July 2015 California Bar Exam Forum

[Charger]

Yes...Let the hate flow through you...

No, but seriously: I know what your point is. The Bar probably does too...They just don't give a fuck. Don't shoot the messenger--haha.

Haha, yeah, I'll admit, I've been a bit unbalanced lately. Bar prep + lack of a social life + moving = ridiculous amounts of stress. Didn't mean to shoot the messenger!

[robinhoodOO]

Yes...Let the hate flow through you...

No, but seriously: I know what your point is. The Bar probably does too...They just don't give a fuck. Don't shoot the messenger--haha.

Haha, yeah, I'll admit, I've been a bit unbalanced lately. Bar prep + lack of a social life + moving = ridiculous amounts of stress. Didn't mean to shoot the messenger!

No worries, just giving you a hard time

Just praying I don't have any PC issues...If I do, bring on the hand cramps haha

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

Of the CA specific subjects, which are tested the least? I know CA Civ Pro is virtually never tested. I need to start prioritizing my time

[robinhoodOO]

Of the CA specific subjects, which are tested the least? I know CA Civ Pro is virtually never tested. I need to start prioritizing my time

Historically: PR > CP > Corps > Wills > Trusts > CA Evidence > Agency & Partnership > CA CivPro

2015 Predictions: CP/Wills Crossover, PR and Biz Associations

[redblueyellow]

Of the CA specific subjects, which are tested the least? I know CA Civ Pro is virtually never tested. I need to start prioritizing my time

Historically: PR > CP > Corps > Wills > Trusts > CA Evidence > Agency & Partnership > CA CivPro

2015 Predictions: CP/Wills Crossover, PR and Biz Associations

If you're wrong, I'm going to have a very bad time.

[robinhoodOO]

Of the CA specific subjects, which are tested the least? I know CA Civ Pro is virtually never tested. I need to start prioritizing my time

Historically: PR > CP > Corps > Wills > Trusts > CA Evidence > Agency & Partnership > CA CivPro

2015 Predictions: CP/Wills Crossover, PR and Biz Associations

If you're wrong, I'm going to have a very bad time.

If you french fry when you're supposed to pizza, you're gonna have a bad time...

No, but seriously: Those are the 3 CA subject matters guessed by the Bar Guru guy, and the historical stuff is based entirely on historical Essay presence/break down. haha

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

What are "business associations"? Is that corps?

Also, two unrelated questions:
1. For contract remedies, I'm a little confused as to whether "reliance damages" fall under the umbrella of consequential damages, or whether they're completely separate theories. Barbri seems to be confused about this as well. For the July 08 remedies question, they characterize one of the damages as consequential in the model answer, but as reliance damages in the video explanation. Thoughts?

2. I'm wondering how you guys are presenting the issue portion when your IRAC essays. Barbri's model answers just have a heading in bolded font (e.g. "Anticipatory Repudiation") to indicate the issue. However, someone in this forum (can't remember his name anymore) suggested actually writing out a question-style heading to present your issue (e.g. "Did Bob commit an anticipatory repudiation when he called Sally about the house burning down?"). Any opinions on which one is better? I think Barbri's method wastes less time and allows me to jump into the rule>analysis>conclusion. However, the latter method really drives home the issue if your reader is being hypersensitive to how well you're issue-spotting.

[redblueyellow]

What are "business associations"? Is that corps?

Also, two unrelated questions:
1. For contract remedies, I'm a little confused as to whether "reliance damages" fall under the umbrella of consequential damages, or whether they're completely separate theories. Barbri seems to be confused about this as well. For the July 08 remedies question, they characterize one of the damages as consequential in the model answer, but as reliance damages in the video explanation. Thoughts?

2. I'm wondering how you guys are presenting the issue portion when your IRAC essays. Barbri's model answers just have a heading in bolded font (e.g. "Anticipatory Repudiation") to indicate the issue. However, someone in this forum (can't remember his name anymore) suggested actually writing out a question-style heading to present your issue (e.g. "Did Bob commit an anticipatory repudiation when he called Sally about the house burning down?"). Any opinions on which one is better? I think Barbri's method wastes less time and allows me to jump into the rule>analysis>conclusion. However, the latter method really drives home the issue if your reader is being hypersensitive to how well you're issue-spotting.

1. Reliance damages are its own thing, I believe. I wouldn't put it under consequential damages. I'd put consequential damages under expectation damages (expectation damages would include consequential damages + incidental damages). At least, that's how my outlines reflect the situation.

2. I'd do it the latter way, personally. Alternatively, I guess your bold heading itself could be the barbri method and then the sentence immediately under it could be an issue statement. Then the next paragraph could be the rule statement (how'd you'd answer normally).

[crumpetsandtea]

RE: Issue statements, the first sentence of my answer is the issue statement. Like so:

1. Anticipatory repudiation

The issue here is whether Bob's call to Sally was evidence of anticipatory repudiation, allowing Sally to bring suit before the date of performance has passed.

Anticipatory repudiation occurs when a party to a contract unambiguously....

[paulshortys10]

Of the CA specific subjects, which are tested the least? I know CA Civ Pro is virtually never tested. I need to start prioritizing my time

Historically: PR > CP > Corps > Wills > Trusts > CA Evidence > Agency & Partnership > CA CivPro

2015 Predictions: CP/Wills Crossover, PR and Biz Associations

If you're wrong, I'm going to have a very bad time.

If you french fry when you're supposed to pizza, you're gonna have a bad time...

No, but seriously: Those are the 3 CA subject matters guessed by the Bar Guru guy, and the historical stuff is based entirely on historical Essay presence/break down. haha

Is the bar guru guy the same as the barsecrets guy? what were the 3 other subjects btw?

[robinhoodOO]

Of the CA specific subjects, which are tested the least? I know CA Civ Pro is virtually never tested. I need to start prioritizing my time

Historically: PR > CP > Corps > Wills > Trusts > CA Evidence > Agency & Partnership > CA CivPro

2015 Predictions: CP/Wills Crossover, PR and Biz Associations

If you're wrong, I'm going to have a very bad time.

If you french fry when you're supposed to pizza, you're gonna have a bad time...

No, but seriously: Those are the 3 CA subject matters guessed by the Bar Guru guy, and the historical stuff is based entirely on historical Essay presence/break down. haha

Is the bar guru guy the same as the barsecrets guy? what were the 3 other subjects btw?

Err; maybe. Don't remember offhand, but I have used both as resources. Other 3 were CrimLaw & Pro Crossover (thinking murder and either insanity or 6th/5th Amendment stuff); ConLaw (thinking 1st Amendment or Executive powers); and Evidence (maybe some Fed CA), and said CivPro could be the wildcard (w/issue/claim preclusion.

[Pleasye]

What are "business associations"? Is that corps?

Also, two unrelated questions:
1. For contract remedies, I'm a little confused as to whether "reliance damages" fall under the umbrella of consequential damages, or whether they're completely separate theories. Barbri seems to be confused about this as well. For the July 08 remedies question, they characterize one of the damages as consequential in the model answer, but as reliance damages in the video explanation. Thoughts?

2. I'm wondering how you guys are presenting the issue portion when your IRAC essays. Barbri's model answers just have a heading in bolded font (e.g. "Anticipatory Repudiation") to indicate the issue. However, someone in this forum (can't remember his name anymore) suggested actually writing out a question-style heading to present your issue (e.g. "Did Bob commit an anticipatory repudiation when he called Sally about the house burning down?"). Any opinions on which one is better? I think Barbri's method wastes less time and allows me to jump into the rule>analysis>conclusion. However, the latter method really drives home the issue if your reader is being hypersensitive to how well you're issue-spotting.

Business associations = agency/partnership/corps

1. Reliance damages are a separate issue

2. I do a bold heading and then start the rule right underneath. Themis specifically tells us not to waste time with "the issue here is..." statements and to use the heading as the issue statement instead. I like it because it's simple and efficient.

[robinhoodOO]

What are "business associations"? Is that corps?

Also, two unrelated questions:
1. For contract remedies, I'm a little confused as to whether "reliance damages" fall under the umbrella of consequential damages, or whether they're completely separate theories. Barbri seems to be confused about this as well. For the July 08 remedies question, they characterize one of the damages as consequential in the model answer, but as reliance damages in the video explanation. Thoughts?

2. I'm wondering how you guys are presenting the issue portion when your IRAC essays. Barbri's model answers just have a heading in bolded font (e.g. "Anticipatory Repudiation") to indicate the issue. However, someone in this forum (can't remember his name anymore) suggested actually writing out a question-style heading to present your issue (e.g. "Did Bob commit an anticipatory repudiation when he called Sally about the house burning down?"). Any opinions on which one is better? I think Barbri's method wastes less time and allows me to jump into the rule>analysis>conclusion. However, the latter method really drives home the issue if your reader is being hypersensitive to how well you're issue-spotting.

2. I do a bold heading and then start the rule right underneath. Themis specifically tells us not to waste time with "the issue here is..." statements and to use the heading as the issue statement instead. I like it because it's simple and efficient.

And it sounds condescending. The examiners know what the fucking issue is...You're just pointing out you know it.

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

Anyone wanna discuss a quick essay with me? This is Barbri's Question 3 for their Agency and Partnership essays (MEE Feb 09).

If you don't have it, the gist of the question is this:
A bakery hires a taste tester as a consultant, whose job is basically to go around to other bakeries, try their cakes, and buy up recipes that might be profitable for the bakery. The question goes on to describe several contracts that the taste tester entered into and you're supposed to explain whether bakery would be bound to those contracts under an agency theory through actual or apparent authority.

The agency stuff is pretty straightforward, but I got completely thrown off because I felt that a strong argument could be made that the taste tester was an independent contractor. Thus, I had to launch into the whole actual/apparent authority discussion by prefacing it with "assuming taste tester is indeed an agent..." Am I correct that an independent contractor can't generally bind the hiring party to contract liability?

The model answer doesn't even address whether he's an agent or not; it just takes it for granted. Did I miss something here?

[Tiago Splitter]

Anyone wanna discuss a quick essay with me? This is Barbri's Question 3 for their Agency and Partnership essays (MEE Feb 09).

If you don't have it, the gist of the question is this:
A bakery hires a taste tester as a consultant, whose job is basically to go around to other bakeries, try their cakes, and buy up recipes that might be profitable for the bakery. The question goes on to describe several contracts that the taste tester entered into and you're supposed to explain whether bakery would be bound to those contracts under an agency theory through actual or apparent authority.

The agency stuff is pretty straightforward, but I got completely thrown off because I felt that a strong argument could be made that the taste tester was an independent contractor. Thus, I had to launch into the whole actual/apparent authority discussion by prefacing it with "assuming taste tester is indeed an agent..." Am I correct that an independent contractor can't generally bind the hiring party to contract liability?

The model answer doesn't even address whether he's an agent or not; it just takes it for granted. Did I miss something here?

An independent contractor can be an agent. The Q says they gave him actual authority and announced to the world that he was their consultant which created some apparent authority which is all that matters.

[robinhoodOO]

Anyone wanna discuss a quick essay with me? This is Barbri's Question 3 for their Agency and Partnership essays (MEE Feb 09).

If you don't have it, the gist of the question is this:
A bakery hires a taste tester as a consultant, whose job is basically to go around to other bakeries, try their cakes, and buy up recipes that might be profitable for the bakery. The question goes on to describe several contracts that the taste tester entered into and you're supposed to explain whether bakery would be bound to those contracts under an agency theory through actual or apparent authority.

The agency stuff is pretty straightforward, but I got completely thrown off because I felt that a strong argument could be made that the taste tester was an independent contractor. Thus, I had to launch into the whole actual/apparent authority discussion by prefacing it with "assuming taste tester is indeed an agent..." Am I correct that an independent contractor can't generally bind the hiring party to contract liability?

The model answer doesn't even address whether he's an agent or not; it just takes it for granted. Did I miss something here?

An independent contractor can be an agent. The Q says they gave him actual authority and announced to the world that he was their consultant which created some apparent authority which is all that matters.

Seconded.

[BuenAbogado]

It seems that accomplice liability is a general intent crime per all outlines.

Specific intent crimes seem to need the intent that the actual crime occur.

How is accomplice liability a general intent crime if you need to aid, encourage, or counsel with the intent that the crime actually be carried out?

[Redamon1]

Anyone wanna discuss a quick essay with me? This is Barbri's Question 3 for their Agency and Partnership essays (MEE Feb 09).

If you don't have it, the gist of the question is this:
A bakery hires a taste tester as a consultant, whose job is basically to go around to other bakeries, try their cakes, and buy up recipes that might be profitable for the bakery. The question goes on to describe several contracts that the taste tester entered into and you're supposed to explain whether bakery would be bound to those contracts under an agency theory through actual or apparent authority.

