2017 February California Bar Exam

charlie89
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 4:26 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby charlie89 » Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:14 pm

Bar exam missed connection: Is someone named Jordan reading this? You sat in front of me during the exam and we laughed about the creepy/sadistic proctor. I didn't get a chance to chat with you after the test because I had to leave in a hurry, so PM me!

charlie89
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 4:26 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby charlie89 » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:54 pm

Also, is anyone else also having extreme difficulty dealing with the uncertainty of whether you passed or not? Such a tortuous feeling.

ur_hero
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ur_hero » Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:37 pm

charlie89 wrote:Also, is anyone else also having extreme difficulty dealing with the uncertainty of whether you passed or not? Such a tortuous feeling.


Yeah, it's basically unavoidable I think. Especially because the first time I felt relatively confident, despite knowing of certain mistakes. Felt better this time, but it's just extremely difficult to gauge considering it can come down to 5 points here and there on any given essay or PT.

I just have to mentally repeat to myself worrying about it won't change the outcome - however realistic or effective/feasible it is to do this.

Hopefully we slowly forget over the next few weeks, at least until results get closer!

boxinggirl
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby boxinggirl » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:34 pm

charlie89 wrote:Also, is anyone else also having extreme difficulty dealing with the uncertainty of whether you passed or not? Such a tortuous feeling.



Yes! I'm in Puerto Rico right now, and I'm supposed to be having a great time. But I'm still feeling weighed down from 1) the exhaustion of testing and 2) my anxious thoughts regarding things I missed, addressed, could have done better...

User avatar
Snowboarder1588
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:55 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Snowboarder1588 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:02 am

boxinggirl wrote:
charlie89 wrote:Also, is anyone else also having extreme difficulty dealing with the uncertainty of whether you passed or not? Such a tortuous feeling.



Yes! I'm in Puerto Rico right now, and I'm supposed to be having a great time. But I'm still feeling weighed down from 1) the exhaustion of testing and 2) my anxious thoughts regarding things I missed, addressed, could have done better...




I feel your pain. But you are in Puerto Rico. You should be having so much rum to the point that you forget you just took a bar exam...

User avatar
Calvin Murphy
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:58 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Calvin Murphy » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:12 am

Snowboarder1588 wrote:
boxinggirl wrote:
charlie89 wrote:Also, is anyone else also having extreme difficulty dealing with the uncertainty of whether you passed or not? Such a tortuous feeling.



Yes! I'm in Puerto Rico right now, and I'm supposed to be having a great time. But I'm still feeling weighed down from 1) the exhaustion of testing and 2) my anxious thoughts regarding things I missed, addressed, could have done better...




I feel your pain. But you are in Puerto Rico. You should be having so much rum to the point that you forget you just took a bar exam...how to sign on to TLS.


ftfy

SUPERFEVER
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:56 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby SUPERFEVER » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:27 am

Can someone ease my mind on the Wills essay?

I argued that the first will might not be valid because the two witnesses need to know they're signing a will. Facts said W2 didn't know about the bequests in the document but he was honored to sign anyways. This hinted that maybe he didn't know it was a will which would make it invalid for lack of witnesses.

Code Section - Prob. §§6100, et seq.
"At least 2 persons present at the same time, witnessing either signing of will or testator's acknowledgment and must understand that it is testator's will."

I went ahead and argued revocation by act and subsequent instrument anyways.

How did everyone else handle this?

ur_hero
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ur_hero » Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:39 am

SUPERFEVER wrote:Can someone ease my mind on the Wills essay?

I argued that the first will might not be valid because the two witnesses need to know they're signing a will. Facts said W2 didn't know about the bequests in the document but he was honored to sign anyways. This hinted that maybe he didn't know it was a will which would make it invalid for lack of witnesses.

Code Section - Prob. §§6100, et seq.
"At least 2 persons present at the same time, witnessing either signing of will or testator's acknowledgment and must understand that it is testator's will."

I went ahead and argued revocation by act and subsequent instrument anyways.

How did everyone else handle this?


My understanding is that they only have to know it's a will, not the substance of the will itself. In othe words, reading it is not required. My conclusion was valid will, but revoked by subsequent instrument.

Lawless!
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 8:33 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Lawless! » Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:28 am

ur_hero wrote:
SUPERFEVER wrote:Can someone ease my mind on the Wills essay?

I argued that the first will might not be valid because the two witnesses need to know they're signing a will. Facts said W2 didn't know about the bequests in the document but he was honored to sign anyways. This hinted that maybe he didn't know it was a will which would make it invalid for lack of witnesses.

Code Section - Prob. §§6100, et seq.
"At least 2 persons present at the same time, witnessing either signing of will or testator's acknowledgment and must understand that it is testator's will."

I went ahead and argued revocation by act and subsequent instrument anyways.

How did everyone else handle this?


My understanding is that they only have to know it's a will, not the substance of the will itself. In othe words, reading it is not required. My conclusion was valid will, but revoked by subsequent instrument.



I don't think there were facts in the essay as to whether he understood it was the will or not. Instead the facts stated he was honored to sign... Didn't say exactly what he knew what he was honored to sign. But I argued valid will bc I didn't want to do down the other road. Lol ...also a point I remembered but missed on the essay was that harmless error where you don't have the required 2 competent witnesses, so long as testator has intent to make it his will you can give evidence of his intent and admit into probate. So the witnesses issue would've been easily looked over and the Will would've been valid since there's intent to Create a will.

Rocky64
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:40 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Rocky64 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:52 am

How did you guys find the Evidence essay? I ran out of time on it... I remember hitting the following:
Double hearsay
Authentication of business records
Volumeness of records
Present sense impression
Present bodily condition
Found both inner and outer declaration within exceptions
Lack of admissibility due to public policy with regard to medical expenses, with the possibility that they can be considered as party opponent admission since made before a claim
Also mentioned vicarious admission
Thoughts anyone?

Lawless!
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 8:33 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Lawless! » Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:14 am

Rocky64 wrote:How did you guys find the Evidence essay? I ran out of time on it... I remember hitting the following:
Double hearsay
Authentication of business records
Volumeness of records
Present sense impression
Present bodily condition
Found both inner and outer declaration within exceptions
Lack of admissibility due to public policy with regard to medical expenses, with the possibility that they can be considered as party opponent admission since made before a claim
Also mentioned vicarious admission
Thoughts anyone?


Sounds like you hit all the big items. I argued vicarious admission too. But ran out of time for public policy/Med payment and use for other purposes such as impeachment and prior inconsistent statement.

diebarexam
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:08 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby diebarexam » Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:19 am

Damn. I missed some issues on that evidence! I ran out of time cause Wills was FULL of issues.
Last edited by diebarexam on Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I-object
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby I-object » Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:56 pm

Wills

Valid Will-1?
T had capacity, showed intent, knew the extent of her proprty and assets etc....T created her
will from her computer naming Dauther and Son, Daughter to get house, Son to get Delta and other
Stock, and both to get residue (which was $20,000?) she printed two copies and signed them both.
Was this okay?, did it effect its validity?, which ones were W1 and W2 supposed to sign etc? I
think there was supposed to be some discussion there, maybe not much. I chose to say it was okay
because they were exact duplicates of each other. Besides what would a court decide? was too
early in the exam to know for sure. So I just concluded that it was valid at to its formation.

Valid Attestation?
Witness1 friend knew all about T, and Family was aware of the will and T's intent. Witness2 was
neighbor. New that it was a will, but did not know of its contents. Issue: was this enough to
invalidate Will-1 ? CA says must sign in the presents of each other and the T, must know the
nature of what is going on. Im obviously not clear on the exact rule, but I believe a probate
court would not invalidate a will just because a testating witness did not know all the
provisions of a will. So long as the testator knew it was a will he/she was witnessing, and
signed in the presents of the Testator and the other testating witness it should be valid. I
think they wanted some discussion here. Because some wills may have tons of provisions, It
seemed highly unlikely attestating witnesses would have to know all of them, simply
unreasonable. So for that reason I found will-1 valid.

Revocation?
T married H. Obliterated original by deleting it. Destroyed copy 1 by tearing it up. But left
copy 2 in safety deposit box. She also revoked will 1 by Subsequent act when she Will 2. What
was to become of that kept copy in safety box? if later discovered would it have any meaning or
effect? could Son use it to validate his claim to all of the stock instead of its division with
Husband?.

Will 2
Valid Holigraphic will? valid Codicil ? T typed this on computer (cant remember) but I remember
she did not sign or date it. Since the Material terms were not in her writing , nor did she
sign, its likely Will 2 was not valid. I really messed when I got away from IRACing anything and
started talking about the meaning of Will 2, even though it was likely not really valid. I
argued it was valid only because her intent could be proven by the existence of Will 1 which was
still in safety deposit box.

Daughter: got house no matter what happened because she was given the house in both wills.
Son: orignally (there were two stocks, stock1 and Stock2) , both went to Son. but after will 2 ,
Stock 1 to Husband, Stock 2 Son. Issue Ademption? as to Stock1, because it went to Husband. Son
gets Stock2 by transmutation, change of form from Delta to Tango. Said he would argue Will 2
invalid and gets Stocks 1 and 2, using Rivival, but said would not work because this is not what
T intended. Said DRR but today realize that possible could not work because T was not mistaken,
she set to do what she wanted.

Husband: Stock 1
Residue: Cash to Son and Daughter.
I know this is a simplified view on the whole matter, but this was my take. I should have IRAC a
little more.

Evidence:
A and B collided at intersection. Each blamed the other running the red light. A sued C, (B's
employer) P sought to introduce the intake report from hospital.

Call 1
was the intake report properly admitted.
Relevance; Yes because it proved A's injuries from the collision. Was not prejudicial

Authentication, nurse I believe was available to testify? cant recall. If yes she could
authenticate. If not A could authenticate it was what it purported it to be..

Double Hearsay
What A said to Nurse plus what nurse wrote down. Each needed an exception. N's exception
presense sense impresssion , A's statement of the event as he described the cause of his
injuries (stretch , not sure if this was applicable). A's exception past present physical
condition, and or both could use the statement made for diagnosis or treatement.

The intake report was admissible because A did not describe whos fault it was. He did not say in
his descriptoin to nurse that it was B's "fault". Because the intake report only spoke about A's
injuries, the intake report was admissible.

BER: I forgot to write on BER. My bad. This could have cost 5 points. The only justification I
could hope was it was not a big issue. Not sure if the contents of the intake form were being
contested. he was injured period. But that is what should have been discussed and move on.

Call 2
I cant remember but it was something like what B said to A. B confessed or admitted fault to A
saying she was sorry it was her fault. So were we to talk about the several non-hearsay and
hearsay exceptions of a party opponent? Heres how I dealt with each.

Admission
I said It could not come in as an admission because B was not a party opponent, C was. Just
because B admitted fault, did not mean it could come in under this exception unless B too was a
party. Here she was not A was suing C the employer.

Declaration against interest.
Here I said was not admissible because , she was not unavailable. This exception requires the
witness to be unavailable and make a statement against her personal, propriatory or penal
interest. Problem, I think, was she was at court and available to testify or actually testified.
Not

Vicarious Admission
As C's employee, an agent, B's statements come in because the statements (admission) occurred
during the course and scope of her employment with C. She was delivering pizza? I forget it
maybe was not made clear.

So was properly admitted

Call 3
Was C's statement to A that she had come to the hospital and said she would pay his hospital
bill. While this seemed easy, and I could have missed the order of the calls, but I wrote on
impeachment. A was trying to impeach C because C was on cross examination. I wrote Specific
Acts, but it would be excluded because under policy concerns, offers to pay medical bills were
not admissible. Something like that. I cant remember the exact facts but C's statement was
protected as per public policy statements made to pay medical bills. I thought this was
character, but in going through the facts again, Character didnt fit, but impeachment did. At
least in my opinion.

So the court erred because it was improperly admitted

Lawless!
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 8:33 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Lawless! » Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Not sure if it was a major issue but anyone else discuss the omitted spouse and the husbands's CP or SP share at death of wife. Can't believe the wills Q was so loaded with issues. :|

InterAlia1961
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby InterAlia1961 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:53 pm

I'm a repeater. Had a good time this sitting.

Day One:

Essay One: Wills

Issues:

1) Valid will
A. Witness just has to know it's a will. Doesn't have to know specifics.
2) Revocation
Originals meant as copies are treated as originals. Revocation by defacement or destroying.
3) Holographic Wills. Recognized in California. Must be in testator's handwriting. If not can show by clear and convincing evidence testator intended.
4) DRR.
5) Ademption by extinction
Sub issue of change of form or substance.
5) CP at death
6) Per stripes distribution of property not devised by will

Screwed up on the stock though. Somehow, I ended up giving husband the Tango stock. I don't know what I was thinking.

2) Contract Remedies

A) Rescission of a contract. Betty has to get the evidence in.
B) Parol Evidence
i) Non-occurrence of a condition precedent due to fraud
C) Material Misrepresentation
i. the parking
ii. the murder
D) Remedies
i. damages
ii. restitution
C) Betty gets nothing. No material representation about the property itself. And the dumbass ripped out her bathtub. That's why the property value fell.Duh. I was a little perturbed with Betty. Okay, a LOT perturbed with Betty.

3) Evidence-Don't remember much about this one. Negligence case. Defendant employer denied liability. I didn't discuss BER because the contents of a writing weren't in dispute. I discussed the business record exception, then excluded it. Allowed the hospital record in as an admission of a party opponent.

A) Vicarious/ Admission liability
B) Hearsay
C) Offer to pay medical bills

I excised the offer to pay medical bills and allowed the testimony about the visit itself.


Day Two

Essay One:

Business Corps.
A. Agency/
B. Piercing the Corporate Veil
C. Shareholder's Derivative Suit
D. Director and Shareholder liability
i. Duty not engage in self-dealing

Essay Two:

Professional Responsibility

A. Client Agreements. Must be in writing in CA if reasonable belief will be over $1000
B. Duty to investigate
i. duty not to bring vexatious claim
C. Duty of Competence
D. Duty to safeguard client's property
E. Duty not to commingle client's property
F. Duty to preserve evidence
G. Permissive/Mandatory withdrawal. (on the the actual essay, I think this was C or D)
H. Conflict of interests with opposing counsel

Essay Three:

Criminal Law/ Solicitation

A. Valid Warrant
B. Exception to Warrant requirement
C. Entrapment
i. elements of solicitation
D. Search incident to an arrest
E. No Miranda warnings
F. Properly convicted of solicitation


I even enjoyed the PTs this time. I love it when I get to tell someone "no." No, we are not rescinding our directive. No, we're not paying you over $200,000. As long as I didn't bomb the MBE, I feel pretty good about this time around.

I noticed that the MBE contained numerous questions where there were two correct answers, and you had to find the teeny thread that made one more correct. I hate the MBE.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby InterAlia1961 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:58 pm

She gave the detective $200 as a down payment. BOOM solicitation. :!:

InterAlia1961
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby InterAlia1961 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:13 pm

sittin_pretty wrote:
Lawless! wrote:Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?


I discussed agency authority. And I've been angst-ridden ever since about whether that's the right analysis for the question of a Director/Officer's liability for a corporate contract (as opposed to a principal's liability for a contract entered into by an agent). I've been thinking not, ever since the exam ended, and that I screwed up by spending time on authority that I should have been spent on de facto/de jure/estoppel corporate formation (based on what people here are saying though, not based on my memory of the question... was formation REALLY an issue or was the problem written away it was assumed to be ok??). I also completely missed the issue of piercing the veil, which was probably one of the most important on this question.

I think I hit everything else, and decently though. Any reassurances that 1) authority actually was worth some points to analyze and 2) an answer that omitted formation and pcv but was otherwise good could still be above a 55 would be much appreciated :D

(my other answers, if I recall right, had to do with respective duties, obligations and liabilities (with lots of focus on duty of care/biz judgment, duty to disclose, and limited liability in general, although I may have muddied the exception applications up a bit), and a bit on distribution order during dissolution/liquidation, and shareholders' rights to sue, including for when the proper steps aren't followed in a fundamental change to corporate structure. I also didn't go into much detail over the sale of XYZ supplies to the company other than it didn't violate a duty of loyalty since he got the board's ok)


You had to discuss agency to get Supplier to the point of piercing the veil. If Art didn't have the authority to make the deal and Supplier either knew or had reason to know, then no recovery. Agency was the correct starting point.

I didn't see any double hearsay in the Evidence essay. Missed the impeachment issue, but excised the offer to pay medical bills and allowed testimony about the visit to Pete's room. Actions are also statements. Why would she visit him unless she felt guilt?

Talked about parol evidence on the Co25ntracts/Remedies essay. Had to get the evidence in before we could talk about remedies. Parol evidence to show a condition precedent that didn't occur due to fraud. In the end, I gave Betty nothing. No material misrepresentation about the condition or the habitability of the home. Value went down because the halfwit tore out her bathtub. Cry me a river, Betty.

Overall, I actually enjoyed it this time. Especially the PTs. Who doesn't appreciate telling someone "no?" No, we're not rescinding the directive. No, we're not paying you full price.

News about the MBE here: http://www.ncbex.org/exams/mbe/preparing/

25 pretest questions that don't count on this administration.

cal_pushed
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:41 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:
sittin_pretty wrote:
Lawless! wrote:Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?


I discussed agency authority. And I've been angst-ridden ever since about whether that's the right analysis for the question of a Director/Officer's liability for a corporate contract (as opposed to a principal's liability for a contract entered into by an agent). I've been thinking not, ever since the exam ended, and that I screwed up by spending time on authority that I should have been spent on de facto/de jure/estoppel corporate formation (based on what people here are saying though, not based on my memory of the question... was formation REALLY an issue or was the problem written away it was assumed to be ok??). I also completely missed the issue of piercing the veil, which was probably one of the most important on this question.

I think I hit everything else, and decently though. Any reassurances that 1) authority actually was worth some points to analyze and 2) an answer that omitted formation and pcv but was otherwise good could still be above a 55 would be much appreciated :D

(my other answers, if I recall right, had to do with respective duties, obligations and liabilities (with lots of focus on duty of care/biz judgment, duty to disclose, and limited liability in general, although I may have muddied the exception applications up a bit), and a bit on distribution order during dissolution/liquidation, and shareholders' rights to sue, including for when the proper steps aren't followed in a fundamental change to corporate structure. I also didn't go into much detail over the sale of XYZ supplies to the company other than it didn't violate a duty of loyalty since he got the board's ok)


You had to discuss agency to get Supplier to the point of piercing the veil. If Art didn't have the authority to make the deal and Supplier either knew or had reason to know, then no recovery. Agency was the correct starting point.

I didn't see any double hearsay in the Evidence essay. Missed the impeachment issue, but excised the offer to pay medical bills and allowed testimony about the visit to Pete's room. Actions are also statements. Why would she visit him unless she felt guilt?

Talked about parol evidence on the Co25ntracts/Remedies essay. Had to get the evidence in before we could talk about remedies. Parol evidence to show a condition precedent that didn't occur due to fraud. In the end, I gave Betty nothing. No material misrepresentation about the condition or the habitability of the home. Value went down because the halfwit tore out her bathtub. Cry me a river, Betty.

Overall, I actually enjoyed it this time. Especially the PTs. Who doesn't appreciate telling someone "no?" No, we're not rescinding the directive. No, we're not paying you full price.

News about the MBE here: http://www.ncbex.org/exams/mbe/preparing/

25 pretest questions that don't count on this administration.


You didn't analyze tort? Intentional misrepresentation/ negligent misrep and corresponding remedies? How's you handle the contract merging with the deed in land sale contract context?

On the evidence, anyone else read the facts as stating offer to pay for damage to the vehicle?

ur_hero
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ur_hero » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:51 pm

Lawless! wrote:Not sure if it was a major issue but anyone else discuss the omitted spouse and the husbands's CP or SP share at death of wife. Can't believe the wills Q was so loaded with issues. :|


Yeah, I did a brief spiel on California CP law. For CP, I raised the question of whether the house was CP or wife's SP (the facts did not clearly indicate, so I addressed both possible conclusions). For the unapportioned 200k SP, I discussed how that might be apportioned under intestacy (CP law I believe partially governs this as well).

InterAlia1961
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby InterAlia1961 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:11 pm

cal_pushed wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:
sittin_pretty wrote:
Lawless! wrote:Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?


I discussed agency authority. And I've been angst-ridden ever since about whether that's the right analysis for the question of a Director/Officer's liability for a corporate contract (as opposed to a principal's liability for a contract entered into by an agent). I've been thinking not, ever since the exam ended, and that I screwed up by spending time on authority that I should have been spent on de facto/de jure/estoppel corporate formation (based on what people here are saying though, not based on my memory of the question... was formation REALLY an issue or was the problem written away it was assumed to be ok??). I also completely missed the issue of piercing the veil, which was probably one of the most important on this question.

I think I hit everything else, and decently though. Any reassurances that 1) authority actually was worth some points to analyze and 2) an answer that omitted formation and pcv but was otherwise good could still be above a 55 would be much appreciated :D

(my other answers, if I recall right, had to do with respective duties, obligations and liabilities (with lots of focus on duty of care/biz judgment, duty to disclose, and limited liability in general, although I may have muddied the exception applications up a bit), and a bit on distribution order during dissolution/liquidation, and shareholders' rights to sue, including for when the proper steps aren't followed in a fundamental change to corporate structure. I also didn't go into much detail over the sale of XYZ supplies to the company other than it didn't violate a duty of loyalty since he got the board's ok)


You had to discuss agency to get Supplier to the point of piercing the veil. If Art didn't have the authority to make the deal and Supplier either knew or had reason to know, then no recovery. Agency was the correct starting point.

I didn't see any double hearsay in the Evidence essay. Missed the impeachment issue, but excised the offer to pay medical bills and allowed testimony about the visit to Pete's room. Actions are also statements. Why would she visit him unless she felt guilt?

Talked about parol evidence on the Co25ntracts/Remedies essay. Had to get the evidence in before we could talk about remedies. Parol evidence to show a condition precedent that didn't occur due to fraud. In the end, I gave Betty nothing. No material misrepresentation about the condition or the habitability of the home. Value went down because the halfwit tore out her bathtub. Cry me a river, Betty.

Overall, I actually enjoyed it this time. Especially the PTs. Who doesn't appreciate telling someone "no?" No, we're not rescinding the directive. No, we're not paying you full price.

News about the MBE here: http://www.ncbex.org/exams/mbe/preparing/

25 pretest questions that don't count on this administration.


You didn't analyze tort? Intentional misrepresentation/ negligent misrep and corresponding remedies? How's you handle the contract merging with the deed in land sale contract context?

On the evidence, anyone else read the facts as stating offer to pay for damage to the vehicle?


I went with rescission first, then restitution. Argued that the guy who sold the house would argue that there was no evidence of condition precedent because the contract merged into the deed. Then argued parol evidence to show non-occurance of condition precedent because of fraud/misrepresentation. I think you could've argued it as a tort as well. I wouldn't worry if that's the route you took. As you can tell, the questions are intended to draw a wide variety of responses.

I think you could've made an argument for offer to pay damages to the vehicle as well. Again, there are a wide, wide variety of "right" answers.

cal_pushed
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:32 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:
cal_pushed wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:
sittin_pretty wrote:
Lawless! wrote:Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?


I discussed agency authority. And I've been angst-ridden ever since about whether that's the right analysis for the question of a Director/Officer's liability for a corporate contract (as opposed to a principal's liability for a contract entered into by an agent). I've been thinking not, ever since the exam ended, and that I screwed up by spending time on authority that I should have been spent on de facto/de jure/estoppel corporate formation (based on what people here are saying though, not based on my memory of the question... was formation REALLY an issue or was the problem written away it was assumed to be ok??). I also completely missed the issue of piercing the veil, which was probably one of the most important on this question.

I think I hit everything else, and decently though. Any reassurances that 1) authority actually was worth some points to analyze and 2) an answer that omitted formation and pcv but was otherwise good could still be above a 55 would be much appreciated :D

(my other answers, if I recall right, had to do with respective duties, obligations and liabilities (with lots of focus on duty of care/biz judgment, duty to disclose, and limited liability in general, although I may have muddied the exception applications up a bit), and a bit on distribution order during dissolution/liquidation, and shareholders' rights to sue, including for when the proper steps aren't followed in a fundamental change to corporate structure. I also didn't go into much detail over the sale of XYZ supplies to the company other than it didn't violate a duty of loyalty since he got the board's ok)


You had to discuss agency to get Supplier to the point of piercing the veil. If Art didn't have the authority to make the deal and Supplier either knew or had reason to know, then no recovery. Agency was the correct starting point.

I didn't see any double hearsay in the Evidence essay. Missed the impeachment issue, but excised the offer to pay medical bills and allowed testimony about the visit to Pete's room. Actions are also statements. Why would she visit him unless she felt guilt?

Talked about parol evidence on the Co25ntracts/Remedies essay. Had to get the evidence in before we could talk about remedies. Parol evidence to show a condition precedent that didn't occur due to fraud. In the end, I gave Betty nothing. No material misrepresentation about the condition or the habitability of the home. Value went down because the halfwit tore out her bathtub. Cry me a river, Betty.

Overall, I actually enjoyed it this time. Especially the PTs. Who doesn't appreciate telling someone "no?" No, we're not rescinding the directive. No, we're not paying you full price.

News about the MBE here: http://www.ncbex.org/exams/mbe/preparing/

25 pretest questions that don't count on this administration.


You didn't analyze tort? Intentional misrepresentation/ negligent misrep and corresponding remedies? How's you handle the contract merging with the deed in land sale contract context?

