Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[hous]

So, did most people do better on the first simulated exam? I did the first one today and didn't do as well as I hoped. I'll review it tomorrow and do the other half afterwards.

For some reason I missed mostly criminal law and contracts questions. This is odd because both of those are my better subjects, especially contracts.

Overall, I did pretty well on the exam but it scares me to death that I'm so close to not doing well. Also, LOL at Themis' goal of 70%. They have been giving us easy goals all along then all of a sudden they throw a 70% goal at us.

I feel like I havent had any time to go back and review the areas I know I stuggle with, i.e. when you can prior acts or former testimony to impeach or prove substantive fact. This comes up a lot and I always stuggle with it.

[hous]

Whoa wait. I saw in another thread someone said there is a raw and a scaled score. Does this mean we can get a 130/200 on the MBE and it could be scaled to like a 140?

[kapital98]

Whoa wait. I saw in another thread someone said there is a raw and a scaled score. Does this mean we can get a 130/200 on the MBE and it could be scaled to like a 140?

NY scales the raw score. However, your estimates are a little bit drastic for NY. A 130 will get you slightly above the median scaled score (143.6).

[hous]

So 65% is median on the MBE?

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

[094320]

..

[kapital98]

Whoa wait. I saw in another thread someone said there is a raw and a scaled score. Does this mean we can get a 130/200 on the MBE and it could be scaled to like a 140?

NY scales the raw score. However, your estimates are a little bit drastic for NY. A 130 will get you slightly above the median scaled score (143.6).

Don't forget that for the real thing it's out of 190, though. So 130 raw on the simulated is not 130 raw on the actual.

True. Unfortunately, Seperac's MBE calculator is not official. It's a rough estimate based on partial data from past exams. Seperac gives the disclaimer that all of the estimates can be off by +/-2 questions. It's best to take these estimates with a grain of salt and as a general reference for when comparing your scores to where you want to be.

[Lilly76]

ugh, i gotta wake up early tomorrow for the simulation. ah well...maybe it'll fix my sleeping schedule.

I keep waking up at 10am and then sleeping in until 1pm. I keep telling myself tomorrow is going to be the first day I get my sleep schedule on track. Then, after failing, I tell myself the next day will be the first day.

Haha I feel bad if I sleep in and don't get started before 10am.

[northwood]

ugh, i gotta wake up early tomorrow for the simulation. ah well...maybe it'll fix my sleeping schedule.

I keep waking up at 10am and then sleeping in until 1pm. I keep telling myself tomorrow is going to be the first day I get my sleep schedule on track. Then, after failing, I tell myself the next day will be the first day.

Haha I feel bad if I sleep in and don't get started before 10am.

I wish I could sleep in past 615... and be able to turn my brain "off" when I lay down to sleep at night

[Tanicius]

I wish I could sleep in past 615... and be able to turn my brain "off" when I lay down to sleep at night

I'm saving the last of my sleep meds for the two nights of the bar. I'll need them.

[bport hopeful]

I wish I could sleep in past 615... and be able to turn my brain "off" when I lay down to sleep at night

I'm saving the last of my sleep meds for the two nights of the bar. I'll need them.

Ill prolly just drink

[Tanicius]

I wish I could sleep in past 615... and be able to turn my brain "off" when I lay down to sleep at night

I'm saving the last of my sleep meds for the two nights of the bar. I'll need them.

Ill prolly just drink

I realized 1L that that was actually a coping strategy I had developed. It's why I went to the doctor and curbed some bad habits. If I let my sleeping schedule get out of whack and drink too often, I stop being able to wake up before noon and go to bed before 4am, