California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[jarofsoup]

Someone give me some insight on the first essay..remedies. Was his rate $100 x 100 hours for the entire project or did he estimate 100 hours a month?

100 hours per month for 3 months

Don't think the money calculation matters.

[Byejulyhifeb]

Someone give me some insight on the first essay..remedies. Was his rate $100 x 100 hours for the entire project or did he estimate 100 hours a month?

100 hours per month for 3 months

Don't think the money calculation matters.

It does if you thought it was 100 hours total and completely wiffed any quasi-k argument

[FutureInLaw]

Someone give me some insight on the first essay..remedies. Was his rate $100 x 100 hours for the entire project or did he estimate 100 hours a month?

100 hours per month for 3 months

Ugh, no idea if I did that right as Remedies is my weakest. I did compensatory based on his discounted value, then I did restitutionary damages based on his typical hourly rate, and said he should take the restitutionary damages. Plus a SP analysis. Along with some other ramblings.

[jarofsoup]

Someone give me some insight on the first essay..remedies. Was his rate $100 x 100 hours for the entire project or did he estimate 100 hours a month?

100 hours per month for 3 months

Ugh, no idea if I did that right as Remedies is my weakest. I did compensatory based on his discounted value, then I did restitutionary damages based on his typical hourly rate, and said he should take the restitutionary damages. Plus a SP analysis. Along with some other ramblings.

I thought it was

Applicable Law-common Law
Material breach
SP-denied
Compensatory damages + mitigation
Incidental damages because why not
Unrecoverable Consequential damages for profits that may/may not have came from the magazine and the contract with the third party that never ended up happening
Restitution for work put in
Detrimental reliance

[BeAboutIt]

I'm not gonna lie, you are all probably failing this exam. Good luck practicing Civil Procedure MBEs and taking it again in February, fuckers! Hahahahahaaha.

Up to this point, I was really impressed that the California bar exam forum was really helpful, informative, encouraging, and civil, without any of the typical annoying TLS BS. But this statement just proved that it was too good to be true.

Hey, all--sorry about my admittedly rude response to this comment, but it's just really frustrating for me to see this kind of behavior on blogs and forums that are meant to be helpful and supportive. I don't get it. Who has that kind of time???!

[CalBar2014]

Is there any possibility of there being an error/major type on your bar exam? There was such a typo on the fifth essay question on my exam.

I had the exact same thought about the trusts question. When the facts presented said that Wynn purchased the stock I have to assume that they meant to say that Sis purchased the stock (then sold it, bought the house, etc.).

If Wynn was actually correct then the call of the second part of the question essentially becomes what COA does a co-trustee have against the other co-trustee for allowing the settlor to purchase stock using trust principal (which technically can't even happen because a settlor can't actually touch trust res after it has been put in an irrevocable trust even if they wanted to)? Henry would also be asserting a COA against himself (since he would share some of Sis' violations). This can't be what the bar examiners meant. If Sis purchased the stock, which is what I think they meant, then you would just go through your trustee duties, duty to manage, throw in some prudent investor stuff, blah blah and then go on to the quasi-CP question. Not easy, but at least logical.

I had the exact same reaction. I read the question 4 times to make sure I hadn't missed something. I just wrote a note that the facts weren't clear when the stock was purchased, and that Sis had a duty to diversify no matter what. A buddy of mine had the same reaction, too.

[uvauvauva]

Is there any possibility of there being an error/major type on your bar exam? There was such a typo on the fifth essay question on my exam.

I had the exact same thought about the trusts question. When the facts presented said that Wynn purchased the stock I have to assume that they meant to say that Sis purchased the stock (then sold it, bought the house, etc.).

If Wynn was actually correct then the call of the second part of the question essentially becomes what COA does a co-trustee have against the other co-trustee for allowing the settlor to purchase stock using trust principal (which technically can't even happen because a settlor can't actually touch trust res after it has been put in an irrevocable trust even if they wanted to)? Henry would also be asserting a COA against himself (since he would share some of Sis' violations). This can't be what the bar examiners meant. If Sis purchased the stock, which is what I think they meant, then you would just go through your trustee duties, duty to manage, throw in some prudent investor stuff, blah blah and then go on to the quasi-CP question. Not easy, but at least logical.

I had the exact same reaction. I read the question 4 times to make sure I hadn't missed something. I just wrote a note that the facts weren't clear when the stock was purchased, and that Sis had a duty to diversify no matter what. A buddy of mine had the same reaction, too.

Just to be clear. My bar exam said that Henry was a co-trustee with someone other than Sis. A few paragraphs earlier, there was another name to it and I don't think my facts mentioned that name or sister.

Of course, I could be sleep deprived but I am pretty sure of this. Also, I'm not really worried if I bombed this question. I think I did well enough on the MBEs, finished all of the PTs, and got all the issues on the other essay questions.

[Byejulyhifeb]

Don't mean to shit on your parade but if I remmeber correctly there were only 4 parties. Husband sis wife charity. Husband and sis were co-t of wife's trust

Is there any possibility of there being an error/major type on your bar exam? There was such a typo on the fifth essay question on my exam.

I had the exact same thought about the trusts question. When the facts presented said that Wynn purchased the stock I have to assume that they meant to say that Sis purchased the stock (then sold it, bought the house, etc.).

If Wynn was actually correct then the call of the second part of the question essentially becomes what COA does a co-trustee have against the other co-trustee for allowing the settlor to purchase stock using trust principal (which technically can't even happen because a settlor can't actually touch trust res after it has been put in an irrevocable trust even if they wanted to)? Henry would also be asserting a COA against himself (since he would share some of Sis' violations). This can't be what the bar examiners meant. If Sis purchased the stock, which is what I think they meant, then you would just go through your trustee duties, duty to manage, throw in some prudent investor stuff, blah blah and then go on to the quasi-CP question. Not easy, but at least logical.

I had the exact same reaction. I read the question 4 times to make sure I hadn't missed something. I just wrote a note that the facts weren't clear when the stock was purchased, and that Sis had a duty to diversify no matter what. A buddy of mine had the same reaction, too.

Just to be clear. My bar exam said that Henry was a co-trustee with someone other than Sis. A few paragraphs earlier, there was another name to it and I don't think my facts mentioned that name or sister.

Of course, I could be sleep deprived but I am pretty sure of this. Also, I'm not really worried if I bombed this question. I think I did well enough on the MBEs, finished all of the PTs, and got all the issues on the other essay questions.

[Jay Heizenburg]

Someone give me some insight on the first essay..remedies. Was his rate $100 x 100 hours for the entire project or did he estimate 100 hours a month?

100 hours per month for 3 months

Ugh, no idea if I did that right as Remedies is my weakest. I did compensatory based on his discounted value, then I did restitutionary damages based on his typical hourly rate, and said he should take the restitutionary damages. Plus a SP analysis. Along with some other ramblings.

I thought it was

Applicable Law-common Law
Material breach
SP-denied
Compensatory damages + mitigation
Incidental damages because why not
Unrecoverable Consequential damages for profits that may/may not have came from the magazine and the contract with the third party that never ended up happening
Restitution for work put in
Detrimental reliance

Did you or anybody else do a full-blown Specific Performance analysis, breaking down all the elements?

I quickly raised and dismissed the issue because it was clear she wouldn't get it, but I'm a little worried that I should have went beyond the "Inadequate Legal Remedy" element in my rule and analysis.

Thoughts?

[Jay Heizenburg]

Is there any possibility of there being an error/major type on your bar exam? There was such a typo on the fifth essay question on my exam.

I had the exact same thought about the trusts question. When the facts presented said that Wynn purchased the stock I have to assume that they meant to say that Sis purchased the stock (then sold it, bought the house, etc.).

If Wynn was actually correct then the call of the second part of the question essentially becomes what COA does a co-trustee have against the other co-trustee for allowing the settlor to purchase stock using trust principal (which technically can't even happen because a settlor can't actually touch trust res after it has been put in an irrevocable trust even if they wanted to)? Henry would also be asserting a COA against himself (since he would share some of Sis' violations). This can't be what the bar examiners meant. If Sis purchased the stock, which is what I think they meant, then you would just go through your trustee duties, duty to manage, throw in some prudent investor stuff, blah blah and then go on to the quasi-CP question. Not easy, but at least logical.

I don't think that was a typo. I took Wills, Trusts, and Estates, and if I seem to remember the course correctly, a settlor can make the initial investments before the trustee manages the property. So Wynn I believe did make the initial stock purchase.

Yeah the point of that was that Sis took that money and dumped it into a house for herself breaching the duty of loyalty, the duty to invest, the duty to diversify...etc.

I hope you're right because that's exactly what I did.

[dtl]

Someone give me some insight on the first essay..remedies. Was his rate $100 x 100 hours for the entire project or did he estimate 100 hours a month?

100 hours per month for 3 months

Ugh, no idea if I did that right as Remedies is my weakest. I did compensatory based on his discounted value, then I did restitutionary damages based on his typical hourly rate, and said he should take the restitutionary damages. Plus a SP analysis. Along with some other ramblings.

I thought it was

Applicable Law-common Law
Material breach
SP-denied
Compensatory damages + mitigation
Incidental damages because why not
Unrecoverable Consequential damages for profits that may/may not have came from the magazine and the contract with the third party that never ended up happening
Restitution for work put in
Detrimental reliance

Did you or anybody else do a full-blown Specific Performance analysis, breaking down all the elements?

I quickly raised and dismissed the issue because it was clear she wouldn't get it, but I'm a little worried that I should have went beyond the "Inadequate Legal Remedy" element in my rule and analysis.

Thoughts?

If it were not for the "X really wants the court to let him finish the job" or w/e I likely would have glossed over SP. Yet given that it mentioned it, I gave it the full SP analysis.

I think as long as you listed the SP requirements and said which he fails, you are likely fine as far as the SP part.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

I didn't even talk about the stocks, so you guys are all ahead of me! I saved the community property/trust question for last, and because of the time crunch I focused on the other calls of the question that were clearer... and because the stock facts confused me, I just left it out altogether. I did't know what to do with it, so I had to cut my losses and talk about what I was more certain about - and quickly! Ran out of time. Hoping I can still swing a 55 or 60 on it Eeeeks.

[calibartaker]

I've been reading a lot of the comments over the past couple days and finally decided to register an account and ask a "fun" question.

When I got to the Remedies essay I completely blanked on the words "Restitution" and "Compensatory." My headings ended up being something to the effect of: "Damages based on the contract amount" and "Damages based on reasonable value of services."

Does anyone have any similar experiences of completely forgetting easy words or easy concepts when writing the essays?

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

I've been reading a lot of the comments over the past couple days and finally decided to register an account and ask a "fun" question.

When I got to the Remedies essay I completely blanked on the words "Restitution" and "Compensatory." My headings ended up being something to the effect of: "Damages based on the contract amount" and "Damages based on reasonable value of services."

Does anyone have any similar experiences of completely forgetting easy words or easy concepts when writing the essays?

Yes!! The same thing happened to me! I couldn't remember the word "compensatory"!! It was horrible!! I wasn't expecting remedies to be on the exam because it was on the past 4 or 5 exams, so it wasn't one that I reviewed the night before!

[Jay Heizenburg]

I've been reading a lot of the comments over the past couple days and finally decided to register an account and ask a "fun" question.

When I got to the Remedies essay I completely blanked on the words "Restitution" and "Compensatory." My headings ended up being something to the effect of: "Damages based on the contract amount" and "Damages based on reasonable value of services."

Does anyone have any similar experiences of completely forgetting easy words or easy concepts when writing the essays?

Lol, yes ... I think everyone has this experience in one form or another, whether it's their issue-headings or rule statements. I'm willing to bet my grader will chuckle when they see my "Quasi-Contract" rule statement and analysis ... cause I drew an absolute blank, a "South Park" stare, blank ...

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

Ooooh! And I couldn't remember the words "pro se" so I kept having to say "represent himself" on the Con Law essay! lol! Oh well! Definitely the least of my worries!

[Carryon]

Someone give me some insight on the first essay..remedies. Was his rate $100 x 100 hours for the entire project or did he estimate 100 hours a month?

100 hours per month for 3 months

Ugh, no idea if I did that right as Remedies is my weakest. I did compensatory based on his discounted value, then I did restitutionary damages based on his typical hourly rate, and said he should take the restitutionary damages. Plus a SP analysis. Along with some other ramblings.

I thought it was

Applicable Law-common Law
Material breach
SP-denied
Compensatory damages + mitigation
Incidental damages because why not
Unrecoverable Consequential damages for profits that may/may not have came from the magazine and the contract with the third party that never ended up happening
Restitution for work put in
Detrimental reliance

That's about what I did, I also talked about recission, though that would be the worst remedy choice fort the landscaper

[Yvonnella]

The proctor in Santa Clara was pretty funny. He was this kind of bumbling old guy who spoke very slowly and kept demanding that we quiet down, as someone mentioned before. I thought he would explode when we started clapping at the end.

The pm MBE is the only part of the test I'm really sweating. I feel more or less okay about the essays and the PTs, although I was light on duties under the trust essay. And I had to fight through the temptation to daydream during PT B, but I think I did okay with it. But the MBEs were awful. The Wednesday morning session wasn't too bad, but I had to mentally flip a coin constantly in the afternoon. I usually narrowed it down to two answers, but they were just so hard! I hate multiple choice anyway. I'd rather write six more essays than do MBEs.

[umstah]

Someone give me some insight on the first essay..remedies. Was his rate $100 x 100 hours for the entire project or did he estimate 100 hours a month?

100 hours per month for 3 months

Ugh, no idea if I did that right as Remedies is my weakest. I did compensatory based on his discounted value, then I did restitutionary damages based on his typical hourly rate, and said he should take the restitutionary damages. Plus a SP analysis. Along with some other ramblings.

I thought it was

Applicable Law-common Law
Material breach
SP-denied
Compensatory damages + mitigation
Incidental damages because why not
Unrecoverable Consequential damages for profits that may/may not have came from the magazine and the contract with the third party that never ended up happening
Restitution for work put in
Detrimental reliance[/quote]

That's about what I did, I also talked about recission, though that would be the worst remedy choice fort the landscaper[/quote]


so i talked about most of this stuff but forgot to talk about detrimental reliance or restitution. does that probably take a 65 out of the running?

[PennJD83]

Was it necessary to talk about the "applicable law" since this was a full on Remedies question? I touched on most of the other issues that've been mentioned though. Also, I'm still wondering how screwed I am for leaving my notes at the top of my PT

[jarofsoup]

I did applicable law because UCC was not applicable and the remedy would be different if it were

[LSATNightmares]

Has anyone who has done Barbri shipped his or her books back? Were you also charged for the shipping fees? I was kind of shocked that it was over $30 to ship the books back at the cheapest UPS rate, just to get our deposit back.

[EZ as AsDf]

Someone give me some insight on the first essay..remedies. Was his rate $100 x 100 hours for the entire project or did he estimate 100 hours a month?

100 hours per month for 3 months

Ugh, no idea if I did that right as Remedies is my weakest. I did compensatory based on his discounted value, then I did restitutionary damages based on his typical hourly rate, and said he should take the restitutionary damages. Plus a SP analysis. Along with some other ramblings.

I thought it was

Applicable Law-common Law
Material breach
SP-denied
Compensatory damages + mitigation
Incidental damages because why not
Unrecoverable Consequential damages for profits that may/may not have came from the magazine and the contract with the third party that never ended up happening
Restitution for work put in
Detrimental reliance

That's about what I did, I also talked about recission, though that would be the worst remedy choice fort the landscaper[/quote]


so i talked about most of this stuff but forgot to talk about detrimental reliance or restitution. does that probably take a 65 out of the running?[/quote]

should we start another thread with the Ten templates?

[Mr. Pink]

Ugh, no idea if I did that right as Remedies is my weakest. I did compensatory based on his discounted value, then I did restitutionary damages based on his typical hourly rate, and said he should take the restitutionary damages. Plus a SP analysis. Along with some other ramblings.

I thought it was

Applicable Law-common Law
Material breach
SP-denied
Compensatory damages + mitigation
Incidental damages because why not
Unrecoverable Consequential damages for profits that may/may not have came from the magazine and the contract with the third party that never ended up happening
Restitution for work put in
Detrimental reliance

Did you or anybody else do a full-blown Specific Performance analysis, breaking down all the elements?

I quickly raised and dismissed the issue because it was clear she wouldn't get it, but I'm a little worried that I should have went beyond the "Inadequate Legal Remedy" element in my rule and analysis.

Thoughts?

If it were not for the "X really wants the court to let him finish the job" or w/e I likely would have glossed over SP. Yet given that it mentioned it, I gave it the full SP analysis.

I think as long as you listed the SP requirements and said which he fails, you are likely fine as far as the SP part.

SP was the bulk of that question. Not to burst anyone's bubble here, but he was definitely getting SP on that contract.

1) Def and certain contract
2) Inadequate remedies at law- the consequential damages were to speculative and unforeseeable, and since he cut his rate in hopes of those damages, the legal remedies are inadequate
3) Mutuality- this is more broad than before... even though the woman who breached wouldn't be able to get it, the landscaper still can. The lady is only having to pay $$$ and as long as he can show more than a mere promise to perform, he can get it (and that last sentence about him wanting to perform because his big payday is coming from the magazine furthers that)
4) Feasibility- sure why not
5) defense- can't think of any she could raise other than arguing mutuality- no laches or unclean hands

[adonai]

SP was the bulk of that question. Not to burst anyone's bubble here, but he was definitely getting SP on that contract.

1) Def and certain contract
2) Inadequate remedies at law- the consequential damages were to speculative and unforeseeable, and since he cut his rate in hopes of those damages, the legal remedies are inadequate
3) Mutuality- this is more broad than before... even though the woman who breached wouldn't be able to get it, the landscaper still can. The lady is only having to pay $$$ and as long as he can show more than a mere promise to perform, he can get it (and that last sentence about him wanting to perform because his big payday is coming from the magazine furthers that)
4) Feasibility- sure why not
5) defense- can't think of any she could raise other than arguing mutuality- no laches or unclean hands

SP doesn't apply at all to that question. SP only applies in land sale contracts, unique or rare goods. It does NOT apply to services contracts (which was the case here) even if the services are rare or unique.