Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

User avatar
sd5289
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby sd5289 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:52 pm

I went ahead and did the afternoon half of the NY essay exam (2 essays plus the MPT) in test style mode (holy shit it's already 7pm??). For anyone who did the entire NY essay exam or at least the afternoon half:

[+] Spoiler
(3)(b) The issue is whether T Town should obtain summary judgment because T Town did not receive prior notice of the incident.

A tort action against a municipality is subject to a limitation period of one year plus 90 days. In addition to the time period in which the action must be brought, there are two conditions precedent to bringing such an action: (i) the filing of a notice of claim with the municipality within 90 days of accrual; and (ii) the expiration of at least 30 days after filing the notice of claim without payment. Under these facts, T Town is a municipal defendant. The incident between Ed and Nora occurred on May 5, 2010. T Town did not receive notice of the incident until it was served with Nora’s summons and complaint five months after the incident, on October 5, 2010. Here, Nora failed to file a notice of the claim within 90 days after the incident on May 5, 2010. Because there are no triable issues of fact, the court should grant T Town’s motion for summary judgment on this issue.

WHOOPS. During the entire fact pattern I treated "T Town" as a business, much like "C-Town" here in the city, so I completely missed this. I thought it was asking about the SOL for intentional torts, and I was like, um yeah, it's been met, thanks.


Lesson learned, you see the word "town," "city," whatever that's a municipality, not a business like C-Town, Circuit City, etc.

Also, I seriously felt super uncertain about my Wills/Trusts essay because it's been a few days since I've looked at that stuff. I certainly missed some things that are in the model answer, but I seemed to latch on to the key issues being tested and threw out some key words that were actually relevant (a/k/a "ademption" and whatnot). For everyone having difficulty on essays, I suggest throwing yourself into test mode and just doing it. I'd rather deal with this uncertainty during practice and get used to it then have it happen during the exam and freaking out. Plus, you'll likely surprise yourself with what you can figure out/remember.

User avatar
zot1
Posts: 3126
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:20 pm

Lubberlubber wrote:
kjartan wrote:
zot1 wrote:Got creamed because my grader is very strict: if my rule doesn't have everything, the rest of my essay is considered garbage.

This is why I have essay anxiety, you guys.

Actually, this is why Themis's essay grading is a complete joke.


Yea does anyone actually what their scores translate to on the actual bar? Even roughly? I asked but they (surprise) gave an extremely unsatisfactory answer.


To be fair, someone suggested a while back that I asked for another grader, but I chose not to.

I have been told that usually bar exam graders give you points for analysis even if the rule isn't quite right. But my grader does not do that, so I never know if what I've done would have, in theory, been a passing essay. Per her scores, I wouldn't pass the essay section.

eloise16
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:48 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby eloise16 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:39 pm

zot1 wrote:
Lubberlubber wrote:
kjartan wrote:
zot1 wrote:Got creamed because my grader is very strict: if my rule doesn't have everything, the rest of my essay is considered garbage.

This is why I have essay anxiety, you guys.

Actually, this is why Themis's essay grading is a complete joke.


Yea does anyone actually what their scores translate to on the actual bar? Even roughly? I asked but they (surprise) gave an extremely unsatisfactory answer.


To be fair, someone suggested a while back that I asked for another grader, but I chose not to.

I have been told that usually bar exam graders give you points for analysis even if the rule isn't quite right. But my grader does not do that, so I never know if what I've done would have, in theory, been a passing essay. Per her scores, I wouldn't pass the essay section.


I feel so lucky! I have a really great grader who also sends us emails without provocation that encourage us and give us general group feedback (in addition to quite detailed individual feedback). She has also been super responsive (and NICE) in all of the emails I've sent her with questions even when the questions were general "i'm freaking out" questions that she couldn't really answer with solid legal advice. But yeah, she was great and I feel like my scores definitely reflected my work product. My bad scores were for bad essays and my good scores were the ones I was proud of. I wish everyone had as good an experience as I did :(

Confused7
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Confused7 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:55 pm

I just finished the last mixed MBE set and I think my brain is fried from overthinking shit. But can someone explain why this isn't barred by the Statute of Frauds? I can sort of see why this isn't a transfer of "interest in real property" per se, but something isn't clicking for me.

