old_soul wrote: PeggyCarter wrote: rhs100 wrote:
Only during prep. I don't think they would like it if you try to short answer the exam.
right ... so during the real exam did you have time to write out everything within time, given you didn't practice writing full exams? I guess the short answers help you learn the law well so maybe during the actual thing you dont have to think too much?
Not the OP but had kind of a similar "short answer" approach. I handwrote the exam and my completely unscientific assumption was that I could drill the law into my head/gain muscle memory by writing out rule statements repeatedly. One of the ways I practiced essays was writing out rule statements only for an essay and making sure it took no more than 25-30 minutes (I always outlined for 10 minutes, which left about 20+ minutes for fact analysis). I practiced more essays because I spent less time on them. On the actual test, I didn't feel pressed for time and on my stronger subjects had about 3-5 minutes left over. My problems were BLL memorization, so for anyone whose main issue is applying law to facts, this approach won't work.
Explain this to me again. You stated that you wrote only rule statements? But then you took 25-30 minutes on them?
--My issue is also just BLL memorization. I can apply the facts pretty well enough to score 8/10 or above if I know the law.
I think he just misspoke as 25-30 minutes I believe is what you will do for each essay question. I will try and give an example from a made up question here of what I did. If the law is wrong, please forgive me, but I this should give you the format.
Adam wants to buy Betty's painting, calls and leaves a message on her voicemail. Betty in need of money calls him back and says I will sell you the painting for $450. Adam thinks about it, agrees and sends a check for 450 to Betty's address in the mail with the memo saying for "Full Payment for Betty's Painting". The next day, before Betty gets the check she wins 10,000 playing slots. She now doesn't need the money, calls Adam and says "Sorry I don't need the money so I am not selling the painting." Adam furious wants the painting and sues. Who wins?
Paragraph 1 - Contract is a goods contract so UCC applies not common law.
Paragraph 2 - Statute of Frauds? Statute of Fraud applies to goods transactions 500+. 450 selling price, SOF does not apply.
Paragraph 3 - Offer, Acceptance, Consideration for enforceable contract. Offer, phone call by Betty to Adam selling the painting. Adam acceptance by mailing check under the mailbox rule. Consideration is 450. Contract is valid.
Paragraph 4 - Mailbox Rule - Adam accepted offer at time of mailing check. Contract is enforceable once check is mailed with memo. Vaild contract enforceable.
Paragraph 5 - Contract is valid and enforceable. Betty could claim financial duress, but not valid to make contract voidable. Adam gets painting.
You can see the general idea of what I did. Only takes 5 min to write it out. You could even go quick by just writing the BLL of the issue such as "Paragraph 4 - Mailbox Rule, Paragraph 5- Contract valid, no duress, Adam gets painting."
You need to grade yourself truthfully when you do this. If you don't have it in your answer and it is in the sample answer, go over it.
Hope this helps, good luck.