2018 February CA Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
Bla Bla Bla Blah

New
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Bla Bla Bla Blah » Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:50 am

CDNKimberley wrote: There I sat with a room full of freezing aspiring lawyers in Pasadena. I mean, seriously, why do they have to keep the room that cold?

Hahaha! Totally nailed it with these two sentences. I was in Ontario, and with the anxiety of just having finished the test and it being so God damned cold... my teeth were chattering while the proctors collected everything.

With your study habits for sure you will pass the MPRE. I know it's different for U.S. based attorneys, but I put about a day and a half worth of study into that thing and easily passed. The Bar, on the other hand, takes serious effort.

bacillusanthracis

New
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:30 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby bacillusanthracis » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:21 pm

a male human wrote:Solution: Pass the bar.


Oh really? Geez, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for that bit of sage wisdom. After failing the July bar, I sent a Buffalo Wilds Wings coupon to the CBE along with a note saying, "Come on dudes, just be cool and let me be a lawyer." For some reason, they were like nah, you gotta pass the bar exam, but thanks for the twofer on the wings bro!

Doobydoobydoo

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:13 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Doobydoobydoo » Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:36 am

Bla Bla Bla Blah wrote:
Doobydoobydoo wrote:
cgc210 wrote:Can anyone please remind me what the first part of the question with Prof responsibility was about? I cannot remember for the life of me


Yes it was about rescission of a contract for a commercial warehouse. The contract was rescindable for fraud.


Fraud would require an intentional misrepresentation that was material to the transaction, reliance, damages. He never misrepresented a thing. He only said that he never had a problem, which was entirely true. However, me may have omitted information since, while the roof was not faulty at the time, he knew that it likely would be in the future. He only had a responsibility to disclose known existing latent defects, and its questionable as to whether a latent defect that had not yet materialized qualified. She accepted quitclaim, which affects whether the possibility of a faulty roof materially affected the contract. If his omission materially affected the contract, then she may have been able to rescind as there could not have been a meeting of the minds. Unlikely in an "as is" contract. Also, once the sale is complete, the right to rescind generally vanishes, and damages are the only remedy--unless fraud, which again, required a misrepresentation. I don't think she could have rescinded. She might be able to recover expectation damages.


For some reason, I keep revisiting that dumb question in my head... Was it fraud or not? I seemed pretty confident at the time, but then again, what you wrote seems right too. But then I remembered why it was fraud (or at least why I thought it was at the time). She asked "how's the roof?" And then he said "I've never had a problem with it." Yes, this is not technically a literal misrepresentation, because up to that point, he had not had a problem. But in substance, it is a misrepresentation. She was asking about the condition of the roof and the seller knew what she meant. The seller knew that the roof was old, and about to give out to leaks. By saying "I've never had a problem with it," he deliberately misrepresented the condition of the roof by implying that it was fine, and would be for the foreseeable future, when in reality, he knew the roof was not fine, and going to give out soon. So overall, it was fraud. I think...

As for coming back here, I was happy to leave this forum behind for a bit. I wondered then as I do now if I was making myself sick with worry by taking in everyone's thoughts, opinions, and reflections. But II've learned while maybe for some, the experience of coming on here and reading posts is potentially mind wrenching, for me, sometimes, it really helps. I like seeing that I'm not alone in my uncertainty, and that there are other smart people who went through this horrible experience with me, and I like that we're in some sense rooting for each other. We can't all pass, and we each hope desperately that we'll pass individually, but I think it's fair to say that nobody for the most part wishes failure upon anyone. I'm rooting for everyone here. I didn't pass in July, and it did hurt. It helped me to see the posts of others who had mustered the strength to pick themselves up and do battle again. Most of the interactions I've seen here have been quite supportive. We may disagree with each other over issues or what not, but for me, it's helpful to see how others have approached these question. But more than that it's like, who else do we have to commiserate with about this? Who else gets what we're going through? I don't mind admitting that I'm scared, and that it helps to share.

Bla Bla Bla Blah

New
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Bla Bla Bla Blah » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:30 pm

Doobydoobydoo wrote:For some reason, I keep revisiting that dumb question in my head... Was it fraud or not? I seemed pretty confident at the time, but then again, what you wrote seems right too. But then I remembered why it was fraud (or at least why I thought it was at the time). She asked "how's the roof?" And then he said "I've never had a problem with it." Yes, this is not technically a literal misrepresentation, because up to that point, he had not had a problem. But in substance, it is a misrepresentation. She was asking about the condition of the roof and the seller knew what she meant. The seller knew that the roof was old, and about to give out to leaks. By saying "I've never had a problem with it," he deliberately misrepresented the condition of the roof by implying that it was fine, and would be for the foreseeable future, when in reality, he knew the roof was not fine, and going to give out soon. So overall, it was fraud. I think...


Well that's just like your opinion man. My client asserts that he did not know that she had any intended meaning other than what his experience with the roof was. And my client asserts that he was not responsible to foresee future events that were beyond his control. So he did not represent anything knowing that his representations were misleading, and it was not material to a quitclaim contract that she would have pursued regardless :D We're going to have to take this to a full-trial. Settlement is off the table at this point, and my client does not agree to rescind the contract.

Honestly, I think you have a point if you argued it that way. Thank God there's plenty of shit for us to argue about in this profession, or billables would be pretty hard to come by! Overall, I think I categorized it as an omission, if anything, because I had an MBE question in practice that nailed me on this distinction. The PTSD from getting that question wrong in practice steered me in the other direction I think!

Doobydoobydoo

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:13 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Doobydoobydoo » Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:09 pm

Bla Bla Bla Blah wrote:
Doobydoobydoo wrote:For some reason, I keep revisiting that dumb question in my head... Was it fraud or not? I seemed pretty confident at the time, but then again, what you wrote seems right too. But then I remembered why it was fraud (or at least why I thought it was at the time). She asked "how's the roof?" And then he said "I've never had a problem with it." Yes, this is not technically a literal misrepresentation, because up to that point, he had not had a problem. But in substance, it is a misrepresentation. She was asking about the condition of the roof and the seller knew what she meant. The seller knew that the roof was old, and about to give out to leaks. By saying "I've never had a problem with it," he deliberately misrepresented the condition of the roof by implying that it was fine, and would be for the foreseeable future, when in reality, he knew the roof was not fine, and going to give out soon. So overall, it was fraud. I think...


Well that's just like your opinion man. My client asserts that he did not know that she had any intended meaning other than what his experience with the roof was. And my client asserts that he was not responsible to foresee future events that were beyond his control. So he did not represent anything knowing that his representations were misleading, and it was not material to a quitclaim contract that she would have pursued regardless :D We're going to have to take this to a full-trial. Settlement is off the table at this point, and my client does not agree to rescind the contract.

Honestly, I think you have a point if you argued it that way. Thank God there's plenty of shit for us to argue about in this profession, or billables would be pretty hard to come by! Overall, I think I categorized it as an omission, if anything, because I had an MBE question in practice that nailed me on this distinction. The PTSD from getting that question wrong in practice steered me in the other direction I think!


Word, that's deep stuff. Bruh. :idea: :shock: :| :mrgreen:

Taking this to the supreme court sounds right. We're all just making this stuff up as we go. It's a monstrous fiction at the heart of this test, that the law is coherently predictable and predictably coherent. Lawyers buy fancy houses and put their kids through college precisely because this isn't the case. I just have to trust/hope that the bar gods know reason when they see it, and that a reasonable analysis is what counts. (I also wonder what "reasonable" lawyer devotes their life to grading bar essays?) FAK...

thesunnybunny

New
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:34 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby thesunnybunny » Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:36 pm

Doobydoobydoo wrote:
Bla Bla Bla Blah wrote:
Doobydoobydoo wrote:
cgc210 wrote:Can anyone please remind me what the first part of the question with Prof responsibility was about? I cannot remember for the life of me


Yes it was about rescission of a contract for a commercial warehouse. The contract was rescindable for fraud.


Fraud would require an intentional misrepresentation that was material to the transaction, reliance, damages. He never misrepresented a thing. He only said that he never had a problem, which was entirely true. However, me may have omitted information since, while the roof was not faulty at the time, he knew that it likely would be in the future. He only had a responsibility to disclose known existing latent defects, and its questionable as to whether a latent defect that had not yet materialized qualified. She accepted quitclaim, which affects whether the possibility of a faulty roof materially affected the contract. If his omission materially affected the contract, then she may have been able to rescind as there could not have been a meeting of the minds. Unlikely in an "as is" contract. Also, once the sale is complete, the right to rescind generally vanishes, and damages are the only remedy--unless fraud, which again, required a misrepresentation. I don't think she could have rescinded. She might be able to recover expectation damages.


For some reason, I keep revisiting that dumb question in my head... Was it fraud or not? I seemed pretty confident at the time, but then again, what you wrote seems right too. But then I remembered why it was fraud (or at least why I thought it was at the time). She asked "how's the roof?" And then he said "I've never had a problem with it." Yes, this is not technically a literal misrepresentation, because up to that point, he had not had a problem. But in substance, it is a misrepresentation. She was asking about the condition of the roof and the seller knew what she meant. The seller knew that the roof was old, and about to give out to leaks. By saying "I've never had a problem with it," he deliberately misrepresented the condition of the roof by implying that it was fine, and would be for the foreseeable future, when in reality, he knew the roof was not fine, and going to give out soon. So overall, it was fraud. I think...

As for coming back here, I was happy to leave this forum behind for a bit. I wondered then as I do now if I was making myself sick with worry by taking in everyone's thoughts, opinions, and reflections. But II've learned while maybe for some, the experience of coming on here and reading posts is potentially mind wrenching, for me, sometimes, it really helps. I like seeing that I'm not alone in my uncertainty, and that there are other smart people who went through this horrible experience with me, and I like that we're in some sense rooting for each other. We can't all pass, and we each hope desperately that we'll pass individually, but I think it's fair to say that nobody for the most part wishes failure upon anyone. I'm rooting for everyone here. I didn't pass in July, and it did hurt. It helped me to see the posts of others who had mustered the strength to pick themselves up and do battle again. Most of the interactions I've seen here have been quite supportive. We may disagree with each other over issues or what not, but for me, it's helpful to see how others have approached these question. But more than that it's like, who else do we have to commiserate with about this? Who else gets what we're going through? I don't mind admitting that I'm scared, and that it helps to share.


Beautifully put. This forum needs more people like you.

jduckits

New
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby jduckits » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:23 pm

thesunnybunny wrote:
Doobydoobydoo wrote:
Bla Bla Bla Blah wrote:
Doobydoobydoo wrote:
cgc210 wrote:Can anyone please remind me what the first part of the question with Prof responsibility was about? I cannot remember for the life of me


Yes it was about rescission of a contract for a commercial warehouse. The contract was rescindable for fraud.


Fraud would require an intentional misrepresentation that was material to the transaction, reliance, damages. He never misrepresented a thing. He only said that he never had a problem, which was entirely true. However, me may have omitted information since, while the roof was not faulty at the time, he knew that it likely would be in the future. He only had a responsibility to disclose known existing latent defects, and its questionable as to whether a latent defect that had not yet materialized qualified. She accepted quitclaim, which affects whether the possibility of a faulty roof materially affected the contract. If his omission materially affected the contract, then she may have been able to rescind as there could not have been a meeting of the minds. Unlikely in an "as is" contract. Also, once the sale is complete, the right to rescind generally vanishes, and damages are the only remedy--unless fraud, which again, required a misrepresentation. I don't think she could have rescinded. She might be able to recover expectation damages.


For some reason, I keep revisiting that dumb question in my head... Was it fraud or not? I seemed pretty confident at the time, but then again, what you wrote seems right too. But then I remembered why it was fraud (or at least why I thought it was at the time). She asked "how's the roof?" And then he said "I've never had a problem with it." Yes, this is not technically a literal misrepresentation, because up to that point, he had not had a problem. But in substance, it is a misrepresentation. She was asking about the condition of the roof and the seller knew what she meant. The seller knew that the roof was old, and about to give out to leaks. By saying "I've never had a problem with it," he deliberately misrepresented the condition of the roof by implying that it was fine, and would be for the foreseeable future, when in reality, he knew the roof was not fine, and going to give out soon. So overall, it was fraud. I think...

As for coming back here, I was happy to leave this forum behind for a bit. I wondered then as I do now if I was making myself sick with worry by taking in everyone's thoughts, opinions, and reflections. But II've learned while maybe for some, the experience of coming on here and reading posts is potentially mind wrenching, for me, sometimes, it really helps. I like seeing that I'm not alone in my uncertainty, and that there are other smart people who went through this horrible experience with me, and I like that we're in some sense rooting for each other. We can't all pass, and we each hope desperately that we'll pass individually, but I think it's fair to say that nobody for the most part wishes failure upon anyone. I'm rooting for everyone here. I didn't pass in July, and it did hurt. It helped me to see the posts of others who had mustered the strength to pick themselves up and do battle again. Most of the interactions I've seen here have been quite supportive. We may disagree with each other over issues or what not, but for me, it's helpful to see how others have approached these question. But more than that it's like, who else do we have to commiserate with about this? Who else gets what we're going through? I don't mind admitting that I'm scared, and that it helps to share.


Beautifully put. This forum needs more people like you.


So how did you guys address the 2nd claim? I think it was a Faulure to Disclose?? I analyzed it as if it were grounds for recision but after the exam realized that only the misrepresentation claim was grounds for recision.

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:41 pm

Hummmm . . . its almost a month out! Just checking in . . . and still trying to maintain perspective. Feels like a lot hangs in the balance right now. As much as I would like to be more carefree . . . I think about this test everyday in some way shape or form. Whether it is -- in hindsight -- recollecting what I wrote, or trying to remember, (and then picking it apart) -- or trying to find that balance between hope and reality -- if that makes sense. Thanks for listening/reading/being able to relate!

Doobydoobydoo

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:13 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Doobydoobydoo » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:31 am

jduckits wrote:
thesunnybunny wrote:
Doobydoobydoo wrote:
Bla Bla Bla Blah wrote:
Doobydoobydoo wrote:
cgc210 wrote:Can anyone please remind me what the first part of the question with Prof responsibility was about? I cannot remember for the life of me


Yes it was about rescission of a contract for a commercial warehouse. The contract was rescindable for fraud.


Fraud would require an intentional misrepresentation that was material to the transaction, reliance, damages. He never misrepresented a thing. He only said that he never had a problem, which was entirely true. However, me may have omitted information since, while the roof was not faulty at the time, he knew that it likely would be in the future. He only had a responsibility to disclose known existing latent defects, and its questionable as to whether a latent defect that had not yet materialized qualified. She accepted quitclaim, which affects whether the possibility of a faulty roof materially affected the contract. If his omission materially affected the contract, then she may have been able to rescind as there could not have been a meeting of the minds. Unlikely in an "as is" contract. Also, once the sale is complete, the right to rescind generally vanishes, and damages are the only remedy--unless fraud, which again, required a misrepresentation. I don't think she could have rescinded. She might be able to recover expectation damages.


For some reason, I keep revisiting that dumb question in my head... Was it fraud or not? I seemed pretty confident at the time, but then again, what you wrote seems right too. But then I remembered why it was fraud (or at least why I thought it was at the time). She asked "how's the roof?" And then he said "I've never had a problem with it." Yes, this is not technically a literal misrepresentation, because up to that point, he had not had a problem. But in substance, it is a misrepresentation. She was asking about the condition of the roof and the seller knew what she meant. The seller knew that the roof was old, and about to give out to leaks. By saying "I've never had a problem with it," he deliberately misrepresented the condition of the roof by implying that it was fine, and would be for the foreseeable future, when in reality, he knew the roof was not fine, and going to give out soon. So overall, it was fraud. I think...

