1L Exam Q&A Forum

[thesealocust]

[First, your hypo really is too simple. Without either a higher volume of simple simple facts (true racehorse with a zillion parties and claims) or more complex/ambiguous facts (which can still be a racehorse, but will require deeper analysis of fewer issues), there's just not a lot to do with the fact pattern. Writing law school fact patterns is hard - there has to be enough worth writing about that smart, well prepared students will struggle and have varied performance.]

The first issue at hand is when an employee breaches an employment contract after only partial performance, what remedy, if any, is he entitled to?

(This isn't a rule specifically discussed in class, but do I get points for saying that a breaching party has no claim in contracts for damages?) [Assume you never get points unless you're applying to fact.]

A plaintiff may forego a claim in contracts for a claim in restitution. Restitution involves the interest of a party in the value of the work conferred on the other party through performance of a contract. The formula for calculating restitution is the value of the benefit conferred less the injury to the non-breaching party. In an employment contract, the remedy is calculated as the pro rata portion of the contract price minus any additional expenses incurred by the employer through replacement.

In the case where the plaintiff cut short his work on a farm and sued for his salary, the court held that the recovery was the contract price minus the cost of completion. This formula was incorrect because it may result in overcompensation of the employee if the cost of completion is very low.

The doctrine of avoidable consequences places the responsibility of minimizing damages on the non-breaching party, and that the non-breaching party may not recover for damages that need not have been incurred.

[192 words, 0 points. Sad trombone. You're not in LRW - crap like this is a classic example of "outline dumping" that professors hate, students do all the time, wastes space, and earns no points.]

Bob was the breaching party, and therefore has no claim in contracts. If he wishes to recover, he must bring suit in restitution. The measure of recovery in Bob's case is his pro rata contract price, which is (10 x $1,000 = $10,000), less the excess expenditure to the employer for replacement. The employer had to pay an extra $1,000 for the remaining 40 scenes, meaning the excess expenditure to the employer was (40 x $1,000 = $40,000). Bob's recovery cannot be negative, so even under restitution, he recovers nothing. [checkmark - ok, here we go, now there's some analysis. Remember: you only get points for applying law to fact.]

While the non-breaching party is not bringing suit and not seeking remedy, the doctrine of avoidable consequences may still be argued by Bob (unless I'm 100% wrong here). Bob may argue that Steve could have simply hired PeanutsNJam, in which case Steve's injury would be merely (40 x $100 = $4,000), and Bob would recover $10,000 - $4,000 = $6,000. [checkmark]While Steve does not have a duty to mitigate (my prof REALLY emphasized that parties DO NOT have duty to mitigate), the additional expenses by Steve need not have been incurred. (This counter-point feels like shit, would I get any pts for it?) [no, because it's conclusory.]

The second issue at hand is whether Steve's gratuitous promise to Bob is enforceable.

(Do I get points for talking about consideration even though it's clearly not present? My prof clearly states never to use any adjective for consideration, so "sufficient consideration" or "valid consideration" are all no-nos.)

Consideration requires mutual reciprocal inducement. In order for a promise to be consideration, it must induce the other party's promise. [Stop outline dumping.]

Restatement Section 90: When there is no consideration, a promise may be enforceable if the promisor reasonably expects the promise to induce action or forbearance from the promisee, and the promisee does so to his detriment, and injustice may only be avoided by enforcement of the promise. (For whatever reason, my professor really wants us to separate Restatement 90 from promissory estoppel so idk man I just don't fucking know). Promissory estoppel may be used if the defendant claims that no contract was formed, as he is estopped to claim no contract by his promise if it reasonably induces action or forbearance from the promisee. [...seriously stop it why are you doing this go back and read the eleventy billion guides to law school exams on TLS]

(I don't remember the details about the cases so I guess I'm fucked.)

Steve's promise to bob was gratuitous and without consideration; it was not induced by anything Bob promised. Therefore, in order for Bob to enforce the contract, he must demonstrate that Steve would reasonably expect Bob to rely on the promise, and that Bob did indeed rely on the promise, and that injustice may only be avoided by enforcement of the promise. [checkmark - now you're analyzing. Note that most of this analysis is wholy separate from your outlining dumping above - it stands just fine on its own, or else could with minimal inclusion of law/rules as you analyze.] In the present facts, it would be tenuous to claim that Steve intended for Bob to rely on his promise to his detriment. One cannot conclusively state that Steve expected Bob to forego any future employment opportunities in order to partake in Backdoor Sluts 10. Bob did not even necessarily rely on the promise. He merely failed his exam and had no other options; he did not forego any other opportunities in order to appear in Backdoor Sluts 10. [checkmark - this is analysis. This is good.] If Bob did not rely on the promise to his detriment, nor did Steve intend for Bob to relinquish future prospects as a result of his promise, then no injustice may be done. Steve's gratuitous promise is therefore unenforceable.

Bob is also unable to claim promissory estoppel because he did not rely, to his detriment, on Steve's promise. [conclusory. If Bob hired you as a lawyer, are you sure you couldn't make an argument here? How about "Bob could argue that he put less effort into his lawschool course work, or else less effort in seeking alternative employment, because of Steve's promise to give him a role in a future film." Obviously that's not a strong argument, but you can then describe how Steve would argue against that, evaluate the strength of the argument, and earn points along the way!] Steve is therefore not estopped to claim no contract was formed.

(I can't think of a counterargument. Maybe my hypo is just too shitty.)

[Make policy arguments. Make arguments by analogy to cases. Make more counter arguments. Use headings and subheadings. Think about the elements and subelements of each rule that can be used, and step through arguments element-by-element and sub-element by sub-element. Significantly reduce your outline dumping - the points are in the analysis, time spent writing about issues and rules is a waste beyond what is absolutely mandatory to string your arguments together.]

TL;DR Bob is shit out of luck, and should have studied harder. I may be joining Bob in the Vale.

[PeanutsNJam]

Thanks so much for that it really helps to put things into perspective. I owe you like 10 beers. Those fancy hipster types.

[thesealocust]

I live to serve! Definitely a good exercise - I tried to be snarky to drive the point home, but practicing and thinking about this is going to serve you extremely well. I attribute a lot of my and my study group's success 1L year to sitting down and grading the shit out of exams. You need to get down to brass tacks and awarding points, because everything looks a little bit fuzzy when you read the answers and most people will kinda spot the same issues and kinda not fuck up the law. But your grade is more or less nothing but the total number of decent arguments you made. I gave myself the same number of points on my contracts midterm that my professor did, and that was my big Eureka moment. Even if the professor has a grading ruberic instead of doing pure checkmarks, it's usually going to produce very similar results because the more arguments you make per issue, the more points you'll get on a more formal ruberic.

Take a look at the quoted material here for more on exam grading: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=120673

Incidentally, this is exactly why I run my strategy course, and why I think it can really help. After hammering people with guides/strategies/tips, giving detailed feedback on practice questions that I've written + ones that they've taken from their professors is, IMO, exactly what that doctor ordered. Most people aren't born good at this but can improve with deliberate practice and feedback, and 1L year is pretty much designed to - what's that joke about mushrooms? - keep you in the dark and feed you shit.

[PeanutsNJam]

Got into a fight with a dude, I told him stuff ITT and he didn't believe me. He said pple are lying to try and get you to fail 1L. Not sharing info with anybody ever again.

[Lawdork]

My contracts professor specifically said you get 1 point for stating the issue and 1 point for stating the black letter law right after it. So don't take sealocust's advice too literally or you would lose out on an easy 2 points. Of course most of the points come from the analysis but different profs have different idiosyncrasies. When in doubt, state the issue and the law (or just ask your professor specifically what he wants). After all it's a grade up, not a grade down system.

[thesealocust]

My contracts professor specifically said you get 1 point for stating the issue and 1 point for stating the black letter law right after it. So don't take sealocust's advice too literally or you would lose out on an easy 2 points. Of course most of the points come from the analysis but different profs have different idiosyncrasies. When in doubt, state the issue and the law (or just ask your professor specifically what he wants). After all it's a grade up, not a grade down system.

It's always good to make your response match what your professor says they're looking for - but it's almost impossible to do analysis without grabbing points for flagging the issue and stating the rule. The problem is lengthy statements of background law. It's fine, or necessary, to quickly state the law and flag issues as you write - as a mater of composition if nothing else. When people say "you don't need to use IRAC" they aren't suggesting taking I, R, and C outback to be shot. You do need that kind of thing to frame your answer, but it's a common problem to do it overly extensively.

Anyway, I've always thought this summed up extremely well:

Here’s my boiled-down counsel to law-exam newbies:

Unsurprisingly, it’s mostly variations on a familiar theme: apply the law to the facts.

In fact, to save everyone time and annoyance, I will omit repeating myself by adopting this convention: Everywhere you see " * ", insert this phrase: "You’ve got to apply the law to the facts."

(1) Do not make moral arguments. Don’t argue what’s fair. *

(2) Do not write at length about the law without referencing the facts. * Merely regurgitating the law does not show your mastery of the subject or demonstrate your analytical abilities; it therefore earns you no points.

(3) The reciprocal is just as important: Do not write at length about the facts without referencing the law. * Merely rehashing the facts does not show your mastery of the subject or demonstrate your analytical abilities; it therefore earns you no points.

(4) No matter how nervous, anxious, or pressured you feel during the exam, do not rely on a crutch to keep writing to the exclusion of doing the hard work of legal analysis. Making moral arguments, regurgitating law, and rehashing facts (see 1, 2, and 3, above) are all dangerous temptations – they offer a way to keep writing, and thus provide the illusion that you are making progress. They are a Sirens' song. Resist.

(5) IRAC is not the Holy Grail. If you can write a good exam without IRAC, then you should absolutely forget about it. On the other hand, if some kind of structural aid is essential to get you to perform legal analysis in writing, then IRAC might help you.

[Lawdork]

Also, my contracts professor made a point that we should not raise obvious points like if it's a reliance issue, don't even mention consideration. But he did say he wouldn't count it against you, he just said it would waste time. Whereas my crim teacher seems to want us to throw the kitchen sink. For instance, she would want to know why a particular false pretense hypo IS NOT larceny, larceny by trick, and embezzlement and gives points for stating obvious shit in detail. I take it I should ask my civpro and torts teachers if they want the kitchen sink or not?

[thesealocust]

There's a pretty universal answer - exams are always either time limited or have a strict word limit, so you've got to triage based on what's analytically interesting. It's quite rare, if not completely unheard of, for professors to deduct points for incorrect or superfluous analysis. So you should filter your arguments to make sure you're spending time and/or space on what's interesting and thus more likely to get you points.

Without the context of the exam question, it's really hard to compare your professors' statements. I strongly suspect they're both getting at the same thing though - encouraging you to be analytically thorough while also proving that you have good judgement when choosing how to spend time and/or space on the exam.

[totesTheGoat]

It's always good to make your response match what your professor says they're looking for - but it's almost impossible to do analysis without grabbing points for flagging the issue and stating the rule. The problem is lengthy statements of background law. It's fine, or necessary, to quickly state the law and flag issues as you write - as a mater of composition if nothing else.

In support of this, remember what your prof is going to see. Every single person in the room has access to the rule. Every single person in the room is smart enough to spot the basic issues. Therefore, you need to show just enough of "This is the rule, and this is the issue that the rule addresses" to avoid the prof thinking you missed the boat. All of your points are going to be made on applying the law to the facts and doing analysis of how a court would come down based on the rule applied to the facts. Maybe one paragraph of identifying the issue and the rule. The next 2 pages are your analysis and application.

[MurdockLLP]

Where's the best place to get hypos to practice off of? I have some past exams, but I'd rather save those for real test prep. Instead, I want to spend my time now applying what i've learned so far to hypos catered to these past 6 weeks. For instance, in Crim we've spent the past 6 weeks talking about mental state, commission, failure to act, etc. so i want to work on hypos with those topics (although I'm sure these are rare). Any ideas?

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

did you guys walk out of your exams knowing you crushed it

[A. Nony Mouse]

I did best on the exams I had no idea what the prof wanted and walked out saying WTF.

[PeanutsNJam]

I did best on the exams I had no idea what the prof wanted and walked out saying WTF.

Maybe cause you had a ton of arguments from every angle and were therefore unable to come to a conclusion of any kind? I generally get the WTF feeling when I feel like there's no definite answer. Did you go over your exams afterwards? Was there any rhyme or reason to why you did well on the ones you did well on?

[A. Nony Mouse]

It was usually more that you couldn't tell what issues the prof was getting at. Usually you can predict a good chunk of the issues that are going to be on an exam somewhere (major example: an Admin exam is going to have something that brings up Chevron). Some exams, you can't tell what the prof was getting at. (My admin exam didn't actually ask anything that got at Chevron.)

This may sound weird, but I always did better on tougher exams than on easier ones. That's not meant to puff myself up as smart or anything. I feel like I sort of always hit the same amount of material whether the exam was hard or easy. If the exam was hard, this was great because plenty of other people faltered and didn't get the points I did. If the exam was easy, though, there were always people who'd studied harder/longer/better who managed to hit the little things I'd miss (because I'm lazy. Also, easy exams are actually hard to get a good grade on, because the curve is super tight and little things make a huge difference.)

[thesealocust]

did you guys walk out of your exams knowing you crushed it

No way. Had nightmares over winter break about exams, would wake up thinking about issues I'd missed or written about but screwed up, etc.

Especially given the curve, it's rare to feel good about how you did.

[PeanutsNJam]

I think the importance of professor preference might be slightly underplayed ITT, except for Twenty's post. I'm about to walk into a midterm, and my professor is very particular about the issue statement in class. A 2L told me that he gives up to 15 points for the issue statement, and 1 point for everything else. I got a written assignment back from another professor who doesn't give points for the issue statement, but does give points for restating the rule before application (outline dumping).

[thesealocust]

I think the importance of professor preference might be slightly underplayed ITT, except for Twenty's post. I'm about to walk into a midterm, and my professor is very particular about the issue statement in class. A 2L told me that he gives up to 15 points for the issue statement, and 1 point for everything else. I got a written assignment back from another professor who doesn't give points for the issue statement, but does give points for restating the rule before application (outline dumping).

Law school exams test your ability to produce lots of good analysis. That is always true. It's even true for multiple choice exams and policy exams.

Some professors will award points for the nuts and bolts of issue statements or rule statements and others won't, but it's actually irrelevant because you can't do analysis without flagging the issue and an applicable rule. So the differentiating factor on grades will always be depth and volume of analysis, and that's a feature not a bug.

Imagine that John does a threadbare IRAC for an issue and Bob does deep analysis with arguments, counter arguments, and policy arguments. A professor who only grades based on argument/analysis would give John 1 point and Bob 3 points. A professor who gives points for issue statements and rules would give John 3 points and Bob 5 points.

In both cases, Bob is 2 points ahead - and that's why people (including posters in this thread and professors who have written extensively on the dark art of exam grading) caution against lengthy factual restatements, lengthy rule statements ("outlining dumping"), and rigid IRAC format. Law school exams are shockingly consistent: professors hail from a narrow and insular orthodoxy of exam writing and grading about which some things just cut across the entire spectrum of schools, courses, and professors. Analysis always carries the day, and students regularly under-perform by neglecting it in favor of issue statements, outline dumping, and factual restatement.

[totesTheGoat]

did you guys walk out of your exams knowing you crushed it

Never. I haven't been able to get a good feel for a law school exam ever. I've had As feel awful and Bs feel great. The worst post-exam feeling I ever had got me a B+. The best post-exam feeling got me an A-

[totesTheGoat]

This may sound weird, but I always did better on tougher exams than on easier ones. That's not meant to puff myself up as smart or anything. I feel like I sort of always hit the same amount of material whether the exam was hard or easy. If the exam was hard, this was great because plenty of other people faltered and didn't get the points I did. If the exam was easy, though, there were always people who'd studied harder/longer/better who managed to hit the little things I'd miss (because I'm lazy. Also, easy exams are actually hard to get a good grade on, because the curve is super tight and little things make a huge difference.)

I've noticed this as well with myself. I've always attributed it to the fact that I can absorb material well, but am probably below average at writing. "Easy" exams are hard because I have to distinguish myself on my writing. "Hard" exams are easier because I can lean on my ability to absorb and retain material more than my writing.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Total opposite for me, mostly because most profs didn't care about how well written an exam was (unless it was just impossible to understand, I guess).

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

do you guys think profs ever violate anonymous grading

[PeanutsNJam]

K well I just walked out of a 90 min exam, and all I did was literally

Issue statement

Analysis paragraph

No outline dump, just briefly talk about a rule and then start talking about facts. I just bounced back and forth, so my exam looked like:

Exam Q: a and b did and said things

Issue

Generally, rule. B would argue X cause he did this and said that and this happened. However, this also happened. A would argue that he's right instead cause blah blah blah. Also, this other rule, supporting Bs argument that this was the thing.

Issue

Courts have held in CASE that this is what happens when this happens. But there's a difference in facts cause B did this, not that. A will still argue that there was a lack of things required for that thing.

Etc.

Around 9000 chars. Fingers crossed.

Q: if a rule is discussed, and its application discussed, but it applies to more than one issue, do I get pts for basically saying the same thing in a different issue analysis? I might have foolishly omitted some stuff.

[star fox]

Nothing you can do now and remember not to overreact too much either way when you get it back. Focus on improving and be prepared to ramp it up when November hits and you'll do well my man.

[star fox]

Q: if a rule is discussed, and its application discussed, but it applies to more than one issue, do I get pts for basically saying the same thing in a different issue analysis? I might have foolishly omitted some stuff.

If you need to repeat a rule you can just say "see above"

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

wtf? is this a midterm? how much is it worth?