The agency stuff is pretty straightforward, but I got completely thrown off because I felt that a strong argument could be made that the taste tester was an independent contractor. Thus, I had to launch into the whole actual/apparent authority discussion by prefacing it with "assuming taste tester is indeed an agent..." Am I correct that an independent contractor can't generally bind the hiring party to contract liability?

The model answer doesn't even address whether he's an agent or not; it just takes it for granted. Did I miss something here?

An independent contractor can be an agent. The Q says they gave him actual authority and announced to the world that he was their consultant which created some apparent authority which is all that matters.

Seconded.

Also, you may be thinking about how important it is to determine Contractor v. Employee for purposes of TORT liability. There, we use respondeat superior theory to assess whether the IC was an agent of the company. But remember that in contract cases, an independent contractor can easily have actual authority if the company asks the IC to go off and do something, particularly if there is a contract between the company and the IC that tells the IC what to do (as there is in Essay 3).

[robinhoodOO]

It seems that accomplice liability is a general intent crime per all outlines.

Specific intent crimes seem to need the intent that the actual crime occur.

How is accomplice liability a general intent crime if you need to aid, encourage, or counsel with the intent that the crime actually be carried out?

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying, but it sounds like you're misunderstanding accomplice liability. Accomplice liability isn't a crime in and of itself, it's just a form of vicarious liability to hold another person liable for the crime committed by another.

Liability may be found where there is (1) an act (i.e. encouragement, aiding, or counseling) + (2) intent for the crime to be committed. If it's easier for you to remember, call it specific intent, just be careful not to consider it an independent crime...

[BuenAbogado]

It seems that accomplice liability is a general intent crime per all outlines.

Specific intent crimes seem to need the intent that the actual crime occur.

How is accomplice liability a general intent crime if you need to aid, encourage, or counsel with the intent that the crime actually be carried out?

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying, but it sounds like you're misunderstanding accomplice liability. Accomplice liability isn't a crime in and of itself, it's just a form of vicarious liability to hold another person liable for the crime committed by another.

Liability may be found where there is (1) an act (i.e. encouragement, aiding, or counseling) + (2) intent for the crime to be committed. If it's easier for you to remember, call it specific intent, just be careful not to consider it an independent crime...

Cuz you're everrrryyyyywherrrre to meeeeee, and when I logggg innnn you're all I seeeeeee

If you're taking the test at Century Plaza, I'll buy you a beer in between MBE sessions, since that ish is easy.

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

Anyone wanna discuss a quick essay with me? This is Barbri's Question 3 for their Agency and Partnership essays (MEE Feb 09).

If you don't have it, the gist of the question is this:
A bakery hires a taste tester as a consultant, whose job is basically to go around to other bakeries, try their cakes, and buy up recipes that might be profitable for the bakery. The question goes on to describe several contracts that the taste tester entered into and you're supposed to explain whether bakery would be bound to those contracts under an agency theory through actual or apparent authority.

The agency stuff is pretty straightforward, but I got completely thrown off because I felt that a strong argument could be made that the taste tester was an independent contractor. Thus, I had to launch into the whole actual/apparent authority discussion by prefacing it with "assuming taste tester is indeed an agent..." Am I correct that an independent contractor can't generally bind the hiring party to contract liability?

The model answer doesn't even address whether he's an agent or not; it just takes it for granted. Did I miss something here?

An independent contractor can be an agent. The Q says they gave him actual authority and announced to the world that he was their consultant which created some apparent authority which is all that matters.

Seconded.

Thanks guys. I feel stoopid.

[BuenAbogado]

Anyone wanna discuss a quick essay with me? This is Barbri's Question 3 for their Agency and Partnership essays (MEE Feb 09).

If you don't have it, the gist of the question is this:
A bakery hires a taste tester as a consultant, whose job is basically to go around to other bakeries, try their cakes, and buy up recipes that might be profitable for the bakery. The question goes on to describe several contracts that the taste tester entered into and you're supposed to explain whether bakery would be bound to those contracts under an agency theory through actual or apparent authority.

The agency stuff is pretty straightforward, but I got completely thrown off because I felt that a strong argument could be made that the taste tester was an independent contractor. Thus, I had to launch into the whole actual/apparent authority discussion by prefacing it with "assuming taste tester is indeed an agent..." Am I correct that an independent contractor can't generally bind the hiring party to contract liability?

The model answer doesn't even address whether he's an agent or not; it just takes it for granted. Did I miss something here?