On the evidence, anyone else read the facts as stating offer to pay for damage to the vehicle?


I went with rescission first, then restitution. Argued that the guy who sold the house would argue that there was no evidence of condition precedent because the contract merged into the deed. Then argued parol evidence to show non-occurance of condition precedent because of fraud/misrepresentation. I think you could've argued it as a tort as well. I wouldn't worry if that's the route you took. As you can tell, the questions are intended to draw a wide variety of responses.

I think you could've made an argument for offer to pay damages to the vehicle as well. Again, there are a wide, wide variety of "right" answers.


Right, but the call asked for rights remedies buyer may assert based on fraud. So if a contact merges with the deed (meaning all rights under the contact are extinguished) how do you argue a contract based claim? I raised recision as well, and believe you're right with respect to that. My tort outline does say you can seek recision for fraud as well.

As for the evidence I distinctly remember the fact statement saying "I'll cover the damage to your car" or something to that effect. I actually deleted medical PP exclusion rule statement when I noticed it qualified the offer to vehicle. Just curious if anyone else remembers the exact statement in the prompt.

barexaminerssuck27
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:38 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby barexaminerssuck27 » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:23 am

my tutor always say to put the Best Evidence Rule even if it doesnt apply, like Statue of Frauds. It's something you always put.

It's just like 2 points.

barexaminerssuck27
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:38 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby barexaminerssuck27 » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:24 am

Oh

Anyone else felt like they bombed the Remedies question? Also, why would you write DRR for the wills? The holographic will was valid because CA DOES NOT require date. DRR is only required when there was a invalid revocation.

I put the compensatory damages as FMV - Contract Rice + (Consequential & Incidental damages) - Profit Saved.

Anyone else put that?

armenianBEAUTY
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:26 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby armenianBEAUTY » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:41 am

barexaminerssuck27 wrote:Oh

Anyone else felt like they bombed the Remedies question? Also, why would you write DRR for the wills? The holographic will was valid because CA DOES NOT require date. DRR is only required when there was a invalid revocation.

I put the compensatory damages as FMV - Contract Rice + (Consequential & Incidental damages) - Profit Saved.

Anyone else put that?


I included DRR because incapacity may be argued-- albeit it would be a weak argument. I said that it may be argued bc it can be argued that T lacked understanding of the extent of her property and the nature of her bounty. I don't remember at this point the labels of things she gave, but in her holograph will, she was attempting to give things to someone else that she had given to her daughter in will 1, while she did not give anything to her daughter in will 2. Because there were no facts indicating any souring of relations between T and her daughter, I said incapacity could be argued-- hence bringing into play DRR. The incapacity also brought into play the absence of date issue.

armenianBEAUTY
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:26 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby armenianBEAUTY » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:46 am

Lawless! wrote:
ur_hero wrote:
SUPERFEVER wrote:Can someone ease my mind on the Wills essay?

I argued that the first will might not be valid because the two witnesses need to know they're signing a will. Facts said W2 didn't know about the bequests in the document but he was honored to sign anyways. This hinted that maybe he didn't know it was a will which would make it invalid for lack of witnesses.

Code Section - Prob. §§6100, et seq.
"At least 2 persons present at the same time, witnessing either signing of will or testator's acknowledgment and must understand that it is testator's will."

I went ahead and argued revocation by act and subsequent instrument anyways.

How did everyone else handle this?


My understanding is that they only have to know it's a will, not the substance of the will itself. In othe words, reading it is not required. My conclusion was valid will, but revoked by subsequent instrument.



I don't think there were facts in the essay as to whether he understood it was the will or not. Instead the facts stated he was honored to sign... Didn't say exactly what he knew what he was honored to sign. But I argued valid will bc I didn't want to do down the other road. Lol ...also a point I remembered but missed on the essay was that harmless error where you don't have the required 2 competent witnesses, so long as testator has intent to make it his will you can give evidence of his intent and admit into probate. So the witnesses issue would've been easily looked over and the Will would've been valid since there's intent to Create a will.


I believe there were facts to argue that he understood it was a will-- i.e., meaning there was enough knowledge for him to count as 1 of the 2 requisite witnesses. The neighbor said a bunch of weird things like, "I'm so honored that you decided to ask me to be involved in this process... etc." and then he signed on the will document itself right under the other witness's signature. So, yes, he did know that it was a will signing ceremony although he admitted to not knowing about the specific devises.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Knickerblocker, verejacob and 12 guests