California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum

[spartjdawg]

does a fixture filing (or whatever the fuck its called) not have priority over other mortgages?

WHAT THE EVER LOVING FUCK WAS THAT QUESTION ABOUT? I have never even heard of a fixture filing.

UCC Fixture filings in counties where the fixture (and land) sits. Secures fixtures for mortgages, but the mortgage usually must prime, I believe.

Article 9 changes common law rule first to file to: mortgages over fixtures not filed w/in 20 days. Not sure the MBE covers Article 9.

[jmhendri]

does a fixture filing (or whatever the fuck its called) not have priority over other mortgages?

WHAT THE EVER LOVING FUCK WAS THAT QUESTION ABOUT? I have never even heard of a fixture filing.

From my MBE rule notes:
U.C.C. Article 9 gives a holder of a security interest in fixtures the right to remove the fixtures after default, as long as the fixtures are removable.
Purchase money mortgage to purchase fixtures → Art. 9 gives priority to a purchase money security interest in removable fixtures even over a prior recorded mortgage, but only as to those fixtures.

Good god. I vaguely remember this. But the term fixture filing threw me

[Old Gregg]

So fixture filing had priority? fuck me.

[jmhendri]

So long as the answer was that the mortgage had priority I eliminated to the right answer
Edit: gah

[JDCA2012]

So long as the answer was that the mortgage had priority I eliminated to the right answer
Edit: gah

I can't recall, was the mortgage a PMM? If not, the fixture filed promptly took priority

[Old Gregg]

So long as the answer was that the mortgage had priority I eliminated to the right answer
Edit: gah

I can't recall, was the mortgage a PMM? If not, the fixture filed promptly took priority

Mortgage was a PMSI.

[Old Gregg]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

[lawdawg09]

This MBE was way harder than I expected. What is going on? Did everyone lie to me about how easy the bar is or is there something going on this administration? Between the PT and some of the questions today...

I do not think the essays tomorrow morning will be fun either.

[jmhendri]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance

[usuaggie]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Don't know. Same with K about royalties when fed ex screwed up the comic book publishing.

[Old Gregg]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Consequential dmgs require the breaching parties awareness of any special circumstance

yesss. but what about where the shipper didn't get the book out on time? author entitled to royalties from the shipper?

[UnfetteredDiscretion]

I feel like a bunch of property questions must have been experimental, bc torts is supposed to be slightly more than all the others, and I for some reason noticed those the least, followed by perhaps Con law. For some reason, it felt that every other question was either property or evidence.

Constitutional Law (31), Contracts (33), Criminal Law and Procedure (31), Evidence (31), Real Property (31), and Torts (33). Supposedly.

[jmhendri]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Don't know. Same with K about royalties when fed ex screwed up the comic book publishing.

Consequential damages were ok here because the authorized agent was aware of the special circumstance

[Old Gregg]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Don't know. Same with K about royalties when fed ex screwed up the comic book publishing.

Yeah but in that Q the author was a tool and kept telling fedex "this needs to go out on time or it wont get published and im fucked."

[Emma.]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance

Wasn't that a torts question though? About the installer's negligence? Does that change the rule? Probably not, but I guess I was thinking of this as kind of an eggshell plaintiff situation.

[a male human]

how come i don't remember the fixture stuff...

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

for some reason i answered all questions related to economic damages as you cannot recover economic damages for negligence. hope it's right.

also, Q100 in AM was about how much P could recover maximum. reliance/restitutionary/combined? i seemed to remember you can get either expectation and/or reliance OR restitutionary, so i picked C (the higher of reliance/restitutionary)

[her??]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance

is this true for torts? i thought the singer's job was like his having a special unknown medical condition that would also result in a lot of damages, and if the damages were proved with reasonable certainty then he could recover. i remember this problem being from a negligence action

okay yes haha

[softey]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance

Wasn't that a torts question though? About the installer's negligence? Does that change the rule? Probably not, but I guess I was thinking of this as kind of an eggshell plaintiff situation.

same.

[jmhendri]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance

Wasn't that a torts question though? About the installer's negligence? Does that change the rule? Probably not, but I guess I was thinking of this as kind of an eggshell plaintiff situation.

Oh snap, you might be right. I zeroed in on the installation aspect. Still should be ok though. The type of damage was foreseeable even if the extent of the future loss wasn't. Right?

[UnfetteredDiscretion]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Don't know. Same with K about royalties when fed ex screwed up the comic book publishing.

Yeah but in that Q the author was a tool and kept telling fedex "this needs to go out on time or it wont get published and im fucked."

I went with "cover" damages (costs to mitigate w/ another publisher), reasoning that royalties are too speculative. What do I know though, probably going to be dealing with this shit again come feb.

[SLShopeful]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance

Wasn't that a torts question though? About the installer's negligence? Does that change the rule? Probably not, but I guess I was thinking of this as kind of an eggshell plaintiff situation.

Oh snap, you might be right. I zeroed in on the installment aspect. Still should be ok though. The type of damage was foreseeable even if the extent of the future loss wasn't. Right?

c'mon fellas... you know tort plaintiffs can recover for lost wages (that wasn't a Ks question)

[a male human]

Anyone else gamble on there being no unilateral conspiracy under common law?

[Emma.]

Anyone else gamble on there being no unilateral conspiracy under common law?

Oh snap. I couldn't remember if the Wharton Rule applied under the CL or not. I said no.

[usuaggie]

Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.

Consequential dmgs require the breaching party's awareness of any special circumstance

Wasn't that a torts question though? About the installer's negligence? Does that change the rule? Probably not, but I guess I was thinking of this as kind of an eggshell plaintiff situation.

same.

Took the you take the victim as they are approach. Since it is torts, don't need to know she's a singer, just like don't need to know the car you hit is worth 100k for them to fully recover.

[usuaggie]

Anyone else gamble on there being no unilateral conspiracy under common law?

CL: bilateral but no act. Liability at agreement
Now: unilateral but overt act