Top Law Schools

Trying to figure out how to organize everything. If anyone could help me out with some sample exam responses it would be immensely helpful. Thanks!!

BCLS wrote:Trying to figure out how to organize everything. If anyone could help me out with some sample exam responses it would be immensely helpful. Thanks!!

You really should look at some sample answers from your professors old tests if they are on file. Those are probably going to be more instructive, since a professor is likely to repeat that style of question

This is the basic structure i've been using on my practice exams

1 - UCC or Common Law?
2 - Is there present commitment from both parties?
3 - Was the offer valid?
4 - Was it properly accepted?
5 - Was there valid consideration?
---if YES to all above, you have a contract, if you you have a NO, then:
6 - Did one party act in reliance on the other party's promise? (look into promissory estoppel)
---if YES, go straight to remedies, if NO, then:
7 - Did either of the parties breach the contract? (probably yes)
8 - Does the breaching party have a valid defense for their breach?
--- if YES, then done with analysis, if NO, then:
9 - What remedies are available to the non-breaching party?

Thanks for the posts. My problem is that my professor has no past exams for us to look at and no model responses.

BriaTharen wrote:

BCLS wrote:Trying to figure out how to organize everything. If anyone could help me out with some sample exam responses it would be immensely helpful. Thanks!!

You really should look at some sample answers from your professors old tests if they are on file. Those are probably going to be more instructive, since a professor is likely to repeat that style of question

This.

But this is how i'm planning it.

Subject Matter Analysis
- UCC?
- Statute of Frauds?
Formation Analysis
- Offer
- Acceptance
- Consideration
Damages Analysis.
- 344-360
- 2-207-2-219

uwb09 wrote:This is the basic structure i've been using on my practice exams

1 - UCC or Common Law?
2 - Is there present commitment from both parties?
3 - Was the offer valid?
4 - Was it properly accepted?
5 - Was there valid consideration?
---if YES to all above, you have a contract, if you you have a NO, then:
6 - Did one party act in reliance on the other party's promise? (look into promissory estoppel)
---if YES, go straight to remedies, if NO, then:
7 - Did either of the parties breach the contract? (probably yes)
8 - Does the breaching party have a valid defense for their breach?
--- if YES, then done with analysis, if NO, then:
9 - What remedies are available to the non-breaching party?

Where would restitution factor in that analysis?

my prof is in love with restitution

not sure why, but I can't seem to get promissory restitution or restitution. I have everything else down, including parol evidence rule, statute of frauds etc.

Gamecubesupreme wrote:

uwb09 wrote:This is the basic structure i've been using on my practice exams

1 - UCC or Common Law?
2 - Is there present commitment from both parties?
3 - Was the offer valid?
4 - Was it properly accepted?
5 - Was there valid consideration?
---if YES to all above, you have a contract, if you you have a NO, then:
6 - Did one party act in reliance on the other party's promise? (look into promissory estoppel)
---if YES, go straight to remedies, if NO, then:
7 - Did either of the parties breach the contract? (probably yes)
8 - Does the breaching party have a valid defense for their breach?
--- if YES, then done with analysis, if NO, then:
9 - What remedies are available to the non-breaching party?

Where would restitution factor in that analysis?

Remedies
(a) damages - benefit of bargain/reliance
(a.1) limitations to damages
(a.2) liquidated damages

(b) restitution

(c) specific performance/injunction against breach


I guess that would be remedies available to breaching/non-breaching parties then haha