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

[Jsa725]

.

[SportsFan]

Thoughts on the best length for an attack outline? 2 pages seem good? I guess I can always adjust it after PT's... My civ pro is gonna be a lot longer though because of pre-written answers (the BLL, basically).

[MissMock]

Does anybody have suggestions or access to multiple choice crim exams? Specifically on Dressler if possible? My entire exam is multiple choice and I've used up all the practice questions I can find in supplements.

[jgc02a]

Does anybody have suggestions or access to multiple choice crim exams? Specifically on Dressler if possible? My entire exam is multiple choice and I've used up all the practice questions I can find in supplements.

Best book for practicing multiple choice question??? yeah, you can use supplements like q&a etc..you know what the very best book is for practicing mult choice? Finz multistate method. These are the mcq's that iv'e been practicing on!!! Here's the link! Plus, there are thousands of mcq questions for all of your subject like torts, contracts, etc.. check it out. I hope this helps you!


http://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Tactic ... multistate

[Raiden]

Switching music between Kaskade and Chopin. It is getting crazy in here.

Keep on trekkin team.

tso pumped right nao

Lol, nice, lets just play our exams as smoothly as he plays his cello. Real mellow.

[Doorkeeper]

What is this attack outline that you all speak of? I assume it's just a super condensed outline to use at first glance before you get into the more expansive, detailed outline for case specifics?

[Raiden]

What is this attack outline that you all speak of? I assume it's just a super condensed outline to use at first glance before you get into the more expansive, detailed outline for case specifics?

It's an outline equipped with a sword to attack other student's outlines during the exam.

[Doorkeeper]

What is this attack outline that you all speak of? I assume it's just a super condensed outline to use at first glance before you get into the more expansive, detailed outline for case specifics?

It's an outline equipped with a sword to attack other student's outlines during the exam.

DAT CURVE.

[Raiden]

What is this attack outline that you all speak of? I assume it's just a super condensed outline to use at first glance before you get into the more expansive, detailed outline for case specifics?

It's an outline equipped with a sword to attack other student's outlines during the exam.

DAT CURVE.

Lol, I probably shouldn't be supporting that mentality...

But yeah, I am not sure exactly what it is. I think it's a condensed version to quickly spot the issues and sub issues.

On a side note, my current favorite song is "more room for happiness" above and beyond remix (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXqOQmAmTmk).

[swimmer11]

Right now this song has been pumping me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET_WF9F_FhY

[LetsGoLAW]

Another hour or get 7 hours of sleep?

[Raiden]

Depends on the marginal returns amigo. More than likely, each additional hour in the night is less productive.

Don't forget that the brain makes useful connections while you are sleeping, adding the water to bring to fruition your hard earned studying.

Also, an apple a day keeps the doctor away.

[Jsa725]

.

[Raiden]

A-team, I have a quick contracts question.

What the proper formula for calculating remedies in a breech of K?

From my understanding its:

[K price] - [fair market value or cover] - [incidental damages] - [consequential damages]

or is it actually: [K price] - [fair market value or cover] & then you subtract incidental damages] + [consequential damages] separately? I didn't understand the logic of numero 30 in K's Crunchtime.

[Raiden]

Long day of K's MC and general K's studying. Feels like the MC tore me a new...
Oh well I'll keep grinding out K's another day...I WANT IT. CSWS.

Packing up now.... SLEEP and being well rested is paramount for optimal exam performance!

I feel you about the K MC...did 30 in sets of 10, and I would miss 4 out of 10 every single time. Killin me Smalls.

[LetsGoLAW]

A-team, I have a quick contracts question.

What the proper formula for calculating remedies in a breech of K?

From my understanding its:

[K price] - [fair market value or cover] - [incidental damages] - [consequential damages]

or is it actually: [K price] - [fair market value or cover] & then you subtract incidental damages] + [consequential damages] separately? I didn't understand the logic of numero 30 in K's Crunchtime.

+1. And what is a sound way to write this on the test?

Edit: I am feeling good. I issue spotted a few exams and discovered ~60% of the issues, obviously all the major ones. But a part of e still gets nervous. I just hope all our hard work comes through.

[SportsFan]

A-team, I have a quick contracts question.

What the proper formula for calculating remedies in a breech of K?

From my understanding its:

[K price] - [fair market value or cover] - [incidental damages] - [consequential damages]

or is it actually: [K price] - [fair market value or cover] & then you subtract incidental damages] + [consequential damages] separately? I didn't understand the logic of numero 30 in K's Crunchtime.

Just to clarify, you mean expectation damages right?

[Raiden]

A-team, I have a quick contracts question.

What the proper formula for calculating remedies in a breech of K?

From my understanding its:

[K price] - [fair market value or cover] - [incidental damages] - [consequential damages]

or is it actually: [K price] - [fair market value or cover] & then you subtract incidental damages] + [consequential damages] separately? I didn't understand the logic of numero 30 in K's Crunchtime.

Just to clarify, you mean expectation damages right?

Right. Like in Hadley v. Baxendale.

[minnbills]

K damages

(Direct loss + Extra Loss) - (cost avoided+loss avoided through mitigation)

[swimmer11]

A-team, I have a quick contracts question.

What the proper formula for calculating remedies in a breech of K?

From my understanding its:

[K price] - [fair market value or cover] - [incidental damages] - [consequential damages]

or is it actually: [K price] - [fair market value or cover] & then you subtract incidental damages] + [consequential damages] separately? I didn't understand the logic of numero 30 in K's Crunchtime.

+1. And what is a sound way to write this on the test?

Edit: I am feeling good. I issue spotted a few exams and discovered ~60% of the issues, obviously all the major ones. But a part of e still gets nervous. I just hope all our hard work comes through.

How long was the hypo? Does it have an answer key?

[LetsGoLAW]

Two and a half pages and yes.

[Rawlberto]

I just finished my professor's most recent K final.

Had to measure recoverable damages for one party who has contracts (2 each) with 3 different merchants. No price on the Ks as the breaching party had an output K with the party you "were representing." More or less wrote nothing down. I hope this was because this was his first time teaching Ks because it was honestly ridiculous.

My answer was atrocious. My only saving grace would for the curve to have an even more atrocious response. Looks I won't be back next semester!

[Blessedassurance]

A-team, I have a quick contracts question.

What the proper formula for calculating remedies in a breech of K?

From my understanding its:

[K price] - [fair market value or cover] - [incidental damages] - [consequential damages]

or is it actually: [K price] - [fair market value or cover] & then you subtract incidental damages] + [consequential damages] separately? I didn't understand the logic of numero 30 in K's Crunchtime.

Expectation damages is essentially giving the non-breaching party the benefit of the bargain. That is the underlying rationale. It's easier to look to the totality of circumstances and the underlying rationale, it helps with the analysis unless it's MC or something.

Mechanically, it's K-price - market price + incidentals (if any) + consequentials* - losses saved because of breach.

*Sellers don't get consequentials under the UCC (if the contract is for goods, look out for this), only buyers do.

The analysis should look at the non-breaching party's reasonable attempts at mitigating losses (cover etc) and whether they were obligated to mitigate damages to begin with.

Consequentials should be analyzed from the point of forseeability. They must naturally flow from the breach, I forget the exact wording (I haven't studied for K's).

Special damages should consider whether they were communicated (there's a specific phrase for this) at the time of contracting (compare the case about the shaft...Hadley?...with the one about some crane or something).There's a minority rule in Arkansas that requires tacit agreement at the time of contracting for special damages to apply.

This all depends on what your professor taught and the specific fact pattern, as well as the point at which there was a breach, which is why knowing the "benefit of the bargain - i.e. putting parties into a position had the contract been performed" helps.

[laxbrah420]

A-team, I have a quick contracts question.

What the proper formula for calculating remedies in a breech of K?

From my understanding its:

[K price] - [fair market value or cover] - [incidental damages] - [consequential damages]

or is it actually: [K price] - [fair market value or cover] & then you subtract incidental damages] + [consequential damages] separately? I didn't understand the logic of numero 30 in K's Crunchtime.

Expectation damages is essentially giving the non-breaching party the benefit of the bargain. That is the underlying rationale. It's easier to look to the totality of circumstances and the underlying rationale, it helps with the analysis unless it's MC or something.

Mechanically, it's K-price - market price + incidentals (if any) + consequentials* - losses saved because of breach.

*Sellers don't get consequentials under the UCC (if the contract is for goods, look out for this), only buyers do.

The analysis should look at the non-breaching party's reasonable attempts at mitigating losses (cover etc) and whether they were obligated to mitigate damages to begin with.

Consequentials should be analyzed from the point of forseeability. They must naturally flow from the breach, I forget the exact wording (I haven't studied for K's).

Special damages should consider whether they were communicated (there's a specific phrase for this) at the time of contracting (compare the case about the shaft...Hadley?...with the one about some crane or something).There's a minority rule in Arkansas that requires tacit agreement at the time of contracting for special damages to apply.

This all depends on what your professor taught and the specific fact pattern, as well as the point at which there was a breach, which is why knowing the "benefit of the bargain - i.e. putting parties into a position had the contract been performed" helps.

Just to clarify this, raiden, your biggest mistake seems to be subtracting consequential when you should be adding them.

[gaud]

11 days until my first final. fml