[+] Spoiler
A niece had worked in her aunt's bookstore for many years. The bookstore business, which was housed in a building that the aunt leased, was independently appraised at $200,000. The aunt decided to retire. She wrote to the niece, expressing her affection for the niece and offering to sell her the bookstore business for $125,000 if the landlord would agree to a transfer of the lease. The letter also specified when the aunt would transfer the business. The niece wrote back accepting her aunt's offer. In a phone call to the niece, the aunt stated that the landlord had approved the transfer of the lease and that she would now ask her attorney to draft a written contract so that there would be a record of the terms. Before the attorney had finished drafting the document, the aunt changed her mind about selling the business and informed the niece of her decision.

In an action for breach of contract brought by the niece against her aunt, is the niece likely to prevail?
A No, because the motivation for the transfer of the business was the aunt's affection for her niece, not the price.
B No, because the promised consideration was inadequate in light of the market value of the business.
C Yes, because the condition concerning the landlord's assent to the transfer of the lease was beyond the control of either party.
D Yes, because the document being drafted by the attorney was merely a record of an agreement already made, not a condition to it.

healthnut
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 9:39 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby healthnut » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:08 pm

eloise16 wrote:
zot1 wrote:
Lubberlubber wrote:
kjartan wrote:
zot1 wrote:Got creamed because my grader is very strict: if my rule doesn't have everything, the rest of my essay is considered garbage.

This is why I have essay anxiety, you guys.

Actually, this is why Themis's essay grading is a complete joke.


Yea does anyone actually what their scores translate to on the actual bar? Even roughly? I asked but they (surprise) gave an extremely unsatisfactory answer.


To be fair, someone suggested a while back that I asked for another grader, but I chose not to.

I have been told that usually bar exam graders give you points for analysis even if the rule isn't quite right. But my grader does not do that, so I never know if what I've done would have, in theory, been a passing essay. Per her scores, I wouldn't pass the essay section.


I feel so lucky! I have a really great grader who also sends us emails without provocation that encourage us and give us general group feedback (in addition to quite detailed individual feedback). She has also been super responsive (and NICE) in all of the emails I've sent her with questions even when the questions were general "i'm freaking out" questions that she couldn't really answer with solid legal advice. But yeah, she was great and I feel like my scores definitely reflected my work product. My bad scores were for bad essays and my good scores were the ones I was proud of. I wish everyone had as good an experience as I did :(



I'm in the same boat--great grader. However, I've also submitted supplemental essays for grading and they are not given to my same grader (nor are all the supp. essays given to the same grader). So, if you are still looking for feedback and want a legit grader that will give you constructive feedback, I suggest submitting some by tomorrow (I think that is the deadline. . .). All feedback from the supp. graders have been great too. May just give you the extra bump needed if they give you formatting help, etc.

111aaa
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:22 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby 111aaa » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:13 pm

Mad Hatter wrote:
111aaa wrote:
Mad Hatter wrote:
sd5289 wrote:
Mad Hatter wrote:So here, venue would be proper in SDNY, SDFL, and CDCA, but not NDIL?

Taking it a bit deeper: same case (NDIL/SDNY), but the defendants live in the same state (say SDCA and EDCA). Can I sue in WDCA? If all defendants live in the same state, you can sue anywhere in that state, yes?


No, because to refine the rule a bit that was stated above, venue is proper in the judicial district the D resides in if all D's live in the same state. So venue would be proper in SDCA or EDCA.

So, just to nail it down: in my first example, CDCA/SDFL were proper venue-wise because there is PJ in each of those districts? But why do we make it down to the PJ analysis if there is a district that fulfills one of the two "best" rules (any D's district if all live in same state/district where claim arose)?

Not trying to be dense--this subject has been giving me fits all along.


You only narrow it down to the PJ analysis if venue is not proper where 1) the judicial districts where all D's reside if the same state or 2) where the cause of action arose or 3) where the property that is subject of the action is located. If venue is not proper under any of those 3 categories, do a PJ analysis and venue will be deemed proper where the court can exercise PJ over the DF(s).

So in my first example, only SDNY is appropriate (since it falls under number 2)?


Correct! You got it :D

teeshtee
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby teeshtee » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:14 pm

Confused7 wrote:I just finished the last mixed MBE set and I think my brain is fried from overthinking shit. But can someone explain why this isn't barred by the Statute of Frauds? I can sort of see why this isn't a transfer of "interest in real property" per se, but something isn't clicking for me.

[+] Spoiler
A niece had worked in her aunt's bookstore for many years. The bookstore business, which was housed in a building that the aunt leased, was independently appraised at $200,000. The aunt decided to retire. She wrote to the niece, expressing her affection for the niece and offering to sell her the bookstore business for $125,000 if the landlord would agree to a transfer of the lease. The letter also specified when the aunt would transfer the business. The niece wrote back accepting her aunt's offer. In a phone call to the niece, the aunt stated that the landlord had approved the transfer of the lease and that she would now ask her attorney to draft a written contract so that there would be a record of the terms. Before the attorney had finished drafting the document, the aunt changed her mind about selling the business and informed the niece of her decision.

In an action for breach of contract brought by the niece against her aunt, is the niece likely to prevail?
A No, because the motivation for the transfer of the business was the aunt's affection for her niece, not the price.
B No, because the promised consideration was inadequate in light of the market value of the business.
C Yes, because the condition concerning the landlord's assent to the transfer of the lease was beyond the control of either party.
D Yes, because the document being drafted by the attorney was merely a record of an agreement already made, not a condition to it.


Barred by the Statute of Frauds? Doesn't the fact pattern say that the agreement is in writing? The aunt wrote to the niece, made the offer, and the niece wrote back to accept it.

User avatar
sd5289
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby sd5289 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:19 pm

teeshtee wrote:
Confused7 wrote:I just finished the last mixed MBE set and I think my brain is fried from overthinking shit. But can someone explain why this isn't barred by the Statute of Frauds? I can sort of see why this isn't a transfer of "interest in real property" per se, but something isn't clicking for me.

[+] Spoiler
A niece had worked in her aunt's bookstore for many years. The bookstore business, which was housed in a building that the aunt leased, was independently appraised at $200,000. The aunt decided to retire. She wrote to the niece, expressing her affection for the niece and offering to sell her the bookstore business for $125,000 if the landlord would agree to a transfer of the lease. The letter also specified when the aunt would transfer the business. The niece wrote back accepting her aunt's offer. In a phone call to the niece, the aunt stated that the landlord had approved the transfer of the lease and that she would now ask her attorney to draft a written contract so that there would be a record of the terms. Before the attorney had finished drafting the document, the aunt changed her mind about selling the business and informed the niece of her decision.

In an action for breach of contract brought by the niece against her aunt, is the niece likely to prevail?
A No, because the motivation for the transfer of the business was the aunt's affection for her niece, not the price.
B No, because the promised consideration was inadequate in light of the market value of the business.
C Yes, because the condition concerning the landlord's assent to the transfer of the lease was beyond the control of either party.
D Yes, because the document being drafted by the attorney was merely a record of an agreement already made, not a condition to it.


Barred by the Statute of Frauds? Doesn't the fact pattern say that the agreement is in writing? The aunt wrote to the niece, made the offer, and the niece wrote back to accept it.


