OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[stillwater]

I enjoyed the break from discussing Prop/Crim/Con Law though.

Yea, I could do without conlaw

[laxbrah420]

my prof mentioned in passing that mpc's framing for voluntary action is broader than traditional common law's...i cannot figure out how. can anyone help?

[Nelson]

my prof mentioned in passing that mpc's framing for voluntary action is broader than traditional common law's...i cannot figure out how. can anyone help?

Maybe because MPC only defines what is not voluntary in the exceptions rather than giving a positive definition of voluntariness?

[Lacepiece23]

my prof mentioned in passing that mpc's framing for voluntary action is broader than traditional common law's...i cannot figure out how. can anyone help?

Maybe because MPC only defines what is not voluntary in the exceptions rather than giving a positive definition of voluntariness?

I'm pretty sure it defines whats voluntary and then only defines omissions by what is not an omission could be wrong though.

[Blessedassurance]

my prof mentioned in passing that mpc's framing for voluntary action is broader than traditional common law's...i cannot figure out how. can anyone help?

Maybe because MPC only defines what is not voluntary in the exceptions rather than giving a positive definition of voluntariness?

I'm pretty sure it defines whats voluntary and then only defines omissions by what is not an omission could be wrong though.

It doesn't actually expressly define voluntary. 1.13(3) directs you to 2.01 which basically tells you what actions are not voluntary (see 2.01(2)). Etc.

edit: the closest "definition" would be sort of putting together all the pieces. "A bodily movement (1.13(2)) which is a product of effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual (2.01(d)), and is not otherwise excepted under 2.01(2).

[Danger Zone]

Though, if I recall correctly, 2.01(2) only gives examples of non-volitional acts, not an exclusive list of them.

[stillwater]

Though, if I recall correctly, 2.01(2) only gives examples of non-volitional acts, not an exclusive list of them.

yea, voluntariness is defined by outlining what is not voluntary: acts while unconscious, hypnotized, etc.

[LSL]

Hey all,

1st exam in the next few days. I REALLY could use help with two things:

1) Does anyone have any good formulas for calculating damages in contracts? Specifically, Expectation, Consequential, Incidental, Reliance, Restitution, and Liquidated damages? For some reason I am really struggling with finding good, straightforward formulas on how to calculate these.

2)This is such a newb question, but how are you all structuring your rule sections? Obviously, for Contracts, you'd be using the Restatement and UCC (or whichever is relevant), but do you also put relevant caselaw in your rule section? If not, where would you recommend putting relevant caselaw rules?

Thanks for all your help! (I really need it )

[mephistopheles]

Hey all,

1st exam in the next few days. I REALLY could use help with two things:

1) Does anyone have any good formulas for calculating damages in contracts? Specifically, Expectation, Consequential, Incidental, Reliance, Restitution, and Liquidated damages? For some reason I am really struggling with finding good, straightforward formulas on how to calculate these.

2)This is such a newb question, but how are you all structuring your rule sections? Obviously, for Contracts, you'd be using the Restatement and UCC (or whichever is relevant), but do you also put relevant caselaw in your rule section? If not, where would you recommend putting relevant caselaw rules?

Thanks for all your help! (I really need it )

how much of a realist is your professor?

i ask because it kind of matters. for my exam, whenever i saw damages calculations that i didn't want to do, i avoided them by trying to think around getting to that point in litigation. i literally ignored half of a page of damages information and wasn't penalized for it. and re: rules, UCC clearly for goods and then a mix of restatement slash realistic case law worked for me. (i had a 100 page outline again, though.)

[Robert Paulson]

Hey all,

1st exam in the next few days. I REALLY could use help with two things:

1) Does anyone have any good formulas for calculating damages in contracts? Specifically, Expectation, Consequential, Incidental, Reliance, Restitution, and Liquidated damages? For some reason I am really struggling with finding good, straightforward formulas on how to calculate these.

2)This is such a newb question, but how are you all structuring your rule sections? Obviously, for Contracts, you'd be using the Restatement and UCC (or whichever is relevant), but do you also put relevant caselaw in your rule section? If not, where would you recommend putting relevant caselaw rules?

Thanks for all your help! (I really need it )

1) the restatement sections are pretty clear on how damages are calculated. Not sure if its any different for the UCC though.

2) I just put a section heading (e.g. repudiation), then subheadings for restatement, UCC, and restatement. IDK if that's very helpful but it worked for me.

[LSL]

Thanks Mephistopheles and Robert Paulson. I'd say my prof is definitely pretty realist about it. Mephistopheles, we'll have some damages questions in the multiple choice section, so it's going to be a pretty specific answer she's looking for. I'm struggling to find a really cut and dry, concise formula.

Robert Paulson, thanks that does help. Does that mean you didn't put case law in your rule area? Did you just discuss it further down in the analysis section?

[Nelson]

Thanks Mephistopheles and Robert Paulson. I'd say my prof is definitely pretty realist about it. Mephistopheles, we'll have some damages questions in the multiple choice section, so it's going to be a pretty specific answer she's looking for. I'm struggling to find a really cut and dry, concise formula.

Robert Paulson, thanks that does help. Does that mean you didn't put case law in your rule area? Did you just discuss it further down in the analysis section?

By rule area do you mean like in an IRAC on an exam? You shouldn't spend more than a sentence stating a rule of law on an exam. If you're using more than that, you aren't applying law to fact. Focus on digging into the fact pattern.

[LSL]

Thanks Mephistopheles and Robert Paulson. I'd say my prof is definitely pretty realist about it. Mephistopheles, we'll have some damages questions in the multiple choice section, so it's going to be a pretty specific answer she's looking for. I'm struggling to find a really cut and dry, concise formula.

Robert Paulson, thanks that does help. Does that mean you didn't put case law in your rule area? Did you just discuss it further down in the analysis section?

By rule area do you mean like in an IRAC on an exam? You shouldn't spend more than a sentence stating a rule of law on an exam. If you're using more than that, you aren't applying law to fact. Focus on digging into the fact pattern.

Yeah, I don't want to spend too much time stating the rule, but I'm wondering if it should be like:

"The UCC states (blah blah blah). In (blank case) the court found (blah blah blah). In (other blank case) the court found (blah blah blah).

*Start Analysis/comparison of facts of case to law and case law*

Or, should I just save the holdings of the case law to put in the analysis section instead of the rule section?

[Robert Paulson]

Thanks Mephistopheles and Robert Paulson. I'd say my prof is definitely pretty realist about it. Mephistopheles, we'll have some damages questions in the multiple choice section, so it's going to be a pretty specific answer she's looking for. I'm struggling to find a really cut and dry, concise formula.

Robert Paulson, thanks that does help. Does that mean you didn't put case law in your rule area? Did you just discuss it further down in the analysis section?

I mean the cases are usually applying a restatement rule or UCC rule. So I basically IRAC'ed the restatement or UCC or whatever, then I would IRAC the applicable cases and do like a bigger conclusion at the end of the analysis. It seems kind of repetitive but its not bad if your succinct and it's easier to organize. I would ask your prof how they want the analysis done if your not sure.

[Nelson]

Yeah, I don't want to spend too much time stating the rule, but I'm wondering if it should be like:

"The UCC states (blah blah blah). In (blank case) the court found (blah blah blah). In (other blank case) the court found (blah blah blah).

*Start Analysis/comparison of facts of case to law and case law*

Or, should I just save the holdings of the case law to put in the analysis section instead of the rule section?

On an exam, unless your professor is really weird, I would just state the rule you're using (Per R(S)C, reliance damages are expenditures made in preparation for performance minus any loss that would have been suffered in performance). If the rule is really simple, like for reliance damages, I would just frame your answer in the form of the rule and not even bother to state it separately ("X can claim reliance damages for the loss they incurred in preparing for the contract when they [facts]"). You get points for spotting issues and applying law to facts, not for stating variations on rules of law.

[stillwater]

Conlaw makes me hate myself

[LSL]

You all are really wonderful. Thanks for the help.

[SportsFan]

Whew, just got out of con law. 4 hours, and 3 hypos (1 was split into 4 parts), each with a 1200 word limit (so 3600 words in 4 hours). That was boring, to say the least. I feel like I did really well though, and I definitely utilized all the extra time I had to reword things (to make them shorter so I could fit more arguments, and to delete facts that I had stated that I didn't need to) and make sure I hit all the right things. I feel really good about it, but then, most people do. I do think an A- is attainable though, unless my professor just hates what I had to say.

[chiguy99]

PROP: When dealing with "profits" I know the to access the other's prop to extract resources is limited to taking the resource... but how does that work if ... "A has right to come onto B's prop to take gold" but while there A is enticed by his delicious spring water?
I'm guessing he is limited to the resource they agreed on, but all my notes simply say he is limited to taking resources and not really specifying the particular one at hand.

[Nova]

PROP: When dealing with "profits" I know the to access the other's prop to extract resources is limited to taking the resource... but how does that work if ... "A has right to come onto B's prop to take gold" but while there A is enticed by his delicious spring water?
I'm guessing he is limited to the resource they agreed on, but all my notes simply say he is limited to taking resources and not really specifying the particular one at hand.

The scope is limited to the resource they agreed on.

[Nova]

Whew, just got out of con law. 4 hours, and 3 hypos (1 was split into 4 parts), each with a 1200 word limit (so 3600 words in 4 hours). That was boring, to say the least. I feel like I did really well though, and I definitely utilized all the extra time I had to reword things (to make them shorter so I could fit more arguments, and to delete facts that I had stated that I didn't need to) and make sure I hit all the right things. I feel really good about it, but then, most people do. I do think an A- is attainable though, unless my professor just hates what I had to say.

Congrats on getting it over with. Hope you did good.

ON TO THE NEXT ONE

[SportsFan]

Whew, just got out of con law. 4 hours, and 3 hypos (1 was split into 4 parts), each with a 1200 word limit (so 3600 words in 4 hours). That was boring, to say the least. I feel like I did really well though, and I definitely utilized all the extra time I had to reword things (to make them shorter so I could fit more arguments, and to delete facts that I had stated that I didn't need to) and make sure I hit all the right things. I feel really good about it, but then, most people do. I do think an A- is attainable though, unless my professor just hates what I had to say.

Congrats on getting it over with. Hope you did good.

ON TO THE NEXT ONE

I feel like I should make the grade waiting thread now that I'm half done with finals. Me and Nelson will be the only ones in there, though.

[Nova]

I feel like I should make the grade waiting thread now that I'm half done with finals. Me and Nelson will be the only ones in there, though.

LOL, yeah. That must be nice.

My finals dont start for about 10 days.

[mephistopheles]

I feel like I should make the grade waiting thread now that I'm half done with finals. Me and Nelson will be the only ones in there, though.

i'll join. i have 1 left.

[squid2211]

Whew, just got out of con law. 4 hours, and 3 hypos (1 was split into 4 parts), each with a 1200 word limit (so 3600 words in 4 hours). That was boring, to say the least. I feel like I did really well though, and I definitely utilized all the extra time I had to reword things (to make them shorter so I could fit more arguments, and to delete facts that I had stated that I didn't need to) and make sure I hit all the right things. I feel really good about it, but then, most people do. I do think an A- is attainable though, unless my professor just hates what I had to say.

Congrats on getting it over with. Hope you did good.

ON TO THE NEXT ONE

I feel like I should make the grade waiting thread now that I'm half done with finals. Me and Nelson will be the only ones in there, though.

Halfway done here too...so far so good I think (hope)