As for coming back here, I was happy to leave this forum behind for a bit. I wondered then as I do now if I was making myself sick with worry by taking in everyone's thoughts, opinions, and reflections. But II've learned while maybe for some, the experience of coming on here and reading posts is potentially mind wrenching, for me, sometimes, it really helps. I like seeing that I'm not alone in my uncertainty, and that there are other smart people who went through this horrible experience with me, and I like that we're in some sense rooting for each other. We can't all pass, and we each hope desperately that we'll pass individually, but I think it's fair to say that nobody for the most part wishes failure upon anyone. I'm rooting for everyone here. I didn't pass in July, and it did hurt. It helped me to see the posts of others who had mustered the strength to pick themselves up and do battle again. Most of the interactions I've seen here have been quite supportive. We may disagree with each other over issues or what not, but for me, it's helpful to see how others have approached these question. But more than that it's like, who else do we have to commiserate with about this? Who else gets what we're going through? I don't mind admitting that I'm scared, and that it helps to share.


Beautifully put. This forum needs more people like you.
:mrgreen:

So how did you guys address the 2nd claim? I think it was a Faulure to Disclose?? I analyzed it as if it were grounds for recision but after the exam realized that only the misrepresentation claim was grounds for recision.


There were two claims? I don't really remember that question...though I do vaguely remember writing about a failure to disclose. I believe I wrote that she had a duty to disclose latent defects, even though it was a quitclaim deed and sold "as is", so she could sue for damages which flowed from this breach. This may be incorrect, however, as it was a commercial lease. I didn't write that, but it occurred to me afterward. This guy did some helpful compiling on this--> https://www.brianogradylaw.com/Articles ... lose.shtml

attyapp

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:32 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby attyapp » Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:33 pm

What'sUP? wrote:Hummmm . . . its almost a month out! Just checking in . . . and still trying to maintain perspective. Feels like a lot hangs in the balance right now. As much as I would like to be more carefree . . . I think about this test everyday in some way shape or form. Whether it is -- in hindsight -- recollecting what I wrote, or trying to remember, (and then picking it apart) -- or trying to find that balance between hope and reality -- if that makes sense. Thanks for listening/reading/being able to relate!


I think most of us are going through that. I know I certainly am! I think about the test every day and go over all the ways I think I messed up (some I'm sure of). On some days I think they shouldn't be enough to make me fail and on others I'm certain that I did. What a roller coaster. Time is moving though, and soon we will know.

hope2018

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby hope2018 » Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:54 pm

An article I found"
"Aside from breach of warranty claims, a buyer of AS IS property often sues a seller based on numerous other claims, in particular fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent nondisclosure. In the case of fraudulent misrepresentation, the legal analysis is essentially the same whether the transaction involves the sale of goods or realty. The courts are all over the boards as to whether an AS IS disclaimer mitigates the seller’s liability, depending on the nature of the misrepresentation, other provisions of the contract, and of course what the judge had for breakfast.

Fraudulent nondisclosure, on the other hand, only applies to residential real estate. The seller of a home, unlike the seller of car, is required by law to disclose hidden material defects. While an AS IS clause may allow a seller to avoid having to make costly repairs, this disclaimer does not relieve seller from the duty to disclose defects. Defects, however, sometimes fall into a gray area. When there is a question as to whether the defect is “material” or “hidden,” judges are increasingly ruling in favor of sellers who sold their homes AS IS".

I got the second part wrong.. did not distinguish residential versus commercial. According to the facts in the exam, it was commercial building....ugh

jduckits

New
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby jduckits » Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:05 pm

hope2018 wrote:An article I found"
"Aside from breach of warranty claims, a buyer of AS IS property often sues a seller based on numerous other claims, in particular fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent nondisclosure. In the case of fraudulent misrepresentation, the legal analysis is essentially the same whether the transaction involves the sale of goods or realty. The courts are all over the boards as to whether an AS IS disclaimer mitigates the seller’s liability, depending on the nature of the misrepresentation, other provisions of the contract, and of course what the judge had for breakfast.

