July 2015 California Bar Exam

Charger
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:15 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Charger » Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:26 pm

robinhoodOO wrote: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!

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:31 pm

Charger wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote: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

User avatar
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:13 pm

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 :oops:

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:23 pm

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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 :oops:


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

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

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:04 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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 :oops:


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.

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:20 pm

redblueyellow wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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 :oops:


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

User avatar
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:16 am

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
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:27 am

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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).

User avatar
crumpetsandtea
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby crumpetsandtea » Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:32 am

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....

User avatar
paulshortys10
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby paulshortys10 » Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:58 am

robinhoodOO wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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 :oops:


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?

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:27 am

paulshortys10 wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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 :oops:


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.

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7970
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Pleasye » Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:28 pm

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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.

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Thu Jul 16, 2015 1:27 pm

Pleasye wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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.

User avatar
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:42 pm

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?

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15515
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:38 pm

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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.

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:45 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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.

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:53 pm

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?

User avatar
Redamon1
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Redamon1 » Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:05 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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).

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:09 pm

BuenAbogado wrote: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...

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:19 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote: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.

User avatar
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:03 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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. :oops:

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:24 pm

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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. :oops:



Yo BARRK should be MS. BARRK.

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

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:36 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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. :oops:



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
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:01 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby gaagoots » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:53 am

robinhoodOO wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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. :oops:



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.

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:59 am

gaagoots wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: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. :oops:



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




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests