BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

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

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:46 pm

kykiske wrote:There two questions on there that I was "WTF" when I read the answer. First was Q18. IT was about a service (construction) contract modification being valid without consideration because it was "fair and equitable."

Second was Q4, where the correct answer was the landowner was not liable for his neighbor's injuries--caused by trained attack dogs--because the neighbor knew of the dog's dangerous propensities. I thought landowners owed no duty of care at all to undiscovered trespassers. Nothing in the facts state that the landowner knew anything about the neighbor frequently walking past his home, nor did they mention that the landowner knew that the neighbor had buried a shovel on the landowner's land.


I got that Q4 wrong too, but I think the answer was assumption of risk

Q18 was similar to one of the Barbri question we just did which I got wrong, so I vaguely remembered that.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby rickgrimes69 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:57 pm

Learned Throw Hands wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:Ok probably basic question about the essays, forgive me if this has already been asked and answered.

For multiple-part questions drawing from a similar prompt, and the same analysis or rule is applicable to more than one part, can we reference to what we've already written above?

So, for example, if we have a two-part torts question, and in part (a) you analyze the elements of negligence (duty, breach, causation, damages) and how they apply to the facts, do you need to go through that same analysis again in part (b) or can you simply say "as discussed above in part (a), X is probably negligent"?

The sample answers do it all the time.


Yea but I'm not sure I trust Barbri's judgment...

Anyway, I figured it was fine but I wanted to double check. Thanks.

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 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:58 pm

kykiske wrote:
somedude wrote:
xfer2013 wrote:Anyone take that 21 question MBE sample set on the NCBE site? Thought it was worth doing because of all the talk about Barbri questions being different from the real ones.

Got 81% correct, about 10% better than my average for barbri questions...

So maybe there is something to the barbri questions being harder? Anyone else do this?


FWIW: I just did it and I got 15/21, 71 %. That's worse than I did on Refresher and barely better than the Sim MBE. I also only got 6/10 on the Civ Pro thing.


There two questions on there that I was "WTF" when I read the answer. First was Q18. IT was about a service (construction) contract modification being valid without consideration because it was "fair and equitable."

Second was Q4, where the correct answer was the landowner was not liable for his neighbor's injuries--caused by trained attack dogs--because the neighbor knew of the dog's dangerous propensities. I thought landowners owed no duty of care at all to undiscovered trespassers. Nothing in the facts state that the landowner knew anything about the neighbor frequently walking past his home, nor did they mention that the landowner knew that the neighbor had buried a shovel on the landowner's land.

I haven't read the question, but I think it has to do with reasonable means of protecting your property. Like, if you build a trap in anticipation of trespassers, you're liable to injured trespassers even if you didn't know Johnny Trespasser would be coming around. I think barbri has a few questions like this.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15487
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:06 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
Learned Throw Hands wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:Ok probably basic question about the essays, forgive me if this has already been asked and answered.

For multiple-part questions drawing from a similar prompt, and the same analysis or rule is applicable to more than one part, can we reference to what we've already written above?

So, for example, if we have a two-part torts question, and in part (a) you analyze the elements of negligence (duty, breach, causation, damages) and how they apply to the facts, do you need to go through that same analysis again in part (b) or can you simply say "as discussed above in part (a), X is probably negligent"?

The sample answers do it all the time.


Yea but I'm not sure I trust Barbri's judgment...

Anyway, I figured it was fine but I wanted to double check. Thanks.

I think the general consensus at least in my state is that more writing is always better. So it's fine to skip things if you need to save time, and it probably won't matter either way, but if you've got time you might as well write out as much as possible. We know these graders are mostly just doing a cursory glance at each essay so you might as well make it seem like you said a bunch of extra, substantive things.

kykiske
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kykiske » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:09 pm

3|ink wrote:
kykiske wrote:
somedude wrote:
xfer2013 wrote:Anyone take that 21 question MBE sample set on the NCBE site? Thought it was worth doing because of all the talk about Barbri questions being different from the real ones.

Got 81% correct, about 10% better than my average for barbri questions...

So maybe there is something to the barbri questions being harder? Anyone else do this?


FWIW: I just did it and I got 15/21, 71 %. That's worse than I did on Refresher and barely better than the Sim MBE. I also only got 6/10 on the Civ Pro thing.


There two questions on there that I was "WTF" when I read the answer. First was Q18. IT was about a service (construction) contract modification being valid without consideration because it was "fair and equitable."

Second was Q4, where the correct answer was the landowner was not liable for his neighbor's injuries--caused by trained attack dogs--because the neighbor knew of the dog's dangerous propensities. I thought landowners owed no duty of care at all to undiscovered trespassers. Nothing in the facts state that the landowner knew anything about the neighbor frequently walking past his home, nor did they mention that the landowner knew that the neighbor had buried a shovel on the landowner's land.

I haven't read the question, but I think it has to do with reasonable means of protecting your property. Like, if you build a trap in anticipation of trespassers, you're liable to injured trespassers even if you didn't know Johnny Trespasser would be coming around. I think barbri has a few questions like this.


That's a good point. But for Barbri, all the traps were "man-made death contraptions." I've yet to encounter an attack-dog one. But hey, the more you know.

kykiske
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kykiske » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:11 pm

kyle010723 wrote:
kykiske wrote:There two questions on there that I was "WTF" when I read the answer. First was Q18. IT was about a service (construction) contract modification being valid without consideration because it was "fair and equitable."

Second was Q4, where the correct answer was the landowner was not liable for his neighbor's injuries--caused by trained attack dogs--because the neighbor knew of the dog's dangerous propensities. I thought landowners owed no duty of care at all to undiscovered trespassers. Nothing in the facts state that the landowner knew anything about the neighbor frequently walking past his home, nor did they mention that the landowner knew that the neighbor had buried a shovel on the landowner's land.


I got that Q4 wrong too, but I think the answer was assumption of risk

Q18 was similar to one of the Barbri question we just did which I got wrong, so I vaguely remembered that.


I think the "withdrawal of complaint" goes to the "good faith attempt" to resolve differences in litigation before resolving to sanctions.

So in this question--before actually moving for sanctions--you must, in good faith, get the other side to withdraw the complaint. Only after that should you move for sanctions.

rhs100
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:17 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby rhs100 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:12 pm

Just realized that if you discard a task from PSP, then it doesn't count in your percent complete anymore --- so it shows you completed more % - that means I didn't actually really complete 74% because I've been discarding all the stuff I hate like state distinctions, CMR etc. That's no good right :(

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

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:14 pm

rhs100 wrote:Just realized that if you discard a task from PSP, then it doesn't count in your percent complete anymore --- so it shows you completed more % - that means I didn't actually really complete 74% because I've been discarding all the stuff I hate like state distinctions, CMR etc. That's no good right :(


I mean, beside the mythical 75%, the PSP progress is meaningless.

Kage3212
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:34 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Kage3212 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:20 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
Learned Throw Hands wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:Ok probably basic question about the essays, forgive me if this has already been asked and answered.

For multiple-part questions drawing from a similar prompt, and the same analysis or rule is applicable to more than one part, can we reference to what we've already written above?

So, for example, if we have a two-part torts question, and in part (a) you analyze the elements of negligence (duty, breach, causation, damages) and how they apply to the facts, do you need to go through that same analysis again in part (b) or can you simply say "as discussed above in part (a), X is probably negligent"?

The sample answers do it all the time.


Yea but I'm not sure I trust Barbri's judgment...

Anyway, I figured it was fine but I wanted to double check. Thanks.

I think the general consensus at least in my state is that more writing is always better. So it's fine to skip things if you need to save time, and it probably won't matter either way, but if you've got time you might as well write out as much as possible. We know these graders are mostly just doing a cursory glance at each essay so you might as well make it seem like you said a bunch of extra, substantive things.


I believe the substance of your statement to be true, that grades spend very little time grading essays. But that makes me wonder how you get yourself into the very bottom portion? Poor formatting, lots of typos, do they look for key facts repeated in your answer, or what? Certainly if a grader is spending only a few minutes with your entire exam, he or she wont be engaging in detailed analysis of whether you knew the elements of each rule and applied them appropriately.

Just curious what makes god awful answers stick out, that would enable a grader to immediately determine failing material.

old_soul
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:09 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby old_soul » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:24 pm

Does anyone have an awesome outline/handy guide for Crim Pro?

This is embarrassing, but for whatever reason, I can't wrap my head around some of these tricky Miranda and double jeopardy questions.

User avatar
Learned Throw Hands
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Learned Throw Hands » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:29 pm

If you had to guestimate, in a 50% MBE jurisdiction (and assuming 75% pass rate), what raw score do you think people are failing with? I think I'm hovering around autopass but I'm just trying to figure out worst case scenario how bad I would have to under perform to fuck myself.

Lawlawpalooza
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:14 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Lawlawpalooza » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:30 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
here's 10 sample civ pro questions too: https://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=% ... ument%2F16


Can anyone explain why that's the best answer for Q5? I'm probably still out of it from wasting my time and doing 3 MPT today, but I'm just not seeing it.

rhs100
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:17 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby rhs100 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:31 pm

Learned Throw Hands wrote:If you had to guestimate, in a 50% MBE jurisdiction (and assuming 75% pass rate), what raw score do you think people are failing with? I think I'm hovering around autopass but I'm just trying to figure out worst case scenario how bad I would have to under perform to fuck myself.


What is the general consensus about exactly what score gets you Autopass?

User avatar
Learned Throw Hands
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Learned Throw Hands » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:32 pm

rhs100 wrote:
Learned Throw Hands wrote:If you had to guestimate, in a 50% MBE jurisdiction (and assuming 75% pass rate), what raw score do you think people are failing with? I think I'm hovering around autopass but I'm just trying to figure out worst case scenario how bad I would have to under perform to fuck myself.


What is the general consensus about exactly what score gets you Autopass?

In a 50% MBE state with a 75% pass rate I think it's like roughly 72% correct.

rhs100
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:17 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby rhs100 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:33 pm

kyle010723 wrote:
rhs100 wrote:Just realized that if you discard a task from PSP, then it doesn't count in your percent complete anymore --- so it shows you completed more % - that means I didn't actually really complete 74% because I've been discarding all the stuff I hate like state distinctions, CMR etc. That's no good right :(


I mean, beside the mythical 75%, the PSP progress is meaningless.


Yeah true. Hopefully non-barbri stuff makes up for it.

jamescastle
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:58 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby jamescastle » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:34 pm

old_soul wrote:Does anyone have an awesome outline/handy guide for Crim Pro?

This is embarrassing, but for whatever reason, I can't wrap my head around some of these tricky Miranda and double jeopardy questions.

Just sent you mine. I don't know how to do attachments so I just copied and pasted. So all the tabs disappeared and you'll have to reformat but hopefully it's helpful.

jamescastle
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:58 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby jamescastle » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:35 pm

jamescastle wrote:
old_soul wrote:Does anyone have an awesome outline/handy guide for Crim Pro?

This is embarrassing, but for whatever reason, I can't wrap my head around some of these tricky Miranda and double jeopardy questions.

Just sent you mine. I don't know how to do attachments so I just copied and pasted. So all the tabs disappeared and you'll have to reformat but hopefully it's helpful.

Oh also I had some tables in it that got butchered by the formatting as well. Lemme know if you want those fixed.

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

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby charlesxavier » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:36 pm

Kage3212 wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
Learned Throw Hands wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:Ok probably basic question about the essays, forgive me if this has already been asked and answered.

For multiple-part questions drawing from a similar prompt, and the same analysis or rule is applicable to more than one part, can we reference to what we've already written above?

So, for example, if we have a two-part torts question, and in part (a) you analyze the elements of negligence (duty, breach, causation, damages) and how they apply to the facts, do you need to go through that same analysis again in part (b) or can you simply say "as discussed above in part (a), X is probably negligent"?

The sample answers do it all the time.


Yea but I'm not sure I trust Barbri's judgment...

Anyway, I figured it was fine but I wanted to double check. Thanks.

I think the general consensus at least in my state is that more writing is always better. So it's fine to skip things if you need to save time, and it probably won't matter either way, but if you've got time you might as well write out as much as possible. We know these graders are mostly just doing a cursory glance at each essay so you might as well make it seem like you said a bunch of extra, substantive things.


I believe the substance of your statement to be true, that grades spend very little time grading essays. But that makes me wonder how you get yourself into the very bottom portion? Poor formatting, lots of typos, do they look for key facts repeated in your answer, or what? Certainly if a grader is spending only a few minutes with your entire exam, he or she wont be engaging in detailed analysis of whether you knew the elements of each rule and applied them appropriately.

Just curious what makes god awful answers stick out, that would enable a grader to immediately determine failing material.


My professor sent out a paper that got a 1/7. It was probably 8 sentences, not even close to CRAC, didn't answer the right question and for the second half just said "I'm not aware of any defense."

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

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:37 pm

Lawlawpalooza wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
here's 10 sample civ pro questions too: https://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=% ... ument%2F16


Can anyone explain why that's the best answer for Q5? I'm probably still out of it from wasting my time and doing 3 MPT today, but I'm just not seeing it.


[+] Spoiler
Because the manufacturer is not seeking indemnification nor contribution, it is denying fault altogether. If manufacturer truly believed the Plaintiff sued the wrong party, he should file a motion to dismiss, not to implead a third party.

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 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:37 pm

Lawlawpalooza wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
here's 10 sample civ pro questions too: https://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=% ... ument%2F16


Can anyone explain why that's the best answer for Q5? I'm probably still out of it from wasting my time and doing 3 MPT today, but I'm just not seeing it.



[+] Spoiler
Can only implead a third party if you want them to indemnify you for all or part of whatever amount you're found liable for. Cannot implead a third party to completely deny any liability whatsoever.



ETA: SCOOPED

victortsoi
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby victortsoi » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:43 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
Lawlawpalooza wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
here's 10 sample civ pro questions too: https://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=% ... ument%2F16


Can anyone explain why that's the best answer for Q5? I'm probably still out of it from wasting my time and doing 3 MPT today, but I'm just not seeing it.



[+] Spoiler
Can only implead a third party if you want them to indemnify you for all or part of whatever amount you're found liable for. Cannot implead a third party to completely deny any liability whatsoever.



ETA: SCOOPED



so what is it called when you do want to deny any liability whatsoever?

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

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:45 pm

victortsoi wrote:so what is it called when you do want to deny any liability whatsoever?


A Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (if no evidence), or a Motion for Summary Judgment (if some evidence).
Last edited by kyle010723 on Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RaleighStClair
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:10 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby RaleighStClair » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:53 pm

Losing my mind a little bit. Started talking in the Rich Freer voice to myself doing Property flashcards.



I can't wait for this fucking exam to be over.

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 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:56 pm

RaleighStClair wrote:Losing my mind a little bit. Started talking in the Rich Freer voice to myself doing Property flashcards.



I can't wait for this fucking exam to be over.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

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

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:58 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
shecallingme wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:This will not likely be tested, but how can a condo owner ever convey a marketable title given all the encumbrances imposed by the HOA?


If the encumbrances are disclosed then there is no issue. Marketable title is an issue for undisclosed encumbrances.


Is this right? I thought that was only for known easements. Wouldn't the presence of, say, a judicial lien on the property, even if disclosed, render title unmarketable?


Easements, mortgages, etc. are all fine so long as they're disclosed. As long as the buyer knows (s)he's taking the property subject to the encumbrance, it's all good.

Or just use a quitclaim deed and anything goes.


What about Adverse Possession? If part of the property was obtained via AP, doesn't that always render title unmarketable regardless of disclosure (assuming they didn't bring an action to quiet title)?


I think the thing to remember here is that unmarketable title doesn't make the land sale void, it only makes it voidable at the option of the buyer, and only before closing. So, the buyer can always choose to go ahead with the sale if he knows about anything that would make title unmarketable. Right? But I'm not sure how this works with the deed warranty against encumbrances. I guess you just wouldn't give a warranty deed if there were encumbrances? I also think it's possible to give a warranty deed that doesn't have all six of the warranties found in a general warranty deed.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest