New York Bar (Albany)

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
happyhour1122

Silver
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:08 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby happyhour1122 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:14 pm

mikefichera wrote:
happyhour1122 wrote:
yankeeman86 wrote:
Jmazz88 wrote:
happyhour1122 wrote:
Lizbeth wrote:Also, did anyone add a discussion portion to the 2nd MPT?


Omg. I did... added last minute...


I thought this was only for the court to do? Did it say it in the initial memo?


no discussion



:|
But the instruction indicated explain to the court why 1)Noah should not be no longer appointed 2) why Ruth was entitled to the guardianship.

I used it in the dscussion section



they did, but wanted you to include it in your proposed conclusions of law, if you look at one of the cases they gave you; it provided an example of how to do that.


Oh man... oh man..

mikefichera

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby mikefichera » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:16 pm

yankeeman86 wrote:Contracts -

not automatically UCC territory, must be merchants.

not a firm offer because gardener is not a merchant even though cook may be merchant.

separate consid required under common law.

can revoke before acceptance.

im sure there was more. i did question 6 first. then question 3, 4, then 2 and 5. had like 20 minutes to do question 1. Questions 3-4 are generally the most difficult. test takers usually run out of time once they hit 6 so question 6 answers are not the greatest.


a sale of goods is always governed by the UCC. regardless of whether the parties are merchants. however in order for an option to be enforceable it must be supported by consideration or have a signed writing by the merchant promising it keep it open for the stated period or a reasonable time not exceeding 90 days.

the guy wasn't a merchant because never did this before.

the only other thing i mentioned on this was a mentioning of detrimental reliance on the offer which i didn't see any, if there were any more issues on let me know what you thought.
Last edited by mikefichera on Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Roclandsfinest23

Bronze
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:58 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby Roclandsfinest23 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:16 pm

happyhour1122 wrote:
mikefichera wrote:
happyhour1122 wrote:
yankeeman86 wrote:
Jmazz88 wrote:
happyhour1122 wrote:
Lizbeth wrote:Also, did anyone add a discussion portion to the 2nd MPT?


Omg. I did... added last minute...


I thought this was only for the court to do? Did it say it in the initial memo?


no discussion



:|
But the instruction indicated explain to the court why 1)Noah should not be no longer appointed 2) why Ruth was entitled to the guardianship.

I used it in the dscussion section



they did, but wanted you to include it in your proposed conclusions of law, if you look at one of the cases they gave you; it provided an example of how to do that.


Oh man... oh man..


Don't stress it. That's minor as long as you got everything else

Roclandsfinest23

Bronze
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:58 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby Roclandsfinest23 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:17 pm

mikefichera wrote:
yankeeman86 wrote:Contracts -

not automatically UCC territory, must be merchants.

not a firm offer because gardener is not a merchant even though cook may be merchant.

separate consid required under common law.

can revoke before acceptance.

im sure there was more. i did question 6 first. then question 3, 4, then 2 and 5. had like 20 minutes to do question 1. Questions 3-4 are generally the most difficult. test takers usually run out of time once they hit 6 so question 6 answers are not the greatest.


a sale of goods is always governed by the UCC. regardless of whether the parties are merchants. however in order for an option to be enforceable it must be supported by consideration or have a signed writing by the merchant promising it keep it open for the stated period or a reasonable time not exceeding 90 days.

the guy wasn't a merchant because never did this before.


Exactly what I was thinking. Sale of goods, UCC automatically applies

User avatar
nelue

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:03 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby nelue » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:19 pm

Roclandsfinest23 wrote:
yankeeman86 wrote:
Jmazz88 wrote:Completely bombed the Trusts and Corporation questions. Blanked on both. Made up a bunch of stuff. Threw some intent and fiduciary duty stuff in to see if it would stick. Hoping for a miracle.

Family Law, Contracts, and Agency I think were fine, and I at least did average.

For property, I had trouble figuring out what all of the issues were...hope I did enough to at least be average.

When all is said and done, a good MPT and below average to average MEE's is okay, I guess. Depends on tomorrow, of course...



for prop, it was wild. most were landlord/tenant issues - was it reasonable for the landlord to reject assignment to lawyer? i argued both yes and no lol. said lawyers are annoyances! duty to mitigate was satisfied, tenant still needed to perform despite email, contract damages - k price - cover.




I said there was a valid surrender and acceptance of surrender


Likewise... def valid surrender and acceptance imo

UsernameGuest

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:20 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby UsernameGuest » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:24 pm

Two Ks to deal in goods = flirting with merchant status. "Merchant" for purposes of firm offer is almost anyone dealing in biz of selling goods. Contrast "merchant" for warranty purposes. Also, firm offers include both offers to sell and offers to buy.

At the very least, I don't think it was an easy, one and done "he's not a merchant therefore the rule doesn't apply."

Roclandsfinest23

Bronze
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:58 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby Roclandsfinest23 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:28 pm

UsernameGuest wrote:Two Ks to deal in goods = flirting with merchant status. "Merchant" for purposes of firm offer is almost anyone dealing in biz of selling goods. Contrast "merchant" for warranty purposes. Also, firm offers include both offers to sell and offers to buy.

At the very least, I don't think it was an easy, one and done "he's not a merchant therefore the rule doesn't apply."



Yeah that question was a little tricky. I stated the rule and concluded that he was a merchant for purposes of this K because it was a requirements K and he had enough stock to provide the cook with all he needed.

Could have gone either way

mikefichera

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby mikefichera » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:29 pm

UsernameGuest wrote:Two Ks to deal in goods = flirting with merchant status. "Merchant" for purposes of firm offer is almost anyone dealing in biz of selling goods. Contrast "merchant" for warranty purposes. Also, firm offers include both offers to sell and offers to buy.

At the very least, I don't think it was an easy, one and done "he's not a merchant therefore the rule doesn't apply."



"Merchant" means a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed by his employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary who by his occupation holds himself out as having such knowledge or skill.

i don't think the facts supported the conclusion that he was a merchant.

yankeeman86

Bronze
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby yankeeman86 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:31 pm

correct, UCC applies to goods for sale however a firm offer does not apply when a non-merchant makes the offer.

UsernameGuest

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:20 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby UsernameGuest » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:33 pm

Copy and pasted from CMR:

Merchants vs. Nonmerchants
A number of the rules in Article 2 depend on whether the seller and/or buyer are merchants.
Article 2 generally defines “merchant” as one who regularly deals in goods of the kind sold
or who otherwise by his profession holds himself out as having special knowledge or skills
as to the practices or goods involved. For Article 2 provisions dealing with general business
practices (e.g., Statute of Frauds, confirmatory memos, firm offers, modification), almost
anyone in business can be deemed a merchant. But remember that some Article 2 provi-
sions are narrower and require a person to be a merchant with respect to goods of the kind
involved in the subject transaction (e.g., the implied warranty of merchantability).

mfa21491

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:44 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby mfa21491 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:35 pm

UsernameGuest wrote:Copy and pasted from CMR:

Merchants vs. Nonmerchants
A number of the rules in Article 2 depend on whether the seller and/or buyer are merchants.
Article 2 generally defines “merchant” as one who regularly deals in goods of the kind sold
or who otherwise by his profession holds himself out as having special knowledge or skills
as to the practices or goods involved. For Article 2 provisions dealing with general business
practices (e.g., Statute of Frauds, confirmatory memos, firm offers, modification), almost
anyone in business can be deemed a merchant. But remember that some Article 2 provi-
sions are narrower and require a person to be a merchant with respect to goods of the kind
involved in the subject transaction (e.g., the implied warranty of merchantability).


yes, and no way could the seller be considered a merchant for the purpose of the merchants firm offer rule so common law option contract rule would apply and it would be invalid for lack of consideration

the facts specifically said he was an amateur who never sold the type of goods involved
Last edited by mfa21491 on Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mikefichera

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby mikefichera » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:36 pm

yankeeman86 wrote:correct, UCC applies to goods for sale however a firm offer does not apply when a non-merchant makes the offer.


correct.

yankeeman86

Bronze
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby yankeeman86 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:36 pm

that's crazy. i think most people will get 50 points/passing scores for this contract question. to be honest, i don't even think they actually grade the first question, just 2-5 as they are the most difficult/MEE subject matter.

User avatar
nelue

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:03 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby nelue » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:36 pm

UsernameGuest wrote:Copy and pasted from CMR:

Merchants vs. Nonmerchants
A number of the rules in Article 2 depend on whether the seller and/or buyer are merchants.
Article 2 generally defines “merchant” as one who regularly deals in goods of the kind sold
or who otherwise by his profession holds himself out as having special knowledge or skills
as to the practices or goods involved. For Article 2 provisions dealing with general business
practices (e.g., Statute of Frauds, confirmatory memos, firm offers, modification), almost
anyone in business can be deemed a merchant. But remember that some Article 2 provi-
sions are narrower and require a person to be a merchant with respect to goods of the kind
involved in the subject transaction (e.g., the implied warranty of merchantability).


Hmm.....maybe we had to argue both ? :?
Last edited by nelue on Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

yankeeman86

Bronze
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby yankeeman86 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:38 pm

compared to the cook, who was "branching out its business"

UsernameGuest

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:20 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby UsernameGuest » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:39 pm

Who knows. I concluded non-merchant but definitely struggled with it. Even a merchant has to be a rookie at one point! What better week to start than bar exam week after landing two tomato contracts. Good luck tomorrow, all. Agua and chill!

mikefichera

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby mikefichera » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:39 pm

UsernameGuest wrote:Who knows. I concluded non-merchant but definitely struggled with it. Even a merchant has to be a rookie at one point! What better week to start than bar exam week after landing two tomato contracts. Good luck tomorrow, all. Agua and chill!



best of luck.

happyhour1122

Silver
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:08 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby happyhour1122 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:39 pm

nelue wrote:
UsernameGuest wrote:Copy and pasted from CMR:

Merchants vs. Nonmerchants
A number of the rules in Article 2 depend on whether the seller and/or buyer are merchants.
Article 2 generally defines “merchant” as one who regularly deals in goods of the kind sold
or who otherwise by his profession holds himself out as having special knowledge or skills
as to the practices or goods involved. For Article 2 provisions dealing with general business
practices (e.g., Statute of Frauds, confirmatory memos, firm offers, modification), almost
anyone in business can be deemed a merchant. But remember that some Article 2 provi-
sions are narrower and require a person to be a merchant with respect to goods of the kind
involved in the subject transaction (e.g., the implied warranty of merchantability).


Hmm.. the prompt made it clear he was an amateur Gardner and that it was his first transaction...maybe we had to argue both ? :?


I didn't think it was this deep. Now I think I made my analysis too simple (gardener not merchant because amateur and only grew for own use thus no firm offer.)

yankeeman86

Bronze
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby yankeeman86 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:42 pm

mikefichera wrote:
UsernameGuest wrote:Who knows. I concluded non-merchant but definitely struggled with it. Even a merchant has to be a rookie at one point! What better week to start than bar exam week after landing two tomato contracts. Good luck tomorrow, all. Agua and chill!



best of luck.



i need a 145+ tom

mikefichera

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby mikefichera » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:46 pm

yankeeman86 wrote:
mikefichera wrote:
UsernameGuest wrote:Who knows. I concluded non-merchant but definitely struggled with it. Even a merchant has to be a rookie at one point! What better week to start than bar exam week after landing two tomato contracts. Good luck tomorrow, all. Agua and chill!



best of luck.



i need a 145+ tom


last time i scored a 140 while not getting to about (C for the win) 15 questions, i've worked alot on my timing and hope i can get atleast 140, if not a 150.

yankeeman86

Bronze
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby yankeeman86 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:48 pm

you got this, 150 is an auto pass

UsernameGuest

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:20 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby UsernameGuest » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:57 pm

savage rule alert:

Form Supplied by Offeree
If the term assuring that the offer will be held open is on a form supplied by the offeree, it must be separately signed by the offeror. [UCC §2-205]

happyhour1122

Silver
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:08 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby happyhour1122 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:01 pm

UsernameGuest wrote:savage rule alert:

Form Supplied by Offeree
If the term assuring that the offer will be held open is on a form supplied by the offeree, it must be separately signed by the offeror. [UCC §2-205]



If anyone mentioned this in the answer, you auto passed.

mikefichera

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby mikefichera » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:02 pm

UsernameGuest wrote:savage rule alert:

Form Supplied by Offeree
If the term assuring that the offer will be held open is on a form supplied by the offeree, it must be separately signed by the offeror. [UCC §2-205]


haha funny, and definitely savage.

yankeeman86

Bronze
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: New York Bar (Albany)

Postby yankeeman86 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:07 pm

UsernameGuest wrote:savage rule alert:

Form Supplied by Offeree
If the term assuring that the offer will be held open is on a form supplied by the offeree, it must be separately signed by the offeror. [UCC §2-205]


ffff
Last edited by yankeeman86 on Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Transfer2016 and 22 guests