BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

xChiTowNx
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:16 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby xChiTowNx » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:53 pm

Also, I took the MBE Refresher and scored 62/100 (with 45 minutes remaining). I only got 4/14 Con Law questions correct! Did anyone else find CL especially difficult?


Con Law is one of my better ones too and I got like 5 right.[/quote]

Same here. Also, I think I had at about 15 50/50s where I knew the rule and just screwed the pooch on. No idea if I overthought some of these.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby 3|ink » Sun Jul 19, 2015 6:00 pm

I think color of title is an exception to the "actual" prong of adverse possession. Say you have a deed to 40 acres, but you only use 10 of them. It turns out someone else already owned all 40 acres. The "actual possession" prong, strictly applied, would only allow you to claim adverse possession for 10 of those acres, because you're not actually in possession of the other 30. However, the color of title exception lets you get around that because your deed said you owned all 40.

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 6:14 pm

victortsoi wrote:
musicfor18 wrote:Folks: When, if ever, does "claim of right" or "color of title" matter in the context of adverse possession and easements by prescription? For NY people, Franzese's property lecture handout (chart on p. 51) says that prescription requires use that "actual under a claim of right," but that term never comes up anywhere else in the lecture. On p. 68, it says that, for MBE purposes, the adverse possessor's state of mind is irrelevant. But in NY, the adverse possessor must have a good faith belief that the land is his. Is this the same thing as "under claim of right"? Is this MBE/NY distinction the same for easements by prescription? And does "color of title" ever come into play?



correct me if im wrong, but doing a few questions on adaptibar- it seems that yes, it does not matter what the APer thinks, he could hate the grantor but if the grantor has given his permission, no adverse possession. On the other hand, he could think he's the grantor's best friend and that he does have permission to use an easement/piece of land, but if he actually doesn't, that might satisfy the hostility requirement (along with the other requirements of course) and be adverse possession. At least thats my understanding.


Yes, there's definitely no adverse possession if the person had permission. The use wouldn't be "hostile" in that case. But that's a different question than "claim of right."

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 6:36 pm

3|ink wrote:I think color of title is an exception to the "actual" prong of adverse possession. Say you have a deed to 40 acres, but you only use 10 of them. It turns out someone else already owned all 40 acres. The "actual possession" prong, strictly applied, would only allow you to claim adverse possession for 10 of those acres, because you're not actually in possession of the other 30. However, the color of title exception lets you get around that because your deed said you owned all 40.


This is exactly right. I checked it in the big outline. Thanks!

Outis Onoma
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:45 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Outis Onoma » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:02 pm

I did an MPT today. I'm so proud of myself.

EvelynS
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:31 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby EvelynS » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:04 pm

myrtlewinston wrote:
Hutz_and_Goodman wrote:
mrs_featherbottom wrote:Can someone help me with a NY wills question? What is NY's stance on the will execution witness also being a beneficiary? I feel like I've seen different analyses in essays - one said interested witness status no long affects the validity of the will, the other said if one witness is interested you need 2 additional disinterested witnesses


I believe that it depends on whether the interested witness would take if the will is declared invalid. If the interested witness would inherit (ex. son of the testator) then you do not need an additional witness for the will to be valid (son + disinterested witness is enough). The will is valid but the son inherits the lesser of what he would inherit under the will or if the decedent died intestate. If the interested witness would not inherit if the will is deemed invalid (ex. a friend of testator), then the will is invalid unless there are at least 2 disinterested witnesses.

Again, I believe that the above is correct but would be happy to have clarification if this is wrong.


An witness may keep a bequest made to him if there are at least two other non-interested witnesses AND his testimony is not required to probate the will.


An interested witness doesn't affect the validity of the will. However, the gift/bequest is void to this interested witness unless an exception applies: (1) supernumerary (i.e., there are two disinterested witnesses to this will so this interested witness's attestation is not needed), or (2) interested witness/beneficiary is an heir (in this case, the beneficiary takes the smaller of (i) intestate share, or (ii) gift under the will). That is my understanding from both the essays and the NY-specific outline. Obviously, take it with a grain of salt.

mrs_featherbottom
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby mrs_featherbottom » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:12 pm

EvelynS wrote:
myrtlewinston wrote:
Hutz_and_Goodman wrote:
mrs_featherbottom wrote:Can someone help me with a NY wills question? What is NY's stance on the will execution witness also being a beneficiary? I feel like I've seen different analyses in essays - one said interested witness status no long affects the validity of the will, the other said if one witness is interested you need 2 additional disinterested witnesses


I believe that it depends on whether the interested witness would take if the will is declared invalid. If the interested witness would inherit (ex. son of the testator) then you do not need an additional witness for the will to be valid (son + disinterested witness is enough). The will is valid but the son inherits the lesser of what he would inherit under the will or if the decedent died intestate. If the interested witness would not inherit if the will is deemed invalid (ex. a friend of testator), then the will is invalid unless there are at least 2 disinterested witnesses.

Again, I believe that the above is correct but would be happy to have clarification if this is wrong.


An witness may keep a bequest made to him if there are at least two other non-interested witnesses AND his testimony is not required to probate the will.


An interested witness doesn't affect the validity of the will. However, the gift/bequest is void to this interested witness unless an exception applies: (1) supernumerary (i.e., there are two disinterested witnesses to this will so this interested witness's attestation is not needed), or (2) interested witness/beneficiary is an heir (in this case, the beneficiary takes the smaller of (i) intestate share, or (ii) gift under the will). That is my understanding from both the essays and the NY-specific outline. Obviously, take it with a grain of salt.


Perfect - this is helpful. Thanks!

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:13 pm

Outis Onoma wrote:I did an MPT today. I'm so proud of myself.


Overachiever

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:14 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
Outis Onoma wrote:I did an MPT today. I'm so proud of myself.


Overachiever


I did nothing today... except hid under a rock in a dark place terrified by the Bar.

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:20 pm

kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
Outis Onoma wrote:I did an MPT today. I'm so proud of myself.


Overachiever


I did nothing today... except hid under a rock in a dark place terrified by the Bar.


This is my life. I'm sorta in that position where I think I know enough (or as much as I'll be able to absorb) so I convince myself I don't need to do anything but then I think that I may end up being that guy that wishes he studied more.

Hate hate hate.

atticus89
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:06 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby atticus89 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:29 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
Outis Onoma wrote:I did an MPT today. I'm so proud of myself.


Overachiever


I did nothing today... except hid under a rock in a dark place terrified by the Bar.


This is my life. I'm sorta in that position where I think I know enough (or as much as I'll be able to absorb) so I convince myself I don't need to do anything but then I think that I may end up being that guy that wishes he studied more.

Hate hate hate.


This is a serious question -- what does it feel like to think you know enough to pass? My state has about 13 subjects and I feel semi-comfortable with maybe 10. 3 I'm totally in the dark (all non-MBE). Even for the 10 I feel ok about, all it would take was a slight curveball in the essays from the examples that Barbri provided and I'm screwed on those as well.

User avatar
charlesxavier
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby charlesxavier » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:31 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
Outis Onoma wrote:I did an MPT today. I'm so proud of myself.


Overachiever


I did nothing today... except hid under a rock in a dark place terrified by the Bar.


This is my life. I'm sorta in that position where I think I know enough (or as much as I'll be able to absorb) so I convince myself I don't need to do anything but then I think that I may end up being that guy that wishes he studied more.

Hate hate hate.


It's a horrible feeling. I feel like I "get" 9/10 essays but there's that one that leaves me blank and I'm torn between feeling good and feeling like the entire exam will be the 1/10 essays.

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

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Redamon1 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:35 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
BVest wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:When I learned PJ as a 1L, I distinctly remember learning that a corp was subject to general PJ in any state in which they had "systematic and continuous" contacts. Barbri appears to be teaching it differently: specific PJ where they have contacts (whether minimum or systematic and continuous) and general where they're at home (state of incorporation and state of nerve center).

Not sure if I'm interpreting Barbri wrong or just misstating the rules...


You're not misstating, but I can't imagine we'll have to distinguish between general and specific jx since the courts frequently can't and since personal jx or no personal jx is all that really matters.


If we have to do a PJ analysis on an essay, I'd prefer to be able to differentiate between the two and discuss the relevance (or lack thereof) of the claim's relatedness to their contacts with the forum state. If they have systematic and continuous contacts with a state, but are neither incorporated nor have their nerve center in that state, then this discrepancy between what I know and what Barbri is teaching is going to be an issue.

That said, this is probably the least of my concerns. I don't know my ass from my elbow when it comes to wills & trusts or community property and my essays in all subjects could generously be described as "mediocre."


SCOTUS decided Daimler after our 1L year, which clarified an ambiguity that existed until then, and on which you picked up here. Until Daimler, it was unclear in how many states a corporation could be sued under general jdx, since large corporations like walmart have extensive continuous and purposeful contacts with many states, such that they might presumably be considered at home in plenty of states. But in Daimler, the Court clarified that being "at home" for general jurisdiction purposes means, for a corporation, only the place of incorporation and the principal place of business.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... -v-bauman/

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15475
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:37 pm

Can you get both restitution and expectation damages? Just did an essay Q where the seller repudiated a deal to sell 250 units a month for $4 each, the buyer covered at 5 and the seller went and sold the units to someone else for 6. Figured there was expectation of 1 and then restitution for the second dollar to keep the seller from being unjustly enriched. But the explanation said nothing about restitution.

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

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Redamon1 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:46 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:Can you get both restitution and expectation damages? Just did an essay Q where the seller repudiated a deal to sell 250 units a month for $4 each, the buyer covered at 5 and the seller went and sold the units to someone else for 6. Figured there was expectation of 1 and then restitution for the second dollar to keep the seller from being unjustly enriched. But the explanation said nothing about restitution.


I think you can recover under one theory or the other, but not both. You would pick the one that would yield the greatest award to you. There's a note in the Barbri remedies handout in the torts section about this being the case, but not in the K section.

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:53 pm

Redamon1 wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
BVest wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:When I learned PJ as a 1L, I distinctly remember learning that a corp was subject to general PJ in any state in which they had "systematic and continuous" contacts. Barbri appears to be teaching it differently: specific PJ where they have contacts (whether minimum or systematic and continuous) and general where they're at home (state of incorporation and state of nerve center).

Not sure if I'm interpreting Barbri wrong or just misstating the rules...


You're not misstating, but I can't imagine we'll have to distinguish between general and specific jx since the courts frequently can't and since personal jx or no personal jx is all that really matters.


If we have to do a PJ analysis on an essay, I'd prefer to be able to differentiate between the two and discuss the relevance (or lack thereof) of the claim's relatedness to their contacts with the forum state. If they have systematic and continuous contacts with a state, but are neither incorporated nor have their nerve center in that state, then this discrepancy between what I know and what Barbri is teaching is going to be an issue.

That said, this is probably the least of my concerns. I don't know my ass from my elbow when it comes to wills & trusts or community property and my essays in all subjects could generously be described as "mediocre."


SCOTUS decided Daimler after our 1L year, which clarified an ambiguity that existed until then, and on which you picked up here. Until Daimler, it was unclear in how many states a corporation could be sued under general jdx, since large corporations like walmart have extensive continuous and purposeful contacts with many states, such that they might presumably be considered at home in plenty of states. But in Daimler, the Court clarified that being "at home" for general jurisdiction purposes means, for a corporation, only the place of incorporation and the principal place of business.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... -v-bauman/


This is right. Except I think Daimler arguably left room for the possibility that something other than state of incorporation and PPOB could, in the right case, support general PJ. But it definitely stands for the proposition that a corporation can only have a very limited number of places where it's "at home." This is clear because the Court said that, even if Daimler's subsidiary was "at home" in the forum state, and the subsidiary's contacts could be imputed to Daimler, Daimler still wouldn't be "at home" in the forum state because you have to look at all of Daimler's operations around the world and determine where it's most "at home." In sum, the test is not "systematic and continuous contacts" anymore. Instead,it's "what are the very small number of places that the corporation has its most systematic and continuous contacts?" For bar purposes, though, I think it's a best bet to go with what Freer said: "at home" = state/country of incorporation and PPOB.

mr.hands
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:23 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby mr.hands » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:57 pm

Redamon1 wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Can you get both restitution and expectation damages? Just did an essay Q where the seller repudiated a deal to sell 250 units a month for $4 each, the buyer covered at 5 and the seller went and sold the units to someone else for 6. Figured there was expectation of 1 and then restitution for the second dollar to keep the seller from being unjustly enriched. But the explanation said nothing about restitution.


I think you can recover under one theory or the other, but not both. You would pick the one that would yield the greatest award to you. There's a note in the Barbri remedies handout in the torts section about this being the case, but not in the K section.


Yep, pretty sure you can only get one or the other because they're different theories of recovery (and therefore mutually exclusive)

User avatar
BVest
Posts: 5682
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby BVest » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:59 pm

musicfor18 wrote:
Redamon1 wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
BVest wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:When I learned PJ as a 1L, I distinctly remember learning that a corp was subject to general PJ in any state in which they had "systematic and continuous" contacts. Barbri appears to be teaching it differently: specific PJ where they have contacts (whether minimum or systematic and continuous) and general where they're at home (state of incorporation and state of nerve center).

Not sure if I'm interpreting Barbri wrong or just misstating the rules...


You're not misstating, but I can't imagine we'll have to distinguish between general and specific jx since the courts frequently can't and since personal jx or no personal jx is all that really matters.


If we have to do a PJ analysis on an essay, I'd prefer to be able to differentiate between the two and discuss the relevance (or lack thereof) of the claim's relatedness to their contacts with the forum state. If they have systematic and continuous contacts with a state, but are neither incorporated nor have their nerve center in that state, then this discrepancy between what I know and what Barbri is teaching is going to be an issue.

That said, this is probably the least of my concerns. I don't know my ass from my elbow when it comes to wills & trusts or community property and my essays in all subjects could generously be described as "mediocre."


SCOTUS decided Daimler after our 1L year, which clarified an ambiguity that existed until then, and on which you picked up here. Until Daimler, it was unclear in how many states a corporation could be sued under general jdx, since large corporations like walmart have extensive continuous and purposeful contacts with many states, such that they might presumably be considered at home in plenty of states. But in Daimler, the Court clarified that being "at home" for general jurisdiction purposes means, for a corporation, only the place of incorporation and the principal place of business.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... -v-bauman/


This is right. Except I think Daimler arguably left room for the possibility that something other than state of incorporation and PPOB could, in the right case, support general PJ. But it definitely stands for the proposition that a corporation can only have a very limited number of places where it's "at home." This is clear because the Court said that, even if Daimler's subsidiary was "at home" in the forum state, and the subsidiary's contacts could be imputed to Daimler, Daimler still wouldn't be "at home" in the forum state because you have to look at all of Daimler's operations around the world and determine where it's most "at home." In sum, the test is not "systematic and continuous contacts" anymore. Instead,it's "what are the very small number of places that the corporation has its most systematic and continuous contacts?" For bar purposes, though, I think it's a best bet to go with what Freer said: "at home" = state/country of incorporation and PPOB.


If that's the case, that would mean that the answer to the Barbri question that we were discussing (MBE refresher) is almost certainly wrong. They said the corporation (incorporated in state C and PPOB in state D) was a resident of Southern District of State A due to having 20 of their 100 retail outlets there.

atticus89
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:06 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby atticus89 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:00 pm

Redamon1 wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Can you get both restitution and expectation damages? Just did an essay Q where the seller repudiated a deal to sell 250 units a month for $4 each, the buyer covered at 5 and the seller went and sold the units to someone else for 6. Figured there was expectation of 1 and then restitution for the second dollar to keep the seller from being unjustly enriched. But the explanation said nothing about restitution.


I think you can recover under one theory or the other, but not both. You would pick the one that would yield the greatest award to you. There's a note in the Barbri remedies handout in the torts section about this being the case, but not in the K section.


I'd add that I believe you're using the restitutionary damages wrong here. While the seller has been literally 'unjustly enriched' as a result of this whole transaction, it has nothing to do with the original buyer. The original buyer has conferred no benefit onto the seller here because he hasn't paid.

The way you're using restitution here is almost like punitive damages, i.e. punishing the seller for his breach, which isn't allowed in K remedies.
Last edited by atticus89 on Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:03 pm

Also, it doesn't really seem right to give the non-breaching party restitution damages in that situation. The extra dollar in profit that the breaching party made by repudiating the K and selling to someone else wasn't really a benefit conferred on him/her/it by the non-breaching party in the normal sense. I'm struggling to articulate my thoughts here, but it just doesn't seem equitable.

How does the analysis go in the following situation?

"A" and "B" agree that B will install a new porch on A's house for $1,000. B expects the materials to cost him $750 and expects to make a $250 profit. B begins building the porch and spends $500 to date. A calls B and tells B that he isn't going to go thru with the K -- anticipatory repudiation. B ceases performance and brings suit.

B would be awarded (a) expectation damages (the $250 profit); and (b) restitution (but that keys up discussing the various ways of measuring the benefit conferred: either the increase in value to A's house or the FMV of the work B did; and here we just have $500 in reliance damages?).

Or is that $500 of sunk cost factored into the expectation damages analysis, because not giving that money to B would prevent B from ending up where he expected (having covered his costs and made a $250 profit?).

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15475
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:11 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:Also, it doesn't really seem right to give the non-breaching party restitution damages in that situation. The extra dollar in profit that the breaching party made by repudiating the K and selling to someone else wasn't really a benefit conferred on him/her/it by the non-breaching party in the normal sense. I'm struggling to articulate my thoughts here, but it just doesn't seem equitable.

How does the analysis go in the following situation?

"A" and "B" agree that B will install a new porch on A's house for $1,000. B expects the materials to cost him $750 and expects to make a $250 profit. B begins building the porch and spends $500 to date. A calls B and tells B that he isn't going to go thru with the K -- anticipatory repudiation. B ceases performance and brings suit.

B would be awarded (a) expectation damages (the $250 profit); and (b) restitution (but that keys up discussing the various ways of measuring the benefit conferred: either the increase in value to A's house or the FMV of the work B did; and here we just have $500 in reliance damages?).

Or is that $500 of sunk cost factored into the expectation damages analysis, because not giving that money to B would prevent B from ending up where he expected (having covered his costs and made a $250 profit?).

There I'd call the $500 reliance damages, with $250 more in expectation damages.

atticus89 wrote:The way you're using restitution here is almost like punitive damages, i.e. punishing the seller for his breach, which isn't allowed in K remedies.

This probably right. Seller pulled a dick move so I thought you could get back at him by saying "sorry no profits on this one" but that doesn't really fit with the quantum meruit or quantum valebat restitution stuff.

User avatar
941law
Posts: 425
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:21 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby 941law » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:14 pm

just accidentally ended up on the lsat forum - oh to be sweet and innocent again. The whole world was ahead of us.

User avatar
BVest
Posts: 5682
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby BVest » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:22 pm

mr.hands wrote:
Redamon1 wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Can you get both restitution and expectation damages? Just did an essay Q where the seller repudiated a deal to sell 250 units a month for $4 each, the buyer covered at 5 and the seller went and sold the units to someone else for 6. Figured there was expectation of 1 and then restitution for the second dollar to keep the seller from being unjustly enriched. But the explanation said nothing about restitution.


I think you can recover under one theory or the other, but not both. You would pick the one that would yield the greatest award to you. There's a note in the Barbri remedies handout in the torts section about this being the case, but not in the K section.


Yep, pretty sure you can only get one or the other because they're different theories of recovery (and therefore mutually exclusive)


Also remember that expectation damages will always be highest because restitution and reliance damages can never exceed expectation damages. The reason one might pick restitution damages or reliance damages over expectation damages is usually because they're easier to prove.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:25 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:Also, it doesn't really seem right to give the non-breaching party restitution damages in that situation. The extra dollar in profit that the breaching party made by repudiating the K and selling to someone else wasn't really a benefit conferred on him/her/it by the non-breaching party in the normal sense. I'm struggling to articulate my thoughts here, but it just doesn't seem equitable.

How does the analysis go in the following situation?

"A" and "B" agree that B will install a new porch on A's house for $1,000. B expects the materials to cost him $750 and expects to make a $250 profit. B begins building the porch and spends $500 to date. A calls B and tells B that he isn't going to go thru with the K -- anticipatory repudiation. B ceases performance and brings suit.

B would be awarded (a) expectation damages (the $250 profit); and (b) restitution (but that keys up discussing the various ways of measuring the benefit conferred: either the increase in value to A's house or the FMV of the work B did; and here we just have $500 in reliance damages?).

Or is that $500 of sunk cost factored into the expectation damages analysis, because not giving that money to B would prevent B from ending up where he expected (having covered his costs and made a $250 profit?).

There I'd call the $500 reliance damages, with $250 more in expectation damages.

atticus89 wrote:The way you're using restitution here is almost like punitive damages, i.e. punishing the seller for his breach, which isn't allowed in K remedies.

This probably right. Seller pulled a dick move so I thought you could get back at him by saying "sorry no profits on this one" but that doesn't really fit with the quantum meruit or quantum valebat restitution stuff.


Would you actually separate them out into reliance and expectation. Or would it all be under the expectation umbrella? I feel like it would all be under the expectation umbrella.

Expectation damages = loss in value (aka performance loss) + other loss - performance cost avoided - other loss avoided.

I'm having a hard time applying that formula to my facts and getting the answer I know I should be getting.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15475
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:26 pm

BVest wrote:Also remember that expectation damages will always be highest because restitution and reliance damages can never exceed expectation damages. The reason one might pick restitution damages or reliance damages over expectation damages is usually because they're easier to prove.

Page 111 of the big outline suggest you'd shoot for restitution because it exceeds expectation.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests