. Forum

[as stars burn]

Anybody have any notion what these "Simulated MBE Analysis Day 1: Real Property" etc. items are? Some kind of after-action review of the mock MBE scheduled for next week? Is it a lecture?

I was curious about them too. I switched to Flex Study tonight to see what they were about, and they appeared under "Lectures," but you can't click them yet until they are released, so with that, I think it's safe to say they are lectures. I'm thinking they might be quick reviews or something of the material on the MBE.

[kalvano]

I hate Karlan. Stop rambling. Your 30-minute videos could easily be 18 minutes if you'd just get to the goddamn point.

[Dr. Review]

1% of completion for Fourth of July: No Assignments. Pleasant surprise.

[antonious13]

It's too bad I can't do this exam at night when I'm most awake (night owl). I started the last Contracts MBE earlier this morning in interactive, missed five of the first six, and quit out of frustration. I go back at 1 am, do the last 28 questions in test mode (without having re-read any of the material), and suddenly I'm remembering things, and pull off a 71%. Dammit I wish I were a morning person.

[locusdelicti]

Plaintiff entered into a professional services contract with a lawyer to represent Plaintiff in a real estate transaction. The lawyer was negligent in his representation of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff brought a legal malpractice claim against the lawyer for failure to exercise due care in the performance of a contract. Plaintiff sought financial compensation. What is the statute of limitations for Plaintiff to bring a viable claim?

Answers

Six years from the date of contract.
Three years from the date of the lawyer's negligent conduct.
Two and a half years from the date Plaintiff terminated the professional relationship with the lawyer.
Six years from the date of the alleged wrongdoing.

Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. The choice of the applicable statute of limitations relates to the remedy sought rather than the theory of liability. In applying the statute of limitations, the "reality" or "essence" of the action should be examined, not its form. The lawyer as Defendant would argue the "essence" of the malpractice action is negligence. However, a legal malpractice claim in which the remedy sought is damages relating solely to a plaintiff's pecuniary or property loss and which arises out of the contractual relationship is a breach of contract action. Therefore, answer choice B is incorrect. Answer choice C is incorrect because the two and a half year statute of limitations for professional malpractice is limited in its application to medical malpractice claims only. Answer choice A is incorrect because the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the breach rather than the date of the contract.

Clearly Themis does not look at its questions, the Legal Malpractice claim based on contract no longer exists. Someone should let Themis know about this

Please tell me this question comes from a state specific subject. I just panicked a little.

Yes its state specific, but I realized that the decision just came down this year so it probably will not be reflected in the bar exam either. I am sorry people, the answer is correct. Did not want to scare anyone. By the way for all of you who are up to the mixed state practice questions they are not just on the MBE subjects but include family law, wills, corporations, partnerships, NY CPLR, etc.

NY has multiple choice questions for state law?

[BarbellDreams]

% check in?

I'm at 47% right now. I was aiming for about 80% total at the end of the course so I guess thats good shape. I know people that are done with all the released course stuff and are just now reviewing outlines. I am jelly.

[forza]

59% NY. And apparently that's still behind schedule by about a day.

[TheBeard]

1% of completion for Fourth of July: No Assignments. Pleasant surprise.

It's those little things in life.

[Agoraphobia]

% check in?

I'm at 47% right now. I was aiming for about 80% total at the end of the course so I guess thats good shape. I know people that are done with all the released course stuff and are just now reviewing outlines. I am jelly.

56% Illinois. Someone is done? That's crazy.

[Dr. Review]

% check in?

I'm at 47% right now. I was aiming for about 80% total at the end of the course so I guess thats good shape. I know people that are done with all the released course stuff and are just now reviewing outlines. I am jelly.

55%. Don't really have a goal, but shooting for 2% a day-ish.

[09042014]

% check in?

I'm at 47% right now. I was aiming for about 80% total at the end of the course so I guess thats good shape. I know people that are done with all the released course stuff and are just now reviewing outlines. I am jelly.

56% Illinois. Someone is done? That's crazy.

Jesus I'm at 34%. I need to get my ass in gear.

[GertrudePerkins]

1% of completion for Fourth of July: No Assignments. Pleasant surprise.

I got 2% for it! Now if only it could be Fourth of July like 10 more times before the end of the month....

[09042014]

1% of completion for Fourth of July: No Assignments. Pleasant surprise.

I got 2% for it! Now if only it could be Fourth of July like 10 more times before the end of the month....

I got 1% for doing all of contracts. DAMN YOU THEMIS

[TheBeard]

I'm at 56%. My goal is 1% every day for the rest of the month so I can focus the vast majority of the day on memorization.

[kalvano]

% check in?

I'm at 47% right now. I was aiming for about 80% total at the end of the course so I guess thats good shape. I know people that are done with all the released course stuff and are just now reviewing outlines. I am jelly.

44% here. I got a few days behind, so I abandoned doing practice questions and that sort of thing. Just powering through all the material, then I'll turn to practicing it.

[dsclaw]

Spoiler Question: TORTS
Question
The plaintiff and the defendant were passengers sitting in adjoining seats on a flight on an airline. There were many empty seats on the aircraft. During the flight, a flight attendant served the defendant nine drinks. As the defendant became more and more obviously intoxicated and attempted to engage the plaintiff in a conversation, the plaintiff chose to ignore the defendant. This angered the defendant, who suddenly struck the plaintiff in the face, giving her a black eye. If the plaintiff asserts a claim for damages against the airline based on battery, she will

Answers
Prevail, because she suffered an intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact.
Prevail, if the flight attendant acted recklessly in continuing to serve liquor to the defendant.
Not prevail, because the defendant was not acting as an agent or employee of the airline.
Not prevail, unless she can establish some permanent injury from the contact.

Rationale:
Answer choice C is correct. Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability in which one person is liable for the tortious actions of another. It arises when one person has the right, ability, or duty to control the activities of another, even though the first person was not directly responsible for the injury. As the defendant here was not within the control of the airline, either as employee or agent, the airline cannot be liable for his conduct. Answer choice A is incorrect because, absent a relationship giving rise to vicarious liability, the airline would not be liable for the actions of the defendant. Answer choice B is incorrect. Even if the flight attendant acted recklessly, the airline would not be responsible for the defendant's actions absent a relationship giving rise to vicarious liability. The airline may be responsible for the actions of its own employees, but the flight attendant did not engage in a battery. Answer choice D is incorrect because there is no requirement that the plaintiff sustain an injury in a battery action, much less a permanent one. Nominal damages are available even if no physical injury occurred.

Can someone explain to me why the airline is not liable. Even after re-reading the torts outline it still seems to me that they should be liable under the DRAM shop statutes, which state if a person is visibly intoxicated and you continue to serve them liquor, you can be vicariously liable for their intoxicated actions.??

[forza]

Huh. All this time I thought you endorsed checks. Turns out you indorse them.

[kalvano]

I believe dram shop statutes are state-specific and not common-law.

[dsclaw]

I believe dram shop statutes are state-specific and not common-law.

So are we supposed to ignore all statute related law in which a majority of the jurisdictions have adopted. If that is the answer that is simple

[kalvano]

I believe dram shop statutes are state-specific and not common-law.

So are we supposed to ignore all statute related law in which a majority of the jurisdictions have adopted. If that is the answer that is simple

I think so. I could be wrong, but I don't think dram shop statutes apply unless the question says they do.

[missinglink]

Got 2% for completing the 4th of July task.

At 61% for CA. I know today's a day off, but I'll probably do some memorization and then chill in the afternoon. My advisor sort of told us to work anyway.

[09042014]

Normally I'm against bragging about gunning, but you bros who are awesome at this stuff need to put the fear of god into us slackers.Continue

[Agoraphobia]

That MPT was exhausting. I feel like that should be my whole day right there. Instead I've got 5 more things on my list. Thanks, Themis.

[Kretzy]

Spoiler Question: TORTS
Question
The plaintiff and the defendant were passengers sitting in adjoining seats on a flight on an airline. There were many empty seats on the aircraft. During the flight, a flight attendant served the defendant nine drinks. As the defendant became more and more obviously intoxicated and attempted to engage the plaintiff in a conversation, the plaintiff chose to ignore the defendant. This angered the defendant, who suddenly struck the plaintiff in the face, giving her a black eye. If the plaintiff asserts a claim for damages against the airline based on battery, she will

Answers
Prevail, because she suffered an intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact.
Prevail, if the flight attendant acted recklessly in continuing to serve liquor to the defendant.
Not prevail, because the defendant was not acting as an agent or employee of the airline.
Not prevail, unless she can establish some permanent injury from the contact.

Rationale:
Answer choice C is correct. Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability in which one person is liable for the tortious actions of another. It arises when one person has the right, ability, or duty to control the activities of another, even though the first person was not directly responsible for the injury. As the defendant here was not within the control of the airline, either as employee or agent, the airline cannot be liable for his conduct. Answer choice A is incorrect because, absent a relationship giving rise to vicarious liability, the airline would not be liable for the actions of the defendant. Answer choice B is incorrect. Even if the flight attendant acted recklessly, the airline would not be responsible for the defendant's actions absent a relationship giving rise to vicarious liability. The airline may be responsible for the actions of its own employees, but the flight attendant did not engage in a battery. Answer choice D is incorrect because there is no requirement that the plaintiff sustain an injury in a battery action, much less a permanent one. Nominal damages are available even if no physical injury occurred.

Can someone explain to me why the airline is not liable. Even after re-reading the torts outline it still seems to me that they should be liable under the DRAM shop statutes, which state if a person is visibly intoxicated and you continue to serve them liquor, you can be vicariously liable for their intoxicated actions.??

So, I think it's because the question asks whether or not she can sue under battery, rather than under another cause of action, like negligence. I thought that Dram Shop statutes were under just a part of negligence/strict liability, not battery.

[Kretzy]

I hit 40% for CA today. I was at either 3 or 4% on June 18, so I've been trying desperately to catch up. Hoping to hit 80% by game day, which would be working at about the rate I've been going so far, 5% every 3 days.

That 1% for "Happy 4th" was clutch today. Called for a glass of wine as celebration. So, as any good bar studier, I had a bottle.