation term became part of the contract upon the failure of the manufacturer to object to this term within a reasonable time. Answer choice D is incorrect because, as noted with respect to answer choice B, the statutory limitations period can be shortened by the parties to as little as one year.


WHAT???? Shortening the statute of limitations is NOT a material alteration??? You're killin me themis

User avatar
JuTMSY4
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:40 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby JuTMSY4 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:46 am

JD_done wrote: WHAT???? Shortening the statute of limitations is NOT a material alteration??? You're killin me themis


Parties, subject, price, quantity

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:23 am

...Went from 62% of essay PQs done to 80% of essay PQs done in 2 days. Apparently that's about 28 essays. GROSS. But it doesn't feel like it's that many. Which I suppose is good.

That's it. Killing the MEE. Killing the MEE with fire.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby elysiansmiles » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:04 am

Why do all these people want their photographed Christmas cards to be delivered to them by December 15th? If they're only getting the cards then, they'll never get them out on time. Between that and the various illnesses they/their poodles suffer, they're really not giving themselves much leeway for holiday greetings.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Talar » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:12 am

What annoys me more is that all of these attorneys in the evidence hypos are objecting for all of the wrong reasons!

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:18 am

SPOLIER - The Strangest MBE I have yet to encouter:

On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately-operated university: "The faculty, seeking to encourage creative writing, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Poetry Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1." The National Competition is conducted by an outside agency, unconnected with any university. A student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his poetry submission, which he started in October, a winner. The student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Poetry Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in the student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefore: "The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Poetry Competition must be withdrawn." The student's poetry submission was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that the student had won the National Poetry Competition and the prize. The faculty refused to pay anything.

The promise of the faculty on November 1 was
A. enforceable on principles of promissory estoppel.
B. enforceable by the student's personal representative even if the student had been killed in an accident on April 16.
C. not enforceable on policy grounds because it produced a noncommercial agreement between a student and his teachers, analogous to intramural family agreement and informal social commitments.
D. not enforceable, because the student, after entering the National Competition in October, was already under a duty to perform to the best of his ability.


Umm...B was the correct answer according to Themis. Where did they even get this from? Why did the student's death somehow get involved in this? What personal representative? How is this NOT a binding unilateral contract (I get the note was never delivered to the dean, but the student reasonably gave notice that he started performance)?

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:26 am

BarbellDreams wrote:SPOLIER - The Strangest MBE I have yet to encouter:

On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately-operated university: "The faculty, seeking to encourage creative writing, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Poetry Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1." The National Competition is conducted by an outside agency, unconnected with any university. A student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his poetry submission, which he started in October, a winner. The student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Poetry Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in the student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefore: "The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Poetry Competition must be withdrawn." The student's poetry submission was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that the student had won the National Poetry Competition and the prize. The faculty refused to pay anything.

The promise of the faculty on November 1 was
A. enforceable on principles of promissory estoppel.
B. enforceable by the student's personal representative even if the student had been killed in an accident on April 16.
C. not enforceable on policy grounds because it produced a noncommercial agreement between a student and his teachers, analogous to intramural family agreement and informal social commitments.
D. not enforceable, because the student, after entering the National Competition in October, was already under a duty to perform to the best of his ability.


Umm...B was the correct answer according to Themis. Where did they even get this from? Why did the student's death somehow get involved in this? What personal representative? How is this NOT a binding unilateral contract (I get the note was never delivered to the dean, but the student reasonably gave notice that he started performance)?



Haaaa, I feel like I bitched here about this question being really really random when I saw it last week. So i'm right there with you. My double take must have been hilarious: "Oh how fucking silly, of course that isn't the answ---.....HOW IS THAT THE ANSWER?!"

User avatar
JuTMSY4
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:40 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby JuTMSY4 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:40 am

releasethehounds wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:SPOLIER - The Strangest MBE I have yet to encouter:

On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately-operated university: "The faculty, seeking to encourage creative writing, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Poetry Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1." The National Competition is conducted by an outside agency, unconnected with any university. A student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his poetry submission, which he started in October, a winner. The student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Poetry Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in the student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefore: "The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Poetry Competition must be withdrawn." The student's poetry submission was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that the student had won the National Poetry Competition and the prize. The faculty refused to pay anything.

The promise of the faculty on November 1 was
A. enforceable on principles of promissory estoppel.
B. enforceable by the student's personal representative even if the student had been killed in an accident on April 16.
C. not enforceable on policy grounds because it produced a noncommercial agreement between a student and his teachers, analogous to intramural family agreement and informal social commitments.
D. not enforceable, because the student, after entering the National Competition in October, was already under a duty to perform to the best of his ability.


Umm...B was the correct answer according to Themis. Where did they even get this from? Why did the student's death somehow get involved in this? What personal representative? How is this NOT a binding unilateral contract (I get the note was never delivered to the dean, but the student reasonably gave notice that he started performance)?



Haaaa, I feel like I bitched here about this question being really really random when I saw it last week. So i'm right there with you. My double take must have been hilarious: "Oh how fucking silly, of course that isn't the answ---.....HOW IS THAT THE ANSWER?!"


I think I ran into that the other day and thought the same thing. There was an explanation on why A wasn't it - but I forget why.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wwwcol and 2 guests