. Forum

[Reinhardt]

Why doesn't Themis give each MBE section a proper 1/6 of any mixed review?
9 Torts and 8 property out of 34?

Also Torts question:

Kid (age 4) is injured b/c "bully (age 4)" pushed kids into a street, and kid was hit by driver. Damages $100. Liability: Driver 50% "Bully's" parents 20%. Kid's parents 30% Pure comparative negligence and J/S liability. How much must driver pay? I thought $70, but that wasn't an option. Themis says driver is liable for 100, and pure comp negligence irrelevant

Was that the wording of the question? Driver might have to pay up to 100 because of J&S liability, but can then seek contribution from the his codefendants.

[releasethehounds]

....This 2x thing is genius. How did I not know about this until after I'd finished every lecture?

**spoiler if you haven't taken the simulated MBE**

Also having heard the review from Pushaw, having read it the explanation, and now having heard Elkin deconstruct it, I still don't understand how a guy who has practice throwing knives for years and can confidently hit a spot no larger than a dime is acting with depraved heart. I've just accepted that I don't get it and to move on and if I see something similar on the bar I'll know how to answer but I don't know. Just don't get it.

[antonious13]

....This 2x thing is genius. How did I not know about this until after I'd finished every lecture?

**spoiler if you haven't taken the simulated MBE**

Also having heard the review from Pushaw, having read it the explanation, and now having heard Elkin deconstruct it, I still don't understand how a guy who has practice throwing knives for years and can confidently hit a spot no larger than a dime is acting with depraved heart. I've just accepted that I don't get it and to move on and if I see something similar on the bar I'll know how to answer but I don't know. Just don't get it.

Yeah, that one was complete bullshit. I think it's because throwing knives is just plain dangerous, and he's kinda being callous towards the consequences of possibly injuring people. Just my opinion, of course. But, I do agree with you.

[forza]

Holy shit.

[kalvano]

I quit for the next two nights. My brain is fried and I can't retain shit. I'm OK with the MBE, I think, so I have two weeks to learn enough to pass essays.


That's realistic, right?

[Agoraphobia]

....This 2x thing is genius. How did I not know about this until after I'd finished every lecture?

**spoiler if you haven't taken the simulated MBE**

Also having heard the review from Pushaw, having read it the explanation, and now having heard Elkin deconstruct it, I still don't understand how a guy who has practice throwing knives for years and can confidently hit a spot no larger than a dime is acting with depraved heart. I've just accepted that I don't get it and to move on and if I see something similar on the bar I'll know how to answer but I don't know. Just don't get it.

Yeah, that one was complete bullshit. I think it's because throwing knives is just plain dangerous, and he's kinda being callous towards the consequences of possibly injuring people. Just my opinion, of course. But, I do agree with you.

Maybe if you can throw with the precision of being able to hit something within a dime radius, you still might hit someone because if you aimed right at the side of their head, but that was on say the right hand side of the dime, but your knife hit the left hand side of the dime instead, you could still hurt the person.

[Agoraphobia]

I watch 10 hours of MBE review and I don't even get a single % for that?

[Bikeflip]

Why doesn't Themis give each MBE section a proper 1/6 of any mixed review?
9 Torts and 8 property out of 34?

Also Torts question:

Kid (age 4) is injured b/c "bully (age 4)" pushed kids into a street, and kid was hit by driver. Damages $100. Liability: Driver 50% "Bully's" parents 20%. Kid's parents 30% Pure comparative negligence and J/S liability. How much must driver pay? I thought $70, but that wasn't an option. Themis says driver is liable for 100, and pure comp negligence irrelevant

Was that the wording of the question? Driver might have to pay up to 100 because of J&S liability, but can then seek contribution from the his codefendants.

I've lost the question, and I cannot find it. From memory it was asking what was the max driver could be liable for. I understand under J&S driver could be liable for all $100 and seek contribution. What I don't understand was why the amt of damages wasn't reduced to $70, factoring in pure comp negligence.

[forza]

I always fucking miss intended vs. incidental beneficiary questions. Take this one, for example (*spoiler*):

14. (Question ID#778)

In exchange for valid and sufficient consideration, a father orally promised his son, who had no car and wanted a minivan, "to pay to anyone from whom you buy a minivan within the next six months the full purchase-price thereof." Two months later, the son bought a used minivan on credit from a minivan retailer for $8,000. At the time, the minivan retailer was unaware of the father's earlier promise to his son but learned of it shortly after the sale.

Can the minivan retailer enforce the father's promise to the son?
A. Yes, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
B. Yes, because the minivan retailer is an intended beneficiary of the father-son contract.
C. No, because the father's promise to the son is unenforceable under the suretyship clause of the statute of frauds.
D. No, because the minivan retailer was neither identified when the father's promise was made nor aware of it when the minivan sale was made.

Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. The minivan retailer is an intended beneficiary of the father-son contract because the father intended to pay a third party for a minivan on son's behalf. The third party does not need to be specifically identified to be considered intended, and the third party need not be aware of the contract until that party seeks to recover on it. Answer choice A is incorrect because promissory estoppel would only apply if the minivan retailer knew of and relied upon a promise that the father made to the minivan retailer. Here, the father's promise was to the son, not the minivan retailer, and the minivan retailer was unable to rely on a promise about which it was unaware. Answer choice C is incorrect because a suretyship is a promise by one party to a second party to answer for the debt of yet a third party, thereby inducing the second party to extend credit to the third party. Here, the father made no promise that would induce the minivan retailer to give the son a loan, and answer choice C is thus incorrect. Answer choice D is incorrect, despite correctly stating facts which are not relevant to the issue of whether the minivan retailer is an intended beneficiary of the father-son contract. The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.

Ugh. So an intended beneficiary doesn't have to be named in the K? The party to the K just has to intend to pay a third party?

[calibred]

Bikeflip -- I thought that one was bizarre too, but there's a weird distinction. Kid's parents are also liable under J&S liability here because the plaintiff is the representative of the kid's estate (apparently not the parents). I doubt that was an actual MBE question but if it was F that noise.

[Bikeflip]

Bikeflip -- I thought that one was bizarre too, but there's a weird distinction. Kid's parents are also liable under J&S liability here because the plaintiff is the representative of the kid's estate (apparently not the parents). I doubt that was an actual MBE question but if it was F that noise.

Ohhhhhhhhhh. That's fucking stupid, but it makes sense.

[Reinhardt]

Basically the kid is 4 years old so not actually liable. That means only defendants are liable, including his own parents. So the driver's liability is 50 (50% at fault), but plaintiff can seek up to 100 from him.

[Bikeflip]

Bikeflip -- I thought that one was bizarre too, but there's a weird distinction. Kid's parents are also liable under J&S liability here because the plaintiff is the representative of the kid's estate (apparently not the parents). I doubt that was an actual MBE question but if it was F that noise.

Ohhhhhhhhhh. That's fucking stupid, but it makes sense.

Actually, it doesn't make sense. In a similar question, Themis held that the plaintiff w/ 20% liability would have his damages reduced by 20% in a pure comp negligence state w/ J/S liability.

I think the question just sucked.

[Reinhardt]

Pretty sure it's because the plaintiff is the kid. The parents are defendants. The question might as well read:

"Child, legally incapable of negligence, was injured by the negligence of A, B, and C. A - 50%, B - 30%, and C - 20%. How much may child seek from A if the jurisdiction follows J&S?"

[Bikeflip]

You're right, and I need to shut it down for the night. I can't keep it strait in my head.

[dsclaw]

Why doesn't Themis give each MBE section a proper 1/6 of any mixed review?
9 Torts and 8 property out of 34?

Also Torts question:

Kid (age 4) is injured b/c "bully (age 4)" pushed kids into a street, and kid was hit by driver. Damages $100. Liability: Driver 50% "Bully's" parents 20%. Kid's parents 30% Pure comparative negligence and J/S liability. How much must driver pay? I thought $70, but that wasn't an option. Themis says driver is liable for 100, and pure comp negligence irrelevant

Was that the wording of the question? Driver might have to pay up to 100 because of J&S liability, but can then seek contribution from the his codefendants.

I've lost the question, and I cannot find it. From memory it was asking what was the max driver could be liable for. I understand under J&S driver could be liable for all $100 and seek contribution. What I don't understand was why the amt of damages wasn't reduced to $70, factoring in pure comp negligence.

The $100 dollars is correct because the plaintiff is not liable at all in this situation, the Parents are liable, driver is liable, and bully's parents are liable. You can not reduce the amount if it doesnt explicitly state that the plaintiff was found liable.

