BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 (UBE -NY) Forum

[mvp99]

I'm starting to think the real MBE is more like barbri's workshops... then barbri moves on to test more subtle distinctions. What do you guys think?

I find the workshops to be similar in difficulty to S&T questions.

What's s&t

Strategies & Tactics for the MBE, Fifth Edition (Emanuel Bar Review)

https://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Tacti ... 1454809922

[lawsohardJD]

I am consistently getting 40-50% percentile ranking in the StudySmart for every subject, and I am extremely worried about my lack of progress. How is everyone else doing? If you're doing well, is there anything else that I should be doing outside of Barbri? I've pretty much stuck to the program but have not done anything extra and don't have any other supplements or materials. Thanks!

[cuse2016]

I'm starting to think the real MBE is more like barbri's workshops... then barbri moves on to test more subtle distinctions. What do you guys think?

I find the workshops to be similar in difficulty to S&T questions.

What's s&t

Strategies & Tactics for the MBE, Fifth Edition (Emanuel Bar Review)

https://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Tacti ... 1454809922

there's a 6th edition out now that includes CivPro FYI

[generaltoast]

I am consistently getting 40-50% percentile ranking in the StudySmart for every subject, and I am extremely worried about my lack of progress. How is everyone else doing? If you're doing well, is there anything else that I should be doing outside of Barbri? I've pretty much stuck to the program but have not done anything extra and don't have any other supplements or materials. Thanks!

I'm in the same boat. I find I'm not really retaining anything from the lectures, so that when it comes time to do MBE questions I feel i'm just blindly guessing on a lot of them. Iv'e now turned to reviewing the CMR every night after I finish my Barbri assignments in an attempt to memorize the law.

[LionelHutzJD]

I am consistently getting 40-50% percentile ranking in the StudySmart for every subject, and I am extremely worried about my lack of progress. How is everyone else doing? If you're doing well, is there anything else that I should be doing outside of Barbri? I've pretty much stuck to the program but have not done anything extra and don't have any other supplements or materials. Thanks!

I'm in the same boat. I find I'm not really retaining anything from the lectures, so that when it comes time to do MBE questions I feel i'm just blindly guessing on a lot of them. Iv'e now turned to reviewing the CMR every night after I finish my Barbri assignments in an attempt to memorize the law.

You might be better off tracking your progress using the graphs. It will show you how much you improved week-to-week. I stunk it up in Contracts in the beginning and was doing a bunch of Study Smart questions and getting them wrong. My percentile ranking took a beating. But now i'm doing much better in K's even though my percentile may not reflect that.

[mvp99]

Quick question: K set3quesiton01

Two merchants orally modify a K that was valued at $400 originally for 100 units (so no SoF problem originally) and now with the added goods the K price is now $800 for 200 units. The buyer rejects 50 units because of lack of storage. May the seller recover damages with respect to the 50 rejected units?

Barbri's answer says no because the modified price of the K exceeds $500, and whether modification must be in writing depends on the value of the K as modified. (note that we're not talking here about UCC modifications without consideration but in good faith which must be in writing; this is about modifications with consideration)

So my answer was yes (even though there is no answer that fits), based on my Critical Pass Contracts card #15 which says that "delivery of goods satisfies SoF." Here, the fact pattern indicates that the goods were in fact delivered, so why doesn't delivery take the oral modification out of the statute of frauds? Does "delivery" then means the buyer must also accept the units?

edit: nvm, so yes to the extent the buyer has accepted goods. "Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an oral contract is enforceable to the extent that the seller has accepted payment or the buyer has accepted delivery of the goods covered by the oral contract."

[mvp99]

I asked a few days ago whether we should assume traditional CL contract modification rules apply for the MBE and someone answered that yes, we should assume traditional CL for the MBE (and i've seen questions assuming traditional CL is at play).

Well, Set4Question1 for K assumes the modern view of contract modifications (modification without consideration K as long as it's fair and equitable in light of unanticipated circumstances). The fact pattern or the question does not say we should apply the modern view. I got it wrong because I used the traditional CL rule.

For those using Adaptibar practicing with real MBEs questions, does it ever say what law we should apply? I'm pretty sure we'll have at least one question on contract modifications.

[LionelHutzJD]

I asked a few days ago whether we should assume traditional CL contract modification rules apply for the MBE and someone answered that yes, we should assume traditional CL for the MBE (and i've seen questions assuming traditional CL is at play).

Well, Set4Question1 for K assumes the modern view of contract modifications (modification without consideration K as long as it's fair and equitable in light of unanticipated circumstances). The fact pattern or the question does not say we should apply the modern view. I got it wrong because I used the traditional CL rule.

For those using Adaptibar practicing with real MBEs questions, does it ever say what law we should apply? I'm pretty sure we'll have at least one question on contract modifications.

I thought of you. I'm pretty sure I was the one who told you to use traditional CL view. I however did get the question correct. If A was the correct answer in this question, what could Barbri have said about C (the modern view)? This is why I chose the modern view. I still don't think the MBE will test us on it but of course it is appropriate for an essay.

[MCFC]

Not sure why that Conflicts essay was assigned for tomorrow.

[mvp99]

Not sure why that Conflicts essay was assigned for tomorrow.

B/c of the civ pro question? what's rule 4? treaty? what.

These other non-mbe subjects are sufficiently concise that I think I'll work on them/memorize the law starting 2.5-3 weeks before the exam. I'll work on one per day in the morning 4-6 hours and dedicate the rest of the day to the MBE.

[MCFC]

Not sure why that Conflicts essay was assigned for tomorrow.

B/c of the civ pro question? what's rule 4? treaty? what.

Right? I understand that conflicts questions are usually just a smaller part of a broader essay about a different subject, but why not pick one featuring a subject that we've covered already?

[LionelHutzJD]

Not sure why that Conflicts essay was assigned for tomorrow.

B/c of the civ pro question? what's rule 4? treaty? what.

These other non-mbe subjects are sufficiently concise that I think I'll work on them/memorize the law starting 2.5-3 weeks before the exam. I'll work on one per day in the morning 4-6 hours and dedicate the rest of the day to the MBE.

Same

[Redfactor]

So I am going back through some of the essays to review some BLL and application, and I am not understanding something with Con Law 2. (Lex v. Scoop)

I am confused with the Barbri analysis on the Con Law 2 question.

The first question asks if there is a First Amendment defense available if Star sues News for libel. The issue is whether actual malice can be demonstrated by Star.

I understand that the facts say that Scoop honestly believed that Star was depicted in the photograph, and that it would be difficult to prove reckless disregard by Scooby's actions. However, isn't that irrelevant to the question at hand? The suit is not against Scoop, but News. So actual malice requirement would go against News, not Scoop.

And while Scoop may have honestly believed that Star was included in the photo, News ran a story on the next page that demonstrated that to be an impossibility, yet still published the story. I argued that because the newspaper's concurrent article demonstrates that News, as an entity, KNEW that Star was at the premiere and thus could not possibly be in the photo, actual malice was shown.

Here, Scoop said wrote something (1) believing its truth and (2) without reckless disregard for truth or falsity. However, News, a totally different entity, published that same information (1) knowing that it is untrue (because they're privy to additional facts - that Star was at a premier), or in the alternative (2) with reckless disregard for its truth (because it is absolutely contrary to what it was also reporting in an article right next to it).

I don't understand how Barbri's analysis applies Scoop's honest mistake that was made without negligence (because how is he reasonably expected to know Star was at a premiere somewhere else) to successfully defend News when it had more information available to it. I don't think it can.

Where am I going wrong?

Thanks a bunch!

[mvp99]

So I am going back through some of the essays to review some BLL and application, and I am not understanding something with Con Law 2. (Lex v. Scoop)

I am confused with the Barbri analysis on the Con Law 2 question.

The first question asks if there is a First Amendment defense available if Star sues News for libel. The issue is whether actual malice can be demonstrated by Star.

I understand that the facts say that Scoop honestly believed that Star was depicted in the photograph, and that it would be difficult to prove reckless disregard by Scooby's actions. However, isn't that irrelevant to the question at hand? The suit is not against Scoop, but News. So actual malice requirement would go against News, not Scoop.

And while Scoop may have honestly believed that Star was included in the photo, News ran a story on the next page that demonstrated that to be an impossibility, yet still published the story. I argued that because the newspaper's concurrent article demonstrates that News, as an entity, KNEW that Star was at the premiere and thus could not possibly be in the photo, actual malice was shown.

Here, Scoop said wrote something (1) believing its truth and (2) without reckless disregard for truth or falsity. However, News, a totally different entity, published that same information (1) knowing that it is untrue (because they're privy to additional facts - that Star was at a premier), or in the alternative (2) with reckless disregard for its truth (because it is absolutely contrary to what it was also reporting in an article right next to it).

I don't understand how Barbri's analysis applies Scoop's honest mistake that was made without negligence (because how is he reasonably expected to know Star was at a premiere somewhere else) to successfully defend News when it had more information available to it. I don't think it can.

Where am I going wrong?

Thanks a bunch!

So i haven't answered that question yet but maybe its the following: did news "subjectively entertained" that the news was false and still published it anyway?

[fauxpsych]

I wish the whole exam was MPT.

[sublime]

I asked a few days ago whether we should assume traditional CL contract modification rules apply for the MBE and someone answered that yes, we should assume traditional CL for the MBE (and i've seen questions assuming traditional CL is at play).

Well, Set4Question1 for K assumes the modern view of contract modifications (modification without consideration K as long as it's fair and equitable in light of unanticipated circumstances). The fact pattern or the question does not say we should apply the modern view. I got it wrong because I used the traditional CL rule.

For those using Adaptibar practicing with real MBEs questions, does it ever say what law we should apply? I'm pretty sure we'll have at least one question on contract modifications.

Yea, I was just coming on to ask about/bitch about that question. How the fuck are we supposed to know which to apply?

I'll let you know if I get to a real modifications question.

[ballouttacontrol]

I also got that one wrong. It seems like barbri usually follows the majority view moreso than traditional common law rules. Could be wrong tho

[LionelHutzJD]

Where do most of the points come from with the MEE? In a couple of the essays I've hit on the correct issues but sometimes i'll come to an incorrect conclusion because I missed a minor nuance in the rule that would turn the conclusion around. Is this killer?

[sublime]

Where do most of the points come from with the MEE? In a couple of the essays I've hit on the correct issues but sometimes i'll come to an incorrect conclusion because I missed a minor nuance in the rule that would turn the conclusion around. Is this killer?

Idk, I just assume the Barbri score checklists are fairly accurate and they seem pretty forgiving. Like I have missed a big issue and "passed"

[ballouttacontrol]

Where do most of the points come from with the MEE? In a couple of the essays I've hit on the correct issues but sometimes i'll come to an incorrect conclusion because I missed a minor nuance in the rule that would turn the conclusion around. Is this killer?

Idk, I just assume the Barbri score checklists are fairly accurate and they seem pretty forgiving. Like I have missed a big issue and "passed"

I hope so. Just did the secured transactions essay #2 and analyzed the entire 2nd section wrong cuz of that little rule there is no way I'd have remembered. Was still supposedly slightly above passing tho

[SLS_AMG]

Anyone know the email contact to ask for a re-grade of an essay like the MPT one we just just did? Comparing it with my Crim Law essay I see that the reviewer literally made the exact same comments and they make no sense for the MPT. I don't expect a ton from the graders, but considering what BarBri is charging they can at least put in a decent effort here.

[goden]

I asked a few days ago whether we should assume traditional CL contract modification rules apply for the MBE and someone answered that yes, we should assume traditional CL for the MBE (and i've seen questions assuming traditional CL is at play).

Well, Set4Question1 for K assumes the modern view of contract modifications (modification without consideration K as long as it's fair and equitable in light of unanticipated circumstances). The fact pattern or the question does not say we should apply the modern view. I got it wrong because I used the traditional CL rule.

For those using Adaptibar practicing with real MBEs questions, does it ever say what law we should apply? I'm pretty sure we'll have at least one question on contract modifications.

Yea, I was just coming on to ask about/bitch about that question. How the fuck are we supposed to know which to apply?

I'll let you know if I get to a real modifications question.

this is also bugging me

[KRose04]

Hi Guys. I'm new here. Been feeling like I'm drowning lately with the Barbri workload. What do you guys do for outlines? Do you make your own from the lecture handouts? That's what I've been doing, but its exhausting because it takes me about 3 hours make my own outline from 30-40 page handouts. Any advice would be appreciated.

[WahooLaw24]

Hi Guys. I'm new here. Been feeling like I'm drowning lately with the Barbri workload. What do you guys do for outlines? Do you make your own from the lecture handouts? That's what I've been doing, but its exhausting because it takes me about 3 hours make my own outline from 30-40 page handouts. Any advice would be appreciated.

That's been my strategy. It's exhausting for sure, but I think worth it. I like that you can re-organize stuff in a way that makes more sense to you. I also go back whenever I miss something in a MC question or an essay and add in it, sometimes with the specific fact pattern example if it will help it stick out in my head.

I think studying out of the CMR can also be a good option, though for me the CMR tends to be a little too dense.

[KRose04]

Hi Guys. I'm new here. Been feeling like I'm drowning lately with the Barbri workload. What do you guys do for outlines? Do you make your own from the lecture handouts? That's what I've been doing, but its exhausting because it takes me about 3 hours make my own outline from 30-40 page handouts. Any advice would be appreciated.

That's been my strategy. It's exhausting for sure, but I think worth it. I like that you can re-organize stuff in a way that makes more sense to you. I also go back whenever I miss something in a MC question or an essay and add in it, sometimes with the specific fact pattern example if it will help it stick out in my head.

I think studying out of the CMR can also be a good option, though for me the CMR tends to be a little too dense.

It definitely is exhausting. I've been doing it because my bar mentor (my school offers a free bar mentor program) tells me that that's what I'll be using to study in the last 2 weeks before the bar. I'm just tired because after 3-4 hours of lectures, now I have to copy everything into an outline. To me these lectures are a huge waste of time. Well, what I mean is that I literally only watch them to fill in the blanks. I would prefer to just have the handouts already filled in because then I don't have to waste 3-4 hours just listening to them and then AGAIN 3+ hours just copying everything into an outline. I've never been one to learn from lectures, so I hate that I have to watch them just to get the freaking fill-ins. To me its just such a waste of precious time. But, god forbid I ask anyone for their handouts (with the answers filled in)... We know how law students are