Yeah that's where I went to. The agreement is in writing and it has all of the essential terms. There's a condition precedent (LL's consent), but it's been satisfied. What was the answer? I'm *guessing* D, but this question is confusing me for different reasons. I definitely don't think it's B (watch that's it, sigh) or C. And A doesn't sound good to me either.

teeshtee
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby teeshtee » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:25 pm

sd5289 wrote:
teeshtee wrote:
Confused7 wrote:I just finished the last mixed MBE set and I think my brain is fried from overthinking shit. But can someone explain why this isn't barred by the Statute of Frauds? I can sort of see why this isn't a transfer of "interest in real property" per se, but something isn't clicking for me.

[+] Spoiler
A niece had worked in her aunt's bookstore for many years. The bookstore business, which was housed in a building that the aunt leased, was independently appraised at $200,000. The aunt decided to retire. She wrote to the niece, expressing her affection for the niece and offering to sell her the bookstore business for $125,000 if the landlord would agree to a transfer of the lease. The letter also specified when the aunt would transfer the business. The niece wrote back accepting her aunt's offer. In a phone call to the niece, the aunt stated that the landlord had approved the transfer of the lease and that she would now ask her attorney to draft a written contract so that there would be a record of the terms. Before the attorney had finished drafting the document, the aunt changed her mind about selling the business and informed the niece of her decision.

In an action for breach of contract brought by the niece against her aunt, is the niece likely to prevail?
A No, because the motivation for the transfer of the business was the aunt's affection for her niece, not the price.
B No, because the promised consideration was inadequate in light of the market value of the business.
C Yes, because the condition concerning the landlord's assent to the transfer of the lease was beyond the control of either party.
D Yes, because the document being drafted by the attorney was merely a record of an agreement already made, not a condition to it.


Barred by the Statute of Frauds? Doesn't the fact pattern say that the agreement is in writing? The aunt wrote to the niece, made the offer, and the niece wrote back to accept it.


Yeah that's where I went to. The agreement is in writing and it has all of the essential terms. There's a condition precedent (LL's consent), but it's been satisfied. What was the answer? I'm *guessing* D, but this question is confusing me for different reasons. I definitely don't think it's B (watch that's it, sigh) or C. And A doesn't sound good to me either.


A seems irrelevant, B is wrong because this is certainly not a situation where a court would question the adequacy of the consideration, C seems moot because the landlord has already assented, and D looks 100% correct.

Confused7
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Confused7 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:51 pm

teeshtee wrote:
sd5289 wrote:
teeshtee wrote:
Confused7 wrote:I just finished the last mixed MBE set and I think my brain is fried from overthinking shit. But can someone explain why this isn't barred by the Statute of Frauds? I can sort of see why this isn't a transfer of "interest in real property" per se, but something isn't clicking for me.

[+] Spoiler
A niece had worked in her aunt's bookstore for many years. The bookstore business, which was housed in a building that the aunt leased, was independently appraised at $200,000. The aunt decided to retire. She wrote to the niece, expressing her affection for the niece and offering to sell her the bookstore business for $125,000 if the landlord would agree to a transfer of the lease. The letter also specified when the aunt would transfer the business. The niece wrote back accepting her aunt's offer. In a phone call to the niece, the aunt stated that the landlord had approved the transfer of the lease and that she would now ask her attorney to draft a written contract so that there would be a record of the terms. Before the attorney had finished drafting the document, the aunt changed her mind about selling the business and informed the niece of her decision.

In an action for breach of contract brought by the niece against her aunt, is the niece likely to prevail?
A No, because the motivation for the transfer of the business was the aunt's affection for her niece, not the price.
B No, because the promised consideration was inadequate in light of the market value of the business.
C Yes, because the condition concerning the landlord's assent to the transfer of the lease was beyond the control of either party.
D Yes, because the document being drafted by the attorney was merely a record of an agreement already made, not a condition to it.


Barred by the Statute of Frauds? Doesn't the fact pattern say that the agreement is in writing? The aunt wrote to the niece, made the offer, and the niece wrote back to accept it.


Yeah that's where I went to. The agreement is in writing and it has all of the essential terms. There's a condition precedent (LL's consent), but it's been satisfied. What was the answer? I'm *guessing* D, but this question is confusing me for different reasons. I definitely don't think it's B (watch that's it, sigh) or C. And A doesn't sound good to me either.