Note: Parents are not parents when they bring a suit for a child they are just a legal representative (imagine a guardian if it helps you). This question has nothing to do with a child being too young to commit a tort.

[locusdelicti]

Need the help of my Themis bros to understand recording statutes:

Grantor sells land which it does not own to A. A doesn't know of any problem, and records. Then Grantor actually acquires the land in fee simple and sells it to B. B has no notice of the previous conveyance because the jurisdiction does not require him to search the time before Grantor owned the property. The recording statute is "notice." As between A and B, who wins?

Themis says B wins. In a notice jurisdiction, a later innocent purchaser wins over an earlier innocent purchaser?

In a notice jurisdiction, recording first doesn't matter. A subsequent purchaser for value with no notice of a prior conveyance wins. This one is tricky because B would generally have constructive notice, as A recorded. However, this particular jurisdiction doesn't require him to check. No requirement to search title = no constructive notice.

Race-- whoever records first wins.
Notice-- last purchaser wins as long as he has no notice
Race notice-- whoever records first and didn't have notice of a prior conveyance wins.

I feel like it's extra tricky because it also ignores the after-acquired title doctrine.

[as stars burn]

Doing the practice MBEs frustrates me to no end. I've grown to accept that I suck at Evidence. I really need to make flash cards for that whole subject.

[JD_done]

....This 2x thing is genius. How did I not know about this until after I'd finished every lecture?

**spoiler if you haven't taken the simulated MBE**

Also having heard the review from Pushaw, having read it the explanation, and now having heard Elkin deconstruct it, I still don't understand how a guy who has practice throwing knives for years and can confidently hit a spot no larger than a dime is acting with depraved heart. I've just accepted that I don't get it and to move on and if I see something similar on the bar I'll know how to answer but I don't know. Just don't get it.

Yeah, that one was complete bullshit. I think it's because throwing knives is just plain dangerous, and he's kinda being callous towards the consequences of possibly injuring people. Just my opinion, of course. But, I do agree with you.

Maybe if you can throw with the precision of being able to hit something within a dime radius, you still might hit someone because if you aimed right at the side of their head, but that was on say the right hand side of the dime, but your knife hit the left hand side of the dime instead, you could still hurt the person.

This made ZERO sense. I'm glad I am not the only one.

[Charles Barkley]

I need to find motivation to study today.

[BarbellDreams]

I need to find motivation to study today.

I'm taking the day off.

[HETPE3B]

NY takers: how much federal civil procedure do we need to know? I have yet to see ANYTHING on federal civ pro in ANY Themis practice questions.

[Man vs Bar]

NY takers: how much federal civil procedure do we need to know? I have yet to see ANYTHING on federal civ pro in ANY Themis practice questions.

Aside from personal jurisdiction & subject matter jurisdiction, I think we should be fine as long as we know the CPLR. I found a content outline a while back: http://www.nybarexam.org /Docs/CONTENT%20OUTLINE%20(revised%20May%202010).pdf

It might help you get a better sense for what to look for.

[Catleesi]

I feel like it's extra tricky because it also ignores the after-acquired title doctrine.

Except the answer wouldn't change. If B didn't exist A would have perfect title. But B is a subsequent purchaser for value with no notice of the previous conveyance.

Yay, property.

Is anybody else finding that the rest of their life is trying to fight them? This morning I got to make an appointment with the local dealership to work on my transmission. My *transmission,* in a car with less than 18k miles on it.

*head/desk*

[locusdelicti]

I feel like it's extra tricky because it also ignores the after-acquired title doctrine.

Except the answer wouldn't change. If B didn't exist A would have perfect title. But B is a subsequent purchaser for value with no notice of the previous conveyance.

Yay, property.

Is anybody else finding that the rest of their life is trying to fight them? This morning I got to make an appointment with the local dealership to work on my transmission. My *transmission,* in a car with less than 18k miles on it.

*head/desk*

What I don't understand is why B had no notice if A's deed was recorded. What jurisdiction doesn't allow constructive or inquiry notice?

Yes, my day gets interrupted regularly, and then I can't get back into concentrating. AND my windshield got hit by a pebble 3 months ago and the crack is now the length of a cat's tail, and the entire windshield needs to be replaced. FUCK OFF, CAR