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).