Worth reading the MPC, Restatements, UCC, etc.? Forum

[DonGately]

1L here. Potentially dumb questions. I apologize if so.

My Crim prof said that the final exam will be heavily focused on the Model Penal Code. Is it worth reading the latter in its entirety and/or a supplement that focuses on it? (Supplement I had in mind is Dubber's Criminal Law: Model Penal Code.) Or should I just stick with the excerpts in my casebook? I plan on checking out the E&E and Dressler as well.

My Contracts prof has referred to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts quite a few times. Is it worth reading through this as well? So far it seems that my Contracts casebook and course are just illustrating various rules from the Restatement. Grouping cases under Section 86 or 90, etc. I assume the important thing is to extract/memorize/know these rules and how to spot them in a hypo?

[zugzwanger]

Criminal Law --> Dressler ^1000: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Cri ... iminal+law

It will have MPC and common law segmented beautifully

Maybe your Ks class is unique, but I would definitely only focus on the sections that are referenced like don't go reading stuff that's not it'll probably be a gigantic/confusing waste of time. Most of the time in our contracts class you just use the cases and/or restatements as the rules on the exam. The E&E for contracts is solid.

[hiima3L]

1L here. Potentially dumb questions. I apologize if so.

My Crim prof said that the final exam will be heavily focused on the Model Penal Code. Is it worth reading the latter in its entirety and/or a supplement that focuses on it? (Supplement I had in mind is Dubber's Criminal Law: Model Penal Code.) Or should I just stick with the excerpts in my casebook? I plan on checking out the E&E and Dressler as well.

My Contracts prof has referred to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts quite a few times. Is it worth reading through this as well? So far it seems that my Contracts casebook and course are just illustrating various rules from the Restatement. Grouping cases under Section 86 or 90, etc. I assume the important thing is to extract/memorize/know these rules and how to spot them in a hypo?

No. Neither is worth reading in its entirety, especially the R2d of Ks--it's enormous and complex.

Everything you need to know will be covered in the readings and lectures.

[BVest]

Everything you need to know will be covered in the readings and lectures.

This is not necessarily the case. Our K prof expected (and told us he expected) us to read restatement and UCC provisions cited by the casebook (especially those in the notes like "But what if the acceptance was written on a side of beef? See UCC 2-206."), including the comments and examples. To test if we had done that, many of his MC questions came STRAIGHT out of the examples.

ETA: To the OP, the way I made sure to include all of the various sections that would be mentioned was to use the § symbol in my notes every time a section of the UCC or Restatement came up. When working on my outline, I would do a ctrl-f to find all appearances of the symbol and created a table of them all with a short description of what was in the section.

[pancakes3]

This is a clown question, bro.

[hiima3L]

Everything you need to know will be covered in the readings and lectures.

This is not necessarily the case. Our K prof expected (and told us he expected) us to read restatement and UCC provisions cited by the casebook (especially those in the notes like "But what if the acceptance was written on a side of beef? See UCC 2-206."), including the comments and examples. To test if we had done that, many of his MC questions came STRAIGHT out of the examples.

ETA: To the OP, the way I made sure to include all of the various sections that would be mentioned was to use the § symbol in my notes every time a section of the UCC or Restatement came up. When working on my outline, I would do a ctrl-f to find all appearances of the symbol and created a table of them all with a short description of what was in the section.

Technically, that is covered by the readings.

Also, that is a total dick move and unusual.

[BVest]

Everything you need to know will be covered in the readings and lectures.

This is not necessarily the case. Our K prof expected (and told us he expected) us to read restatement and UCC provisions cited by the casebook (especially those in the notes like "But what if the acceptance was written on a side of beef? See UCC 2-206."), including the comments and examples. To test if we had done that, many of his MC questions came STRAIGHT out of the examples.

Technically, that is covered by the readings.

Also, that is a total dick move and unusual.

Either it's covered by the readings or it's a dick move. It can't be both. Otherwise he's testing based on hypos that are not only covered by the readings but also have a very clear and specific answer.

Either way, the crux of my post is that you should probably read the UCC and restatement sections that are alluded to in class or in the readings, an impression that people may not have walked away with if they relied solely on your reply. (While you did say they didn't need to read it "in its entirety," implying that there is maybe some need to read it, stating that it was included in the readings and lectures implies no further reading beyond what the syllabus would require).

[RCinDNA]

Everything you need to know will be covered in the readings and lectures.

This is not necessarily the case. Our K prof expected (and told us he expected) us to read restatement and UCC provisions cited by the casebook (especially those in the notes like "But what if the acceptance was written on a side of beef? See UCC 2-206."), including the comments and examples. To test if we had done that, many of his MC questions came STRAIGHT out of the examples.

In my Contracts experience, my professor told us the relevant restatement and UCC provisions to worry about (even if they weren't in the reading) & what they looked for in their ideal answers. I followed the advice of the guides on here, built a flowchart of scenarios supported by case law & provisions, so my exam answers basically incorporated most of the material from our readings and lectures. I ended up being the top student in Contracts, and one of the top students in CivPro, so the guides worked for me. I did go through the exercise of reading restatement and UCC provisions that were cited in the cases, but would ask my Prof. about which ones were on point, and which weren't, so I did do some additional research which probably helped me appear more knowledgeable than other students. It also helped to note where his in-class hypos came from, and keeping track of what he wanted in his ideal answers.

OP: memorizing or reading the entirety of the UCC, FRCP, & MCP is not worth it. In fact, your Prof. probably hates/discounts certain provisions because they are jurisdictional and/or haven't been adopted by all courts, so you could end up shooting yourself in the foot focusing on things your Prof. doesn't care about. Could even lose points for delving into irrelevant provisions.

[Young Marino]

My Crim Law prof laid out exactly what we need to know from the penal code but I think if your prof tells you it'll be the focus of their teachings, you'd be best served to at least take a look. Other than that, the restatements might just be a nice reference to look at every once in a while

[Kikero]

I definitely wouldn't read any of these in their entirety. But, if you cover a concept in class, even if the readings don't specifically reference one of them, I think it's a good idea to check the MPC, Restatement, UCC, etc. to see its approach to that concept.