An independent contractor can be an agent. The Q says they gave him actual authority and announced to the world that he was their consultant which created some apparent authority which is all that matters.

Seconded.

Thanks guys. I feel stoopid.

Yo BARRK should be MS. BARRK.

Mayhem and Sodomy are inherently dangerous crimes. Look it up I'm not kidding.

[robinhoodOO]

Anyone wanna discuss a quick essay with me? This is Barbri's Question 3 for their Agency and Partnership essays (MEE Feb 09).

If you don't have it, the gist of the question is this:
A bakery hires a taste tester as a consultant, whose job is basically to go around to other bakeries, try their cakes, and buy up recipes that might be profitable for the bakery. The question goes on to describe several contracts that the taste tester entered into and you're supposed to explain whether bakery would be bound to those contracts under an agency theory through actual or apparent authority.

The agency stuff is pretty straightforward, but I got completely thrown off because I felt that a strong argument could be made that the taste tester was an independent contractor. Thus, I had to launch into the whole actual/apparent authority discussion by prefacing it with "assuming taste tester is indeed an agent..." Am I correct that an independent contractor can't generally bind the hiring party to contract liability?

The model answer doesn't even address whether he's an agent or not; it just takes it for granted. Did I miss something here?

An independent contractor can be an agent. The Q says they gave him actual authority and announced to the world that he was their consultant which created some apparent authority which is all that matters.

Seconded.

Thanks guys. I feel stoopid.

Yo BARRK should be MS. BARRK.

Mayhem and Sodomy are inherently dangerous crimes. Look it up I'm not kidding.

So, death by anal sex results in felony murder? Daayuum...

[gaagoots]

Anyone wanna discuss a quick essay with me? This is Barbri's Question 3 for their Agency and Partnership essays (MEE Feb 09).

If you don't have it, the gist of the question is this:
A bakery hires a taste tester as a consultant, whose job is basically to go around to other bakeries, try their cakes, and buy up recipes that might be profitable for the bakery. The question goes on to describe several contracts that the taste tester entered into and you're supposed to explain whether bakery would be bound to those contracts under an agency theory through actual or apparent authority.

The agency stuff is pretty straightforward, but I got completely thrown off because I felt that a strong argument could be made that the taste tester was an independent contractor. Thus, I had to launch into the whole actual/apparent authority discussion by prefacing it with "assuming taste tester is indeed an agent..." Am I correct that an independent contractor can't generally bind the hiring party to contract liability?

The model answer doesn't even address whether he's an agent or not; it just takes it for granted. Did I miss something here?

An independent contractor can be an agent. The Q says they gave him actual authority and announced to the world that he was their consultant which created some apparent authority which is all that matters.

Seconded.

Thanks guys. I feel stoopid.

Yo BARRK should be MS. BARRK.

Mayhem and Sodomy are inherently dangerous crimes. Look it up I'm not kidding.

So, death by anal sex results in felony murder? Daayuum...

I know I'm fricken losing my mind when I laughed long and hard at this. You guys amuse me.

[BuenAbogado]

Anyone wanna discuss a quick essay with me? This is Barbri's Question 3 for their Agency and Partnership essays (MEE Feb 09).

If you don't have it, the gist of the question is this:
A bakery hires a taste tester as a consultant, whose job is basically to go around to other bakeries, try their cakes, and buy up recipes that might be profitable for the bakery. The question goes on to describe several contracts that the taste tester entered into and you're supposed to explain whether bakery would be bound to those contracts under an agency theory through actual or apparent authority.

The agency stuff is pretty straightforward, but I got completely thrown off because I felt that a strong argument could be made that the taste tester was an independent contractor. Thus, I had to launch into the whole actual/apparent authority discussion by prefacing it with "assuming taste tester is indeed an agent..." Am I correct that an independent contractor can't generally bind the hiring party to contract liability?

The model answer doesn't even address whether he's an agent or not; it just takes it for granted. Did I miss something here?

An independent contractor can be an agent. The Q says they gave him actual authority and announced to the world that he was their consultant which created some apparent authority which is all that matters.

Seconded.

Thanks guys. I feel stoopid.

Yo BARRK should be MS. BARRK.

Mayhem and Sodomy are inherently dangerous crimes. Look it up I'm not kidding.

So, death by anal sex results in felony murder? Daayuum...

I know I'm fricken losing my mind when I laughed long and hard at this. You guys amuse me.

a/s/l