California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum

[jmhendri]

Is a promise to pay consideration for option in future = option K? I said no...but I had also never seen that scenario come up before. As per a lot of the test. Fuck.

A promise to perform a legal detriment is pretty much always valid consideration I think.

But it was to keep the offer open? I mean if he tendered the 200, no problem, but he didn't. SO i was like uh. he promised to pay to keep it open? but didnt? can you have a separate contract based on a promise to pay consideration for keeping an offer open for an option for a contract?

A promise to perform in exchange for a promise to perform. Why wouldn't it be valid? You know option Ks are valid as long as there's consideration, and you know a promise to perform is a valid consideration... imagine if it had been a promise to paint the guys house. The fact that the promise wouldn't materialize for 10 days doesn't invalidate the value of the consideration.

[Emma.]

so...how exactly am I supposed to find the energy to review tonight for tmr's race when I seriously can't stop thinking how I've alraedy failed this Bar exam...

so depressed...words of encouragement?

Right there with you. Right now sitting in my hotel watching HBO when I should be frantically reviewing CA Evidence or something.

[usuaggie]

What did you guys put for the man who wanted wine, locked the clerk in the closet, false imprisonment/larceny/kidnapping question?

False imprisonment and larceny. Did not move the clerk (needed for kidnapping), and no force or threat of force to take the money (needed for robbery). I think that is right, but my brain is fried.

False imprisomment and robbery. Robery can be by force from their person or the area around them. The area is loosely interpreted, can be a farmer tied up in his barn while you steal from his house. I thought that the act of putting him in the closet and locking it would be force. But I wasn't sure

[Foosters Galore]

What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?

No full faith and credit unless the court had proper jurisdiction over the case.

I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT!

(because I chose that too).

Was there ever any indication that the other court did not have proper jurisdiction?

[TaipeiMort]

What did you guys put for the man who wanted wine, locked the clerk in the closet, false imprisonment/larceny/kidnapping question?

It should have been larceny and kidnapping I think. I put false imprisonment but that was because I could only remember that kidnapping required movement of the victim, where concealment is enough.

I was actually just googling this. My barbri notes said concealment is enough, but if that's the case what's the difference between criminal false imprisonment and kidnapping? Any time you are guilty of false imprisonment of a person into a place with a ceiling, you kidnapped them?

I got it wrong, but the answer is Kidnapping and larceny. But, a good argument could be made for Robbery if you believed she was still in his presence.

[Another]

.

[Reinhardt]

I feel like a state can find the other state lacked jurisdiction even where the argument was waived or the original court heard the argument and ruled against it, otherwise that would swallow the rule.

[TaipeiMort]

What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?

No full faith and credit unless the court had proper jurisdiction over the case.

I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT!

(because I chose that too).

Was there ever any indication that the other court did not have proper jurisdiction?

Yeah, it made clear that they were both in the other state the entire time, and the act occurred in the other state.

[somethingdemure]

What did you guys put for the man who wanted wine, locked the clerk in the closet, false imprisonment/larceny/kidnapping question?

False imprisonment and larceny. Did not move the clerk (needed for kidnapping), and no force or threat of force to take the money (needed for robbery). I think that is right, but my brain is fried.

False imprisomment and robbery. Robery can be by force from their person or the area around them. The area is loosely interpreted, can be a farmer tied up in his barn while you steal from his house.

Tying you up is actual force, closing the door behind you isn't, right?

[Another]

.

[Emma.]

I feel like a state can find the other state lacked jurisdiction even where the argument was waived or the original court heard the argument and ruled against it, otherwise that would swallow the rule.

Yeah, you can challenge personal jx collaterally after a judgement. It is kinda risky because you've waived any other defense, but if you successfully show that the court didn't have personal jx you are golden.

[JDCA2012]

so...how exactly am I supposed to find the energy to review tonight for tmr's race when I seriously can't stop thinking how I've alraedy failed this Bar exam...

so depressed...words of encouragement?

same here. jsut need energy.

Yeah I feel I've already failed

[TaipeiMort]

What did you guys put for the man who wanted wine, locked the clerk in the closet, false imprisonment/larceny/kidnapping question?

False imprisonment and larceny. Did not move the clerk (needed for kidnapping), and no force or threat of force to take the money (needed for robbery). I think that is right, but my brain is fried.

False imprisomment and robbery. Robery can be by force from their person or the area around them. The area is loosely interpreted, can be a farmer tied up in his barn while you steal from his house.

That's what I put, but it is kidnapping, not false imprisonment. Two additional elements were satisfied-- he concealed her and it was against her will?

[a male human]

If you're taking it again next year, you're only 1/3 of the way done, like yesterday!

[TaipeiMort]

What did you guys put for the man who wanted wine, locked the clerk in the closet, false imprisonment/larceny/kidnapping question?

False imprisonment and larceny. Did not move the clerk (needed for kidnapping), and no force or threat of force to take the money (needed for robbery). I think that is right, but my brain is fried.

False imprisomment and robbery. Robery can be by force from their person or the area around them. The area is loosely interpreted, can be a farmer tied up in his barn while you steal from his house.

Tying you up is actual force, closing the door behind you isn't, right?

\

You don't need actual force if you did it in their presence.

[Another]

.

[her??]

I talked to someone at a different test site that had a question about a couple that wanted to have a baby but some law about embryos was burdening religion or something?? I 100% did not have that question on my exam.

Did you see these questions?

1. Some guy waiving his right to counsel but said he would accept fancy criminal lawyer at courts expense
2. tenant and landlord orally agreed that tenant would buy property and improved it and the landlord sold it to someone else
3. Multiple questions relating to grand jury proceedings, and one about a sentencing hearing
4. Federal law about immigration regulation/stopping vehicles but there was a long tradition of federal/state working together
5. I remember two defamation questions, I think both were in employment contexts

oh god there are so many more I cannot adequately describe. I had many narrowed down to two choices and feel like it is possible that I made the wrong choice for each of them! ahhh!

[Emma.]

You don't need actual force if you did it in their presence.

Disagree. The taking itself wasn't accomplished by force or threat of force. I could be wrong, but no UChicago consensus on this one.

[TaipeiMort]

What is a pat? The title contained the covenant of the developer to keep it single family homes, but the covenant wasn't contained in the pat? Does anyone remember this question? I changed it from that answer to "he didn't own anything in the neighborhood" at the last minute.

[somethingdemure]

Heh it was plat.

[usuaggie]

What did you guys put for the man who wanted wine, locked the clerk in the closet, false imprisonment/larceny/kidnapping question?

False imprisonment and larceny. Did not move the clerk (needed for kidnapping), and no force or threat of force to take the money (needed for robbery). I think that is right, but my brain is fried.

False imprisomment and robbery. Robery can be by force from their person or the area around them. The area is loosely interpreted, can be a farmer tied up in his barn while you steal from his house.

That's what I put, but it is kidnapping, not false imprisonment. Two additional elements were satisfied-- he concealed her and it was against her will?

Idk if that is concealment. Concealed from who? I thought he was confining

[Emma.]

I talked to someone at a different test site that had a question about a couple that wanted to have a baby but some law about embryos was burdening religion or something?? I 100% did not have that question on my exam.

Did you see these questions?

1. Some guy waiving his right to counsel but said he would accept fancy criminal lawyer at courts expense
2. tenant and landlord orally agreed that tenant would buy property and improved it and the landlord sold it to someone else
3. Multiple questions relating to grand jury proceedings, and one about a sentencing hearing
4. Federal law about immigration regulation/stopping vehicles but there was a long tradition of federal/state working together
5. I remember two defamation questions, I think both were in employment contexts

oh god there are so many more I cannot adequately describe. I had many narrowed down to two choices and feel like it is possible that I made the wrong choice for each of them! ahhh!

Had ALL of these, including the cloning embryo one.

[huckabees]

I talked to someone at a different test site that had a question about a couple that wanted to have a baby but some law about embryos was burdening religion or something?? I 100% did not have that question on my exam.

Did you see these questions?

1. Some guy waiving his right to counsel but said he would accept fancy criminal lawyer at courts expense
2. tenant and landlord orally agreed that tenant would buy property and improved it and the landlord sold it to someone else
3. Multiple questions relating to grand jury proceedings, and one about a sentencing hearing
4. Federal law about immigration regulation/stopping vehicles but there was a long tradition of federal/state working together
5. I remember two defamation questions, I think both were in employment contexts

oh god there are so many more I cannot adequately describe. I had many narrowed down to two choices and feel like it is possible that I made the wrong choice for each of them! ahhh!

Had ALL of these, including the cloning embryo one.

No embryo cloning for me for sure. Yes to one on sonograms and undue burden

Also I apparently know nothing about grand jury proceedings. What are the rules for those anyway? Pretty sure I messed up the diary question and it had to do with immunity of some sort

[jmhendri]

I have to disagree with you guys on this kidnapping thing. Kidnapping = concealment in a "secret place" (as per barbri). Criminal false imprisonment only requires confinement against someone's will. What was the clerk being concealed from? Nothing, he was just being kept out the way.

[usuaggie]

Does concealment have to be in a secret place? Phrase is in my notes.