Top Law Schools

musicfor18 wrote:

smokeylarue wrote:Jacking this from the Themis thread but I'm curious about it too because this assignment/delegation/third party beneficiary stuff ALWAYS trips me up....

Can someone explain to me 3rd Party Beneficiaries in these contexts?

1) A contracts with B. B owes A $1,000. A tells B to give the $1,000 to C (assigning A's rights to C). A tells C that B will give her money. C goes out and buys $1,000 worth of stuff on her credit card. B later gives $1,000 to A. Can C sue B for not giving her the money?

2) Same facts as above, EXCEPT B doesn't give money at all to A. Can C sue B for payment?

I've been really confused whether incidental beneficiaries can ever vest by detrimental reliance if they had notice (like A telling C that B will give her money).

Also, is there a difference between creditor/donee beneficiaries as to how their interests vest?

If anyone can tell me how they handle assignments of payment on K questions, I would greatly appreciate it! (e.g., who owes who the money, who can sue whom).

Thanks!

I'll take a shot at this, but others should check my work.

(1) This isn't a TPB question; it's an assignment question. I think that C could sue B because B knew about the assignment. I don't think C could sue A, though, because it was a gratuitous assignment (no consideration), which means it's revocable. Is this right?

(2) Yes, C can sue B. (Assignee can sue obligor)

I don't think there's any difference between creditor and donee beneficiaries regarding vesting. The only difference is that a creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisee to the extent of the pre-existing debt, whereas donee beneficiaries can't enforce the contract against the promisee at all (only the promisor).

Kage3212 wrote:What are people bringing for lunch? Just realized we have no access to fridge and our lunch has to be in our bag that we bring the entire time? Anyone have a good meal regime they are planning that doesnt require a fridge?

Kage3212 wrote:What are people bringing for lunch? Just realized we have no access to fridge and our lunch has to be in our bag that we bring the entire time? Anyone have a good meal regime they are planning that doesnt require a fridge?

rinkrat19 wrote:we're only allowed a quart-sized bag. wtf. Pencils barely fit in it.

Good Guy Gaud wrote:I'm going to bring like a protein/energy bar but that's it. I perform better if I'm a little hungry and I'd rather be hungry than eat too much because I'm stressed then get tired.

Some people's problems.

charlesxavier wrote:

musicfor18 wrote:

smokeylarue wrote:Jacking this from the Themis thread but I'm curious about it too because this assignment/delegation/third party beneficiary stuff ALWAYS trips me up....

Can someone explain to me 3rd Party Beneficiaries in these contexts?

1) A contracts with B. B owes A $1,000. A tells B to give the $1,000 to C (assigning A's rights to C). A tells C that B will give her money. C goes out and buys $1,000 worth of stuff on her credit card. B later gives $1,000 to A. Can C sue B for not giving her the money?

2) Same facts as above, EXCEPT B doesn't give money at all to A. Can C sue B for payment?

I've been really confused whether incidental beneficiaries can ever vest by detrimental reliance if they had notice (like A telling C that B will give her money).

Also, is there a difference between creditor/donee beneficiaries as to how their interests vest?

If anyone can tell me how they handle assignments of payment on K questions, I would greatly appreciate it! (e.g., who owes who the money, who can sue whom).

Thanks!

I'll take a shot at this, but others should check my work.

(1) This isn't a TPB question; it's an assignment question. I think that C could sue B because B knew about the assignment. I don't think C could sue A, though, because it was a gratuitous assignment (no consideration), which means it's revocable. Is this right?

(2) Yes, C can sue B. (Assignee can sue obligor)

I don't think there's any difference between creditor and donee beneficiaries regarding vesting. The only difference is that a creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisee to the extent of the pre-existing debt, whereas donee beneficiaries can't enforce the contract against the promisee at all (only the promisor).

According to my notes a gratuitous assignment is irrevocable if the assignee reasonably and foreseeably relied on the assignment.

musicfor18 wrote:

charlesxavier wrote:

musicfor18 wrote:

smokeylarue wrote:Jacking this from the Themis thread but I'm curious about it too because this assignment/delegation/third party beneficiary stuff ALWAYS trips me up....

Can someone explain to me 3rd Party Beneficiaries in these contexts?

1) A contracts with B. B owes A $1,000. A tells B to give the $1,000 to C (assigning A's rights to C). A tells C that B will give her money. C goes out and buys $1,000 worth of stuff on her credit card. B later gives $1,000 to A. Can C sue B for not giving her the money?

2) Same facts as above, EXCEPT B doesn't give money at all to A. Can C sue B for payment?

I've been really confused whether incidental beneficiaries can ever vest by detrimental reliance if they had notice (like A telling C that B will give her money).

Also, is there a difference between creditor/donee beneficiaries as to how their interests vest?

If anyone can tell me how they handle assignments of payment on K questions, I would greatly appreciate it! (e.g., who owes who the money, who can sue whom).

Thanks!

I'll take a shot at this, but others should check my work.

(1) This isn't a TPB question; it's an assignment question. I think that C could sue B because B knew about the assignment. I don't think C could sue A, though, because it was a gratuitous assignment (no consideration), which means it's revocable. Is this right?

(2) Yes, C can sue B. (Assignee can sue obligor)

I don't think there's any difference between creditor and donee beneficiaries regarding vesting. The only difference is that a creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisee to the extent of the pre-existing debt, whereas donee beneficiaries can't enforce the contract against the promisee at all (only the promisor).

According to my notes a gratuitous assignment is irrevocable if the assignee reasonably and foreseeably relied on the assignment.

Good point. That's true. But I still don't know if the assignee can sue the assignor.

Kage3212 wrote:Anyone know if the OBE 4 is the same OPE 4 offered on Adaptibar? Adaptibar states that it is 100 questions from 2013 exam.

lawstudent_87 wrote:Is assault a specific intent crime? I know it is a specific intent crime if it is an "attempted battery," but is it a specific intent crime if it is for purposes of putting another person in apprehension of fear or danger?

In other words, if you point a gun at someone but are "stage 9" drunk, are you guilty of assault?

RaleighStClair wrote:I can't find where you guys were talking about the OPE #4, etc. I was curious - how did you think those questions felt stylistically compared to Emanuel's practice exam and/or BarBri's Mixed Sets? And how did you do relatively?

I've been getting 40ish/50 on the mixed sets, and got 153/200 on the full-day Emanuel. But I didn't do well at all on the 21 NCBE sample, so I'm a little concerned.

3|ink wrote:If my notes are right, an assignee cannot sue and assignor for the obligor's failure to perform. However, the assignee can sue the assignor when it attempts to revoke an irrevocable assignment. And justifiable reliance on the assignment to the assignee's detriment makes the assignment irrevocable. So I think Charles is right.

RaleighStClair wrote: I can't find where you guys were talking about the OPE #4, etc. I was curious - how did you think those questions felt stylistically compared to Emanuel's practice exam and/or BarBri's Mixed Sets? And how did you do relatively?

I've been getting 40ish/50 on the mixed sets, and got 153/200 on the full-day Emanuel. But I didn't do well at all on the 21 NCBE sample, so I'm a little concerned.

Good Guy Gaud wrote: For anyone else who was curious after the post about the OBE-MBE from the NCBE:
I took the OBE 4 test this morning and got a scaled score of 164 (which would be low 150s raw using past raw score conversion charts). Consistent with what other posters have said, the questions are just more straight-forward. Like, there's usually just one issue they're testing on and it tends not to be that difficult to recognize which issue it is. Also, it's usually easier to toss out 1-2 of the answer choices almost immediately.

sharklet wrote: MBE-OPE 4: 173/200 (last week) - scaled
Barbri Half-Day: 70/100. (this week)
Mixed Set 6: 30/50 (this week)
MBE-OPE 3: 180/200 (today) - scaled

diowad wrote:Finished Emanuel's last set of 50 in his 200. Somehow, some way pulled a 43/50, when I had been in the mid-30's.

I think that's a wrap for my 10 weeks of studying. Day off tomorrow before the games begin on Tuesday.

gmail wrote:Is it just me or are the barbri tort lecutres frequently insufficient to actually answer barbri tort questions. For example, the lecture clearly states that there is an affirmative duty to act in only three instances, (1) close family relationships, (2) common carriers inkeepers, (3) invitee/invitors. Then there's a StudySmart question where a farmer on a tractor sees a storm was coming and fled to a lightening-safe area, leaving his 16 yr old, city-slicker, farmworker in the back of the tractor to get struck. We're supposed to find the farmer liable b/c "modern cases" extend the affirmative duty to act/rescue to the employer in an employer/employee relationship.

How the shit are we supposed to know that??

gmail wrote:Is it just me or are the barbri tort lecutres frequently insufficient to actually answer barbri tort questions. For example, the lecture clearly states that there is an affirmative duty to act in only three instances, (1) close family relationships, (2) common carriers inkeepers, (3) invitee/invitors. Then there's a StudySmart question where a farmer on a tractor sees a storm was coming and fled to a lightening-safe area, leaving his 16 yr old, city-slicker, farmworker in the back of the tractor to get struck. We're supposed to find the farmer liable b/c "modern cases" extend the affirmative duty to act/rescue to the employer in an employer/employee relationship.

How the shit are we supposed to know that??

diowad wrote:

gmail wrote:Is it just me or are the barbri tort lecutres frequently insufficient to actually answer barbri tort questions. For example, the lecture clearly states that there is an affirmative duty to act in only three instances, (1) close family relationships, (2) common carriers inkeepers, (3) invitee/invitors. Then there's a StudySmart question where a farmer on a tractor sees a storm was coming and fled to a lightening-safe area, leaving his 16 yr old, city-slicker, farmworker in the back of the tractor to get struck. We're supposed to find the farmer liable b/c "modern cases" extend the affirmative duty to act/rescue to the employer in an employer/employee relationship.

How the shit are we supposed to know that??

Can't really answer your question but as far as their Torts coverage based off of practice questions is concerned, they should have had a separate day just for strict and products liability. Seems that both BarBri and Emanuel have a hard on for that sub-topic.

gmail wrote:Is it just me or are the barbri tort lecutres frequently insufficient to actually answer barbri tort questions. For example, the lecture clearly states that there is an affirmative duty to act in only three instances, (1) close family relationships, (2) common carriers inkeepers, (3) invitee/invitors. Then there's a StudySmart question where a farmer on a tractor sees a storm was coming and fled to a lightening-safe area, leaving his 16 yr old, city-slicker, farmworker in the back of the tractor to get struck. We're supposed to find the farmer liable b/c "modern cases" extend the affirmative duty to act/rescue to the employer in an employer/employee relationship.

How the shit are we supposed to know that??