Fraudulent nondisclosure, on the other hand, only applies to residential real estate. The seller of a home, unlike the seller of car, is required by law to disclose hidden material defects. While an AS IS clause may allow a seller to avoid having to make costly repairs, this disclaimer does not relieve seller from the duty to disclose defects. Defects, however, sometimes fall into a gray area. When there is a question as to whether the defect is “material” or “hidden,” judges are increasingly ruling in favor of sellers who sold their homes AS IS".

I got the second part wrong.. did not distinguish residential versus commercial. According to the facts in the exam, it was commercial building....ugh


Damn! Me too... :?

LawIQ45

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:05 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby LawIQ45 » Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:44 pm

jduckits wrote:
hope2018 wrote:An article I found"
"Aside from breach of warranty claims, a buyer of AS IS property often sues a seller based on numerous other claims, in particular fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent nondisclosure. In the case of fraudulent misrepresentation, the legal analysis is essentially the same whether the transaction involves the sale of goods or realty. The courts are all over the boards as to whether an AS IS disclaimer mitigates the seller’s liability, depending on the nature of the misrepresentation, other provisions of the contract, and of course what the judge had for breakfast.

Fraudulent nondisclosure, on the other hand, only applies to residential real estate. The seller of a home, unlike the seller of car, is required by law to disclose hidden material defects. While an AS IS clause may allow a seller to avoid having to make costly repairs, this disclaimer does not relieve seller from the duty to disclose defects. Defects, however, sometimes fall into a gray area. When there is a question as to whether the defect is “material” or “hidden,” judges are increasingly ruling in favor of sellers who sold their homes AS IS".

I got the second part wrong.. did not distinguish residential versus commercial. According to the facts in the exam, it was commercial building....ugh


Damn! Me too... :?


Im gonna give you both some advice that I myself did not follow when I was waiting for bar results.... try not to dwell on the things you missed. Naturally, you are going to remember everything you did wrong, and ignore the things you know you got right. For instance, I left the bar exam felling pretty OK about it. However, weeks went by and I found myself on this exact website looking at the different answers people put for things. I convinced myself I failed, which wasnt true - I had passed. I am sure you did fine. You arent going to get EVERYTHING correct, and because this is such a high stakes exam, the littlest error can feel like the difference between a 70 and a 55. I wish you the best of luck. I am here if you need to talk things out further.

Bla Bla Bla Blah

New
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Bla Bla Bla Blah » Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:42 pm

At least we aren't waiting until after Thanksgiving like the July takers, but my God it's ridiculous that they can charge almost one-thousand dollars to take a test, and it takes them so damn long to get results out. For the kind of money we pay, they could hire a person to grade each and every MBE answer and still make a profit. These exams (and the way the ABA accredits law schools,without any regard to what happens to students after the schools use them as human debit cards for three-years) are what make the profession seem like a total racket.

hope2018

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby hope2018 » Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:59 pm

LawIQ45 wrote:
jduckits wrote:
hope2018 wrote:An article I found"
"Aside from breach of warranty claims, a buyer of AS IS property often sues a seller based on numerous other claims, in particular fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent nondisclosure. In the case of fraudulent misrepresentation, the legal analysis is essentially the same whether the transaction involves the sale of goods or realty. The courts are all over the boards as to whether an AS IS disclaimer mitigates the seller’s liability, depending on the nature of the misrepresentation, other provisions of the contract, and of course what the judge had for breakfast.

Fraudulent nondisclosure, on the other hand, only applies to residential real estate. The seller of a home, unlike the seller of car, is required by law to disclose hidden material defects. While an AS IS clause may allow a seller to avoid having to make costly repairs, this disclaimer does not relieve seller from the duty to disclose defects. Defects, however, sometimes fall into a gray area. When there is a question as to whether the defect is “material” or “hidden,” judges are increasingly ruling in favor of sellers who sold their homes AS IS".

I got the second part wrong.. did not distinguish residential versus commercial. According to the facts in the exam, it was commercial building....ugh


Damn! Me too... :?


Im gonna give you both some advice that I myself did not follow when I was waiting for bar results.... try not to dwell on the things you missed. Naturally, you are going to remember everything you did wrong, and ignore the things you know you got right. For instance, I left the bar exam felling pretty OK about it. However, weeks went by and I found myself on this exact website looking at the different answers people put for things. I convinced myself I failed, which wasnt true - I had passed. I am sure you did fine. You arent going to get EVERYTHING correct, and because this is such a high stakes exam, the littlest error can feel like the difference between a 70 and a 55. I wish you the best of luck. I am here if you need to talk things out further.



Thank you for your kind support :) I agree with you as well...its unpredictable ...who knows

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:16 pm

LawIQ45 wrote:
jduckits wrote:
hope2018 wrote:An article I found"
"Aside from breach of warranty claims, a buyer of AS IS property often sues a seller based on numerous other claims, in particular fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent nondisclosure. In the case of fraudulent misrepresentation, the legal analysis is essentially the same whether the transaction involves the sale of goods or realty. The courts are all over the boards as to whether an AS IS disclaimer mitigates the seller’s liability, depending on the nature of the misrepresentation, other provisions of the contract, and of course what the judge had for breakfast.

Fraudulent nondisclosure, on the other hand, only applies to residential real estate. The seller of a home, unlike the seller of car, is required by law to disclose hidden material defects. While an AS IS clause may allow a seller to avoid having to make costly repairs, this disclaimer does not relieve seller from the duty to disclose defects. Defects, however, sometimes fall into a gray area. When there is a question as to whether the defect is “material” or “hidden,” judges are increasingly ruling in favor of sellers who sold their homes AS IS".

I got the second part wrong.. did not distinguish residential versus commercial. According to the facts in the exam, it was commercial building....ugh


Damn! Me too... :?


Im gonna give you both some advice that I myself did not follow when I was waiting for bar results.... try not to dwell on the things you missed. Naturally, you are going to remember everything you did wrong, and ignore the things you know you got right. For instance, I left the bar exam felling pretty OK about it. However, weeks went by and I found myself on this exact website looking at the different answers people put for things. I convinced myself I failed, which wasnt true - I had passed. I am sure you did fine. You arent going to get EVERYTHING correct, and because this is such a high stakes exam, the littlest error can feel like the difference between a 70 and a 55. I wish you the best of luck. I am here if you need to talk things out further.


Thanks for this perspective --- you are right. Helpful!

attyapp

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:32 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby attyapp » Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:36 pm

LawIQ45 wrote:
jduckits wrote:
hope2018 wrote:An article I found"
"Aside from breach of warranty claims, a buyer of AS IS property often sues a seller based on numerous other claims, in particular fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent nondisclosure. In the case of fraudulent misrepresentation, the legal analysis is essentially the same whether the transaction involves the sale of goods or realty. The courts are all over the boards as to whether an AS IS disclaimer mitigates the seller’s liability, depending on the nature of the misrepresentation, other provisions of the contract, and of course what the judge had for breakfast.

Fraudulent nondisclosure, on the other hand, only applies to residential real estate. The seller of a home, unlike the seller of car, is required by law to disclose hidden material defects. While an AS IS clause may allow a seller to avoid having to make costly repairs, this disclaimer does not relieve seller from the duty to disclose defects. Defects, however, sometimes fall into a gray area. When there is a question as to whether the defect is “material” or “hidden,” judges are increasingly ruling in favor of sellers who sold their homes AS IS".

I got the second part wrong.. did not distinguish residential versus commercial. According to the facts in the exam, it was commercial building....ugh


Damn! Me too... :?


Im gonna give you both some advice that I myself did not follow when I was waiting for bar results.... try not to dwell on the things you missed. Naturally, you are going to remember everything you did wrong, and ignore the things you know you got right. For instance, I left the bar exam felling pretty OK about it. However, weeks went by and I found myself on this exact website looking at the different answers people put for things. I convinced myself I failed, which wasnt true - I had passed. I am sure you did fine. You arent going to get EVERYTHING correct, and because this is such a high stakes exam, the littlest error can feel like the difference between a 70 and a 55. I wish you the best of luck. I am here if you need to talk things out further.


That really is sage advice. When I took the NY bar exam 10 years ago I was sure that I failed and went through the awful months questioning everything. Turns out I'd passed. But, now that I've taken the CA exam I'm doing the exact same thing again. And it's so true, the smallest error, or one error out of an entire essay, can seem like the difference between passing and failing (I know I'm putting myself through that now). Thanks for your post.

anony5

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:22 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby anony5 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:18 pm

Does anybody know where I can find confirmation that the date the results will be released is May 11? I believe that their target date for releasing the results is 5/11 but I haven't been able to find a source that confirms. It would be nice for them to at least commit to a release date...

FIETTS

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:10 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby FIETTS » Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:14 pm

anony5 wrote:Does anybody know where I can find confirmation that the date the results will be released is May 11? I believe that their target date for releasing the results is 5/11 but I haven't been able to find a source that confirms. It would be nice for them to at least commit to a release date...


http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions

February Bar results will be released - MAY 18th :oops: :roll:

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:07 pm

I had a nightmare last night that I opened up an envelop and the score/number next to the first essay was "0." I was like, "I know I may have missed some stuff, but I didn't think it was that bad." I hope this is not foretelling of what is to come . . . gulp. :shock: :cry:

hope2018

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby hope2018 » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:23 pm

It seems that Illinois released their results.
As for Mbe scaled, one test taker noted "40% score higher than a 135, meanwhile, 59% scored lower...its a pretty poor MBE score (but passing) it also would translate to nearly 55-57% of students hitting just above/at/below the necessary 133".
I don't think they are far from national average.
I am not sure how that will affect us in Cali.

Mxmasterr

New
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:14 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Mxmasterr » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:56 pm

FIETTS wrote:
anony5 wrote:Does anybody know where I can find confirmation that the date the results will be released is May 11? I believe that their target date for releasing the results is 5/11 but I haven't been able to find a source that confirms. It would be nice for them to at least commit to a release date...


http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions

February Bar results will be released - MAY 18th :oops: :roll:


I thought we got a piece of paper that said May 12 was the date they would publish results.

BrainToast

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:04 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby BrainToast » Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:42 am

Mxmasterr wrote:
FIETTS wrote:
anony5 wrote:Does anybody know where I can find confirmation that the date the results will be released is May 11? I believe that their target date for releasing the results is 5/11 but I haven't been able to find a source that confirms. It would be nice for them to at least commit to a release date...


http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions

February Bar results will be released - MAY 18th :oops: :roll:


I thought we got a piece of paper that said May 12 was the date they would publish results.

That would be nice. May 12 is a Saturday. The other date is a Friday so many of us will find out on the way to work. What a commute that will be.

Bla Bla Bla Blah

New
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Bla Bla Bla Blah » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:26 am

bacillusanthracis wrote:
a male human wrote:Solution: Pass the bar.


Oh really? Geez, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for that bit of sage wisdom. After failing the July bar, I sent a Buffalo Wilds Wings coupon to the CBE along with a note saying, "Come on dudes, just be cool and let me be a lawyer." For some reason, they were like nah, you gotta pass the bar exam, but thanks for the twofer on the wings bro!


Hahaha! Still one of the best comments in this thread so far!

longwait

New
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby longwait » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:42 am

BrainToast wrote:
Mxmasterr wrote:
FIETTS wrote:
anony5 wrote:Does anybody know where I can find confirmation that the date the results will be released is May 11? I believe that their target date for releasing the results is 5/11 but I haven't been able to find a source that confirms. It would be nice for them to at least commit to a release date...


http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions

February Bar results will be released - MAY 18th :oops: :roll:


I thought we got a piece of paper that said May 12 was the date they would publish results.

That would be nice. May 12 is a Saturday. The other date is a Friday so many of us will find out on the way to work. What a commute that will be.


I think CA results come out 6 pm Fridays. Might be on the way back.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], nada123, NY Lawyer and 14 guests