Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[always_raining]

Gotcha, that makes sense. Kind of misleading for the question not to tell you what the statement is being used for though. Thanks.

I agree. I have to make a lot of assumptions in these questions.

[gr8scOtt!]

K question

[+] Spoiler

Mechanic agrees to fix owner's vehicle for $$ to be paid upon completion of the work. Two weeks later, before the work was completed, mechanic sent a letter to owner telling owner to pay the $$ to a creditor. Mechanic completes the work. Question: what is owner's best defense against an action by the creditor?

Answer: mechanic failed to perform the work adequately.

The explanation says that the creditor is an intended beneficiary, but I thought an intended beneficiary was one who was to benefit at the time the contract was made? Otherwise, it would be an incidental beneficiary? Explanation also says assignment of rights plays no role.

Intended beneficiaries do not have to be identified at the time the contract is made. So in this case, the creditor is an intended beneficiary. I got this question wrong too because the answer choice asks you to assume a lot of things. Here, the correct answer is that he failed to perform the work adequately because, if true, this would allow the owner to opt out of the contract.

I get that an intended beneficiary doesn't have to be named/identified, but isn't the whole premise of an intended beneficiary be that at the time the contract is made, the parties intend someone/anyone else to benefit from their contract?

So at any time after the contract is formed, either party to the contract can add an intended beneficiary? Why wouldn't that just be an assignment of rights?

I also got this wrong because (this is my biggest pet peeve) the question literally asks you to "assume the defenses are TRUE." If it were true that the creditor was not an intended beneficiary, then creditor does not have standing to sue!

I actually emailed themis about this question and they agreed, saying that it was really poorly worded but that it should have been clear that the creditor was an intended beneficiary (even though the call of the question says to assume otherwise).

I complained to some of my friends who took the bar last year and they said "these awful questions are great practice, because much like the practice MBE questions, the bar exam is also riddled with terrible questions!" Solace?

Yikes. That's a really bad question then! I guess thanks are in order to Themis for preparing us for horribly worded questions!

[habz]

These NY multiple choice questions are a) fracking hard and b) ridiculously vague. How the hell are we supposed to get them right?! Half the time I don't even know what the question is asking!

[zot1]

Got a 72% on the latest mixed MBEs... maybe I should only postpone the simulated [essay] exam part...

EDIT: Added [essay] to make this clearer.

[jlaw14]

Am I missing something? Why are people complaining when they get 70% and above on MBEs? Don't we need in the 60s to pass? I would be thrilled to get close to the 70s on a practice test!

And agreed about the NY multiple choice questions, got a 44% on the first round, no clue where half that material came from.

[sd5289]

I'm getting completely owned by this 5th K's set, and am about to throw my computer after at this one:

[+] Spoiler

During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged a store, occurred in a city. In early 1977, the city council adopted this resolution: "The city will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here." The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, the damaged store, by a written memorandum to a private detective, proposed to pay the detective $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 1977, the city council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September 1977, an employee of the damaged store voluntarily confessed to the detective to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. The damaged store's president thereupon paid the detective at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that the detective also claim the city's reward, of which the detective had been previously unaware. The detective immediately made the claim. In December 1977, as a result of the detective's investigation, the employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay the detective anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repeal before claiming his reward.

Answers I debated over for like 5 minutes, and I STILL picked the wrong one:

Only by an offeree's making the arrest and assisting in the successful conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

OR

By an offeree's supplying information leading to arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

The latter was the correct answer, and the answer explanation says that the former answer "severely and unfairly restrict acceptance beyond the offer made by the city." WHAT? HOW?? It specifically says the "arrest and conviction of anyone guilty..." It doesn't say shit about supplying information leading to an arrest and conviction.

I fucking hate K's.

[zot1]

Am I missing something? Why are people complaining when they get 70% and above on MBEs? Don't we need in the 60s to pass? I would be thrilled to get close to the 70s on a practice test!

And agreed about the NY multiple choice questions, got a 44% on the first round, no clue where half that material came from.

I wasn't complaining. My point was that maybe I have no reason to skip the simulated MBE because even though I'm behind on the material, it looks like I could score well on it.

Not really to the point, but I would love to increase my MBE percentage because so far, I suck at essays.

[always_raining]

Am I missing something? Why are people complaining when they get 70% and above on MBEs? Don't we need in the 60s to pass? I would be thrilled to get close to the 70s on a practice test!

And agreed about the NY multiple choice questions, got a 44% on the first round, no clue where half that material came from.

I dunno, the last two MBE sets I took at got something like 52% and 66%. Before that I was doing a lot better than that, so it was a serious shock. Maybe that person meant they could use their time better? But I think the practice of sitting there for 6 hours will be good even if I felt like I was doing a great job on the practice sets (which I dont).

[Nelson]

I'm getting completely owned by this 5th K's set, and am about to throw my computer after at this one:

[+] Spoiler

During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged a store, occurred in a city. In early 1977, the city council adopted this resolution: "The city will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here." The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, the damaged store, by a written memorandum to a private detective, proposed to pay the detective $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 1977, the city council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September 1977, an employee of the damaged store voluntarily confessed to the detective to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. The damaged store's president thereupon paid the detective at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that the detective also claim the city's reward, of which the detective had been previously unaware. The detective immediately made the claim. In December 1977, as a result of the detective's investigation, the employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay the detective anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repeal before claiming his reward.

Answers I debated over for like 5 minutes, and I STILL picked the wrong one:

Only by an offeree's making the arrest and assisting in the successful conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

OR

By an offeree's supplying information leading to arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

The latter was the correct answer, and the answer explanation says that the former answer "severely and unfairly restrict acceptance beyond the offer made by the city." WHAT? HOW?? It specifically says the "arrest and conviction of anyone guilty..." It doesn't say shit about supplying information leading to an arrest and conviction.

I fucking hate K's.

I bombed that set too and I remember that stupid question in particular. I wouldn't worry about it too much because (while Ks is still by far my worst subject) nothing has been as bad as that set.

[Confused7]

I'm getting completely owned by this 5th K's set, and am about to throw my computer after at this one:

[+] Spoiler

During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged a store, occurred in a city. In early 1977, the city council adopted this resolution: "The city will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here." The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, the damaged store, by a written memorandum to a private detective, proposed to pay the detective $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 1977, the city council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September 1977, an employee of the damaged store voluntarily confessed to the detective to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. The damaged store's president thereupon paid the detective at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that the detective also claim the city's reward, of which the detective had been previously unaware. The detective immediately made the claim. In December 1977, as a result of the detective's investigation, the employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay the detective anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repeal before claiming his reward.

Answers I debated over for like 5 minutes, and I STILL picked the wrong one:

Only by an offeree's making the arrest and assisting in the successful conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

OR

By an offeree's supplying information leading to arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

The latter was the correct answer, and the answer explanation says that the former answer "severely and unfairly restrict acceptance beyond the offer made by the city." WHAT? HOW?? It specifically says the "arrest and conviction of anyone guilty..." It doesn't say shit about supplying information leading to an arrest and conviction.

I fucking hate K's.

I bombed that set too and I remember that stupid question in particular. I wouldn't worry about it too much because (while Ks is still by far my worst subject) nothing has been as bad as that set.

I definitely just saw this question in a Mixed MBE set I did. Is Themis treating MBEs like the state multiple choice questions (at least for NY) where they recycle them?

[sd5289]

I'm getting completely owned by this 5th K's set, and am about to throw my computer after at this one:

[+] Spoiler

During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged a store, occurred in a city. In early 1977, the city council adopted this resolution: "The city will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here." The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, the damaged store, by a written memorandum to a private detective, proposed to pay the detective $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 1977, the city council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September 1977, an employee of the damaged store voluntarily confessed to the detective to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. The damaged store's president thereupon paid the detective at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that the detective also claim the city's reward, of which the detective had been previously unaware. The detective immediately made the claim. In December 1977, as a result of the detective's investigation, the employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay the detective anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repeal before claiming his reward.

Answers I debated over for like 5 minutes, and I STILL picked the wrong one:

Only by an offeree's making the arrest and assisting in the successful conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

OR

By an offeree's supplying information leading to arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

The latter was the correct answer, and the answer explanation says that the former answer "severely and unfairly restrict acceptance beyond the offer made by the city." WHAT? HOW?? It specifically says the "arrest and conviction of anyone guilty..." It doesn't say shit about supplying information leading to an arrest and conviction.

I fucking hate K's.

I bombed that set too and I remember that stupid question in particular. I wouldn't worry about it too much because (while Ks is still by far my worst subject) nothing has been as bad as that set.

God. It just made it that much worse that it was in the middle of the worst set ever. K's is my worst subject too, but I just handled the last Corps/K's graded essay with two K's issues pretty well, so I was shocked to suddenly nosedive like this.

I definitely just saw this question in a Mixed MBE set I did. Is Themis treating MBEs like the state multiple choice questions (at least for NY) where they recycle them?

They're definitely recycling questions. Even in the same sets, and changing the "call of the question" or one or two facts slightly.

[pupshaw]

Can anyone help with a question on the first Partnerships practice essay?

[+] Spoiler

In the fact pattern, A B and C form a partnership that has 500k debt when it goes out of business. When the partnership was formed, A contributed 100k, B contributed 50k, and C contributed nothing. The model answer I think correctly says that all three are equally liable for the debts at the end, but it says that the total debts are 650k. Is that right? Is an initial capital contribution treated as a debt that the partnership owes to the partner during winding up? And the partner is treated as a creditor for that purpose? I thought that capital contributions are just investments that the partner stands to lose if the partnership is insolvent. I'm confused on this point, and appreciate any help. Thanks!

[Misnomer]

Opinion - Kramer (Property, Wills and Trusts) is the best lecturer of the series. Agree? Disagree? Have at it!

[teeshtee]

Opinion - Kramer (Property, Wills and Trusts) is the best lecturer of the series. Agree? Disagree? Have at it!

Contracts guy was my favorite lecturer. Kramer is a close second.

[annapach]

Opinion - Kramer (Property, Wills and Trusts) is the best lecturer of the series. Agree? Disagree? Have at it!

Contracts guy was my favorite lecturer. Kramer is a close second.

UGH. How could you like Kramer. I spent the whole time wishing I could fast forward through his irrelevant, self-serving jokes.

[zot1]

Am I missing something? Why are people complaining when they get 70% and above on MBEs? Don't we need in the 60s to pass? I would be thrilled to get close to the 70s on a practice test!

And agreed about the NY multiple choice questions, got a 44% on the first round, no clue where half that material came from.

I wasn't complaining. My point was that maybe I have no reason to skip the simulated MBE because even though I'm behind on the material, it looks like I could score well on it.

Not really to the point, but I would love to increase my MBE percentage because so far, I suck at essays.

Before I just submitted my wills and trusts graded essay, I was finally feeling confident and that my answer was finally right. I submitted, then the model answer discussed laws not learned in lecture or in handout (of course), so my answer was again half right, if at all.

The MBEs can carry me through, right?

[paulshortys10]

Can anyone help with a question on the first Partnerships practice essay?

[+] Spoiler

In the fact pattern, A B and C form a partnership that has 500k debt when it goes out of business. When the partnership was formed, A contributed 100k, B contributed 50k, and C contributed nothing. The model answer I think correctly says that all three are equally liable for the debts at the end, but it says that the total debts are 650k. Is that right? Is an initial capital contribution treated as a debt that the partnership owes to the partner during winding up? And the partner is treated as a creditor for that purpose? I thought that capital contributions are just investments that the partner stands to lose if the partnership is insolvent. I'm confused on this point, and appreciate any help. Thanks!

Yea a capital contribution is treated as debt that is returned at dissolution. Where I was confused was that Themis did not prioritize these creditor debts, while the baressays model answer did. They stated that creditor debts come before capital contribution debt, which come before partner distributions.

[Pleasye]

Can anyone help with a question on the first Partnerships practice essay?

[+] Spoiler

In the fact pattern, A B and C form a partnership that has 500k debt when it goes out of business. When the partnership was formed, A contributed 100k, B contributed 50k, and C contributed nothing. The model answer I think correctly says that all three are equally liable for the debts at the end, but it says that the total debts are 650k. Is that right? Is an initial capital contribution treated as a debt that the partnership owes to the partner during winding up? And the partner is treated as a creditor for that purpose? I thought that capital contributions are just investments that the partner stands to lose if the partnership is insolvent. I'm confused on this point, and appreciate any help. Thanks!

IIRC in that essay the partners contributed those amounts, but part of their contributions were actual capital contributions whereas the other were loans to the partnership (signaled by the fact that they received promissory notes in return). So the part that they received promissory notes for are loans/debts that the partnership must pay them back for and the other is a capital contribution which they are not entitled to receive back. Sorry if I'm referring to a completely different essay.

[paulshortys10]

For those of you taking the Simulated exam tomorrow or this week, are you going to watch the videos talking about the questions? Seems like a waste of time to me if we have the explanations available.

[somuchbooty]

For those of you taking the Simulated exam tomorrow or this week, are you going to watch the videos talking about the questions? Seems like a waste of time to me if we have the explanations available.

wow they're going to sit there and explain every answer? I signed up for it but I was convinced by someone else's advisor in this thread to not take it yet since I'm not done with nearly enough yet.

[habz]

K's Question

[+] Spoiler

By the terms of a written contract signed by both parties on January 15, a company agreed to sell a specific ICB personal computer to an individual for $3,000, who agreed to pick up and pay for the computer at the company's store on February 1. The individual unjustifiably repudiated on February 1. Without notifying the individual, the company subsequently sold at a private sale the same specific computer to a third party, who paid the same price ($3,000) in cash. The ICB is a popular product. The company can buy from the manufacturer more units than it can sell at retail. If the company sues the individual for breach of contract, the company will probably recover
The answer is that the guy can get recover the entire sale based on Lost Volume Profits. I don't understand how this applies to this problem though because the merchant doesn't actually have the item item in stock, he can merely get more from his supplier. Am I missing something?

[always_raining]

Yea a capital contribution is treated as debt that is returned at dissolution. Where I was confused was that Themis did not prioritize these creditor debts, while the baressays model answer did. They stated that creditor debts come before capital contribution debt, which come before partner distributions.

Do you know if the baressay model answers help with non-state specific essays? Or is it solely for state-specific bar exams?

[kiwi4president]

I'm not sure if this has been established yet or not in this thread, but I just spoke to a Themis rep about how the MBE sets are created for each individual user. Apparently Themis changes around the types of questions it asks you in its MBE sets to ask you questions you have been historically bad at. So for example, if you are bad at contracts questions involving formation you will likely get more contract formation questions in each set. This is probably why we all may be experiencing more seemingly difficult questions as we move through the MBE sets. Obviously, he said the simulated exam is tailored as much as possible to be like the real MBE so that score will be more indicative of your percentage come test day. Just an FYI.

[paulshortys10]

Yea a capital contribution is treated as debt that is returned at dissolution. Where I was confused was that Themis did not prioritize these creditor debts, while the baressays model answer did. They stated that creditor debts come before capital contribution debt, which come before partner distributions.

Do you know if the baressay model answers help with non-state specific essays? Or is it solely for state-specific bar exams?

They cover a range of topics, i think only 2-3 are CA specific (PR, Ev, and CIV PRO off the top of my head)

[sd5289]

For those of you taking the Simulated exam tomorrow or this week, are you going to watch the videos talking about the questions? Seems like a waste of time to me if we have the explanations available.

wow they're going to sit there and explain every answer? I signed up for it but I was convinced by someone else's advisor in this thread to not take it yet since I'm not done with nearly enough yet.

I'm pretty sure that'll be available to you whenever you do the simulation.

As for the original question, I'm going to try and see what they say. If it's a substantive breakdown of the questions, how the bar examiners ask for certain things, etc., then I'll probably watch. If they're akin to the "5 tips" BS, then no, I'll be skipping that shit.