A seems irrelevant, B is wrong because this is certainly not a situation where a court would question the adequacy of the consideration, C seems moot because the landlord has already assented, and D looks 100% correct.


Lololol, yes that makes sense. Thank you everyone! I've concluded that I'm officially going crazy after doing the MBEs. I think it's time to call it a night with ice cream and a movie.

111aaa
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:22 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby 111aaa » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:59 pm

For those of your writing the New York and New Jersey bar exams,

Is anyone else worried about missing their flight to NJ after the NY exam on Wednesday. I understand that the proctors take about 45 minutes to collect the exams. So give or take, we won't be allowed to leave until 5:45 pm. My flight to NJ is for 7:30 pm, and that was the only flight leaving in the evening next to the 6:30 pm one (which is definitely not an option). Anyone else catching the same flight after the NY exam? Has anyone taken a prior bar exam and experienced leaving really late?

User avatar
zor
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:27 pm

111aaa wrote:For those of your writing the New York and New Jersey bar exams,

Is anyone else worried about missing their flight to NJ after the NY exam on Wednesday. I understand that the proctors take about 45 minutes to collect the exams. So give or take, we won't be allowed to leave until 5:45 pm. My flight to NJ is for 7:30 pm, and that was the only flight leaving in the evening next to the 6:30 pm one (which is definitely not an option). Anyone else catching the same flight after the NY exam? Has anyone taken a prior bar exam and experienced leaving really late?


Where are you flying from? Albany? Buffalo?

Worst case scenario, if you miss your flight you can always rent a car and drive...

User avatar
Raiden
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Raiden » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:49 pm

At 63%, I definitely feel I am not doing the bar exam prep dance properly.

User avatar
ColoBoul
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby ColoBoul » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:54 pm

teeshtee wrote:
Confused7 wrote:I just finished the last mixed MBE set and I think my brain is fried from overthinking shit. But can someone explain why this isn't barred by the Statute of Frauds? I can sort of see why this isn't a transfer of "interest in real property" per se, but something isn't clicking for me.

[+] Spoiler
A niece had worked in her aunt's bookstore for many years. The bookstore business, which was housed in a building that the aunt leased, was independently appraised at $200,000. The aunt decided to retire. She wrote to the niece, expressing her affection for the niece and offering to sell her the bookstore business for $125,000 if the landlord would agree to a transfer of the lease. The letter also specified when the aunt would transfer the business. The niece wrote back accepting her aunt's offer. In a phone call to the niece, the aunt stated that the landlord had approved the transfer of the lease and that she would now ask her attorney to draft a written contract so that there would be a record of the terms. Before the attorney had finished drafting the document, the aunt changed her mind about selling the business and informed the niece of her decision.

In an action for breach of contract brought by the niece against her aunt, is the niece likely to prevail?
A No, because the motivation for the transfer of the business was the aunt's affection for her niece, not the price.
B No, because the promised consideration was inadequate in light of the market value of the business.
C Yes, because the condition concerning the landlord's assent to the transfer of the lease was beyond the control of either party.
D Yes, because the document being drafted by the attorney was merely a record of an agreement already made, not a condition to it.


Barred by the Statute of Frauds? Doesn't the fact pattern say that the agreement is in writing? The aunt wrote to the niece, made the offer, and the niece wrote back to accept it.


I not sure if I'm off topic but, doesn't the writing have to be signed by the aunt as well? Also, is the sale of a business even covered by the SoF? Marriage Suretyship, One Year, U.C.C and Real Property. Because the Aunt does not own the building, presumably she owns the books in the store which might put it under the U.C.C, but couldn't the appraisal value just be on her expected profits and trade name?

111aaa
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:22 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby 111aaa » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:55 pm

zor wrote:
111aaa wrote:For those of your writing the New York and New Jersey bar exams,

Is anyone else worried about missing their flight to NJ after the NY exam on Wednesday. I understand that the proctors take about 45 minutes to collect the exams. So give or take, we won't be allowed to leave until 5:45 pm. My flight to NJ is for 7:30 pm, and that was the only flight leaving in the evening next to the 6:30 pm one (which is definitely not an option). Anyone else catching the same flight after the NY exam? Has anyone taken a prior bar exam and experienced leaving really late?


Where are you flying from? Albany? Buffalo?

Worst case scenario, if you miss your flight you can always rent a car and drive...


Flying from Buffalo. I really hope not, that drive would be too long.

User avatar
Mad Hatter
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:38 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Mad Hatter » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:57 pm

111aaa wrote:
Correct! You got it :D


Thanks man. I killed all the venue questions today thanks to you.

User avatar
zot1
Posts: 3126
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:04 pm

Raiden wrote:At 63%, I definitely feel I am not doing the bar exam prep dance properly.


Have you finished all the lectures?

User avatar
anon sequitur
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:14 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby anon sequitur » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:22 pm

Is there any way to look at a list of MBE questions by very specific topic, e.g. all the questions on RAP or venue, or whatever? I know they give you a breakdown per question set, but that's not super helpful. I want to see everything I've been asked about for certain topics so I can see what I know or don't know.

User avatar
zot1
Posts: 3126
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:35 pm

anon sequitur wrote:Is there any way to look at a list of MBE questions by very specific topic, e.g. all the questions on RAP or venue, or whatever? I know they give you a breakdown per question set, but that's not super helpful. I want to see everything I've been asked about for certain topics so I can see what I know or don't know.


If you click on MBE PQs from the progress bar reports, you can click on "View Details" per topic and then it gives you a breakdown. Not sure if that's the breakdown you're already talking about in which case this wasn't helpful.

Confused7
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Confused7 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:37 pm

ColoBoul wrote:
teeshtee wrote:
Confused7 wrote:I just finished the last mixed MBE set and I think my brain is fried from overthinking shit. But can someone explain why this isn't barred by the Statute of Frauds? I can sort of see why this isn't a transfer of "interest in real property" per se, but something isn't clicking for me.

[+] Spoiler
A niece had worked in her aunt's bookstore for many years. The bookstore business, which was housed in a building that the aunt leased, was independently appraised at $200,000. The aunt decided to retire. She wrote to the niece, expressing her affection for the niece and offering to sell her the bookstore business for $125,000 if the landlord would agree to a transfer of the lease. The letter also specified when the aunt would transfer the business. The niece wrote back accepting her aunt's offer. In a phone call to the niece, the aunt stated that the landlord had approved the transfer of the lease and that she would now ask her attorney to draft a written contract so that there would be a record of the terms. Before the attorney had finished drafting the document, the aunt changed her mind about selling the business and informed the niece of her decision.

In an action for breach of contract brought by the niece against her aunt, is the niece likely to prevail?
A No, because the motivation for the transfer of the business was the aunt's affection for her niece, not the price.
B No, because the promised consideration was inadequate in light of the market value of the business.
C Yes, because the condition concerning the landlord's assent to the transfer of the lease was beyond the control of either party.
D Yes, because the document being drafted by the attorney was merely a record of an agreement already made, not a condition to it.


Barred by the Statute of Frauds? Doesn't the fact pattern say that the agreement is in writing? The aunt wrote to the niece, made the offer, and the niece wrote back to accept it.


I not sure if I'm off topic but, doesn't the writing have to be signed by the aunt as well? Also, is the sale of a business even covered by the SoF? Marriage Suretyship, One Year, U.C.C and Real Property. Because the Aunt does not own the building, presumably she owns the books in the store which might put it under the U.C.C, but couldn't the appraisal value just be on her expected profits and trade name?


Thanks to everyone who answered. I thought I bolded the correct answer - sorry! The correct answer was D. I picked it because I knew that none of the other looks right. But yeah, the only reason I thought about the Statute of Frauds was that the aunt called the niece to say the landlord had approved and her attorney hadn't written the contract yet. I didn't see a complete contract signed by the aunt. Plus because there was a mention of a "landlord," I automatically thought this had to do with an interest in property. But I can see why a transfer of a "business" may not be the same as a transfer of interest of property real property.

User avatar
anon sequitur
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:14 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby anon sequitur » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:38 pm

zot1 wrote:
If you click on MBE PQs from the progress bar reports, you can click on "View Details" per topic and then it gives you a breakdown. Not sure if that's the breakdown you're already talking about in which case this wasn't helpful.


No, that's pretty much exactly what I wanted, awesome, thanks!

teeshtee
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby teeshtee » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:59 pm

ColoBoul wrote:
teeshtee wrote:
Confused7 wrote:I just finished the last mixed MBE set and I think my brain is fried from overthinking shit. But can someone explain why this isn't barred by the Statute of Frauds? I can sort of see why this isn't a transfer of "interest in real property" per se, but something isn't clicking for me.

[+] Spoiler
A niece had worked in her aunt's bookstore for many years. The bookstore business, which was housed in a building that the aunt leased, was independently appraised at $200,000. The aunt decided to retire. She wrote to the niece, expressing her affection for the niece and offering to sell her the bookstore business for $125,000 if the landlord would agree to a transfer of the lease. The letter also specified when the aunt would transfer the business. The niece wrote back accepting her aunt's offer. In a phone call to the niece, the aunt stated that the landlord had approved the transfer of the lease and that she would now ask her attorney to draft a written contract so that there would be a record of the terms. Before the attorney had finished drafting the document, the aunt changed her mind about selling the business and informed the niece of her decision.

In an action for breach of contract brought by the niece against her aunt, is the niece likely to prevail?
A No, because the motivation for the transfer of the business was the aunt's affection for her niece, not the price.
B No, because the promised consideration was inadequate in light of the market value of the business.
C Yes, because the condition concerning the landlord's assent to the transfer of the lease was beyond the control of either party.
D Yes, because the document being drafted by the attorney was merely a record of an agreement already made, not a condition to it.


Barred by the Statute of Frauds? Doesn't the fact pattern say that the agreement is in writing? The aunt wrote to the niece, made the offer, and the niece wrote back to accept it.


I not sure if I'm off topic but, doesn't the writing have to be signed by the aunt as well? Also, is the sale of a business even covered by the SoF? Marriage Suretyship, One Year, U.C.C and Real Property. Because the Aunt does not own the building, presumably she owns the books in the store which might put it under the U.C.C, but couldn't the appraisal value just be on her expected profits and trade name?


I'm under the impression that the aunt (as the party to be charged) satisfied the SoF requirements with her letter to sell to the Niece.

User avatar
sd5289
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby sd5289 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:09 pm

teeshtee wrote:
ColoBoul wrote:
teeshtee wrote:
Confused7 wrote:I just finished the last mixed MBE set and I think my brain is fried from overthinking shit. But can someone explain why this isn't barred by the Statute of Frauds? I can sort of see why this isn't a transfer of "interest in real property" per se, but something isn't clicking for me.

[+] Spoiler
A niece had worked in her aunt's bookstore for many years. The bookstore business, which was housed in a building that the aunt leased, was independently appraised at $200,000. The aunt decided to retire. She wrote to the niece, expressing her affection for the niece and offering to sell her the bookstore business for $125,000 if the landlord would agree to a transfer of the lease. The letter also specified when the aunt would transfer the business. The niece wrote back accepting her aunt's offer. In a phone call to the niece, the aunt stated that the landlord had approved the transfer of the lease and that she would now ask her attorney to draft a written contract so that there would be a record of the terms. Before the attorney had finished drafting the document, the aunt changed her mind about selling the business and informed the niece of her decision.

In an action for breach of contract brought by the niece against her aunt, is the niece likely to prevail?
A No, because the motivation for the transfer of the business was the aunt's affection for her niece, not the price.
B No, because the promised consideration was inadequate in light of the market value of the business.
C Yes, because the condition concerning the landlord's assent to the transfer of the lease was beyond the control of either party.
D Yes, because the document being drafted by the attorney was merely a record of an agreement already made, not a condition to it.


Barred by the Statute of Frauds? Doesn't the fact pattern say that the agreement is in writing? The aunt wrote to the niece, made the offer, and the niece wrote back to accept it.


I not sure if I'm off topic but, doesn't the writing have to be signed by the aunt as well? Also, is the sale of a business even covered by the SoF? Marriage Suretyship, One Year, U.C.C and Real Property. Because the Aunt does not own the building, presumably she owns the books in the store which might put it under the U.C.C, but couldn't the appraisal value just be on her expected profits and trade name?


I'm under the impression that the aunt (as the party to be charged) satisfied the SoF requirements with her letter to sell to the Niece.


And again remember that what matters is the least wrong answer sometimes. I was confused by the question too, but instinctually went with D which was apparently the correct answer. None of the answer choices indicated a SOF problem, so even if you think there's one, move on because that's not the issue. I really thought the other answer choices looked bad, so I went with the answer that looked "less" bad. Unfortunately I think some of these trickier questions boil down to that.

teeshtee
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby teeshtee » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:18 pm

sd5289 wrote:
teeshtee wrote:
ColoBoul wrote:
teeshtee wrote:
Confused7 wrote:I just finished the last mixed MBE set and I think my brain is fried from overthinking shit. But can someone explain why this isn't barred by the Statute of Frauds? I can sort of see why this isn't a transfer of "interest in real property" per se, but something isn't clicking for me.

[+] Spoiler
A niece had worked in her aunt's bookstore for many years. The bookstore business, which was housed in a building that the aunt leased, was independently appraised at $200,000. The aunt decided to retire. She wrote to the niece, expressing her affection for the niece and offering to sell her the bookstore business for $125,000 if the landlord would agree to a transfer of the lease. The letter also specified when the aunt would transfer the business. The niece wrote back accepting her aunt's offer. In a phone call to the niece, the aunt stated that the landlord had approved the transfer of the lease and that she would now ask her attorney to draft a written contract so that there would be a record of the terms. Before the attorney had finished drafting the document, the aunt changed her mind about selling the business and informed the niece of her decision.

In an action for breach of contract brought by the niece against her aunt, is the niece likely to prevail?
A No, because the motivation for the transfer of the business was the aunt's affection for her niece, not the price.
B No, because the promised consideration was inadequate in light of the market value of the business.
C Yes, because the condition concerning the landlord's assent to the transfer of the lease was beyond the control of either party.
D Yes, because the document being drafted by the attorney was merely a record of an agreement already made, not a condition to it.


Barred by the Statute of Frauds? Doesn't the fact pattern say that the agreement is in writing? The aunt wrote to the niece, made the offer, and the niece wrote back to accept it.


I not sure if I'm off topic but, doesn't the writing have to be signed by the aunt as well? Also, is the sale of a business even covered by the SoF? Marriage Suretyship, One Year, U.C.C and Real Property. Because the Aunt does not own the building, presumably she owns the books in the store which might put it under the U.C.C, but couldn't the appraisal value just be on her expected profits and trade name?


I'm under the impression that the aunt (as the party to be charged) satisfied the SoF requirements with her letter to sell to the Niece.


And again remember that what matters is the least wrong answer sometimes. I was confused by the question too, but instinctually went with D which was apparently the correct answer. None of the answer choices indicated a SOF problem, so even if you think there's one, move on because that's not the issue. I really thought the other answer choices looked bad, so I went with the answer that looked "less" bad. Unfortunately I think some of these trickier questions boil down to that.


Yes, this is a mutual assent question, not SoF.

User avatar
annapach
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:24 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby annapach » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:02 am

Can someone please explain supp jurisdiction to me? It is just not sticking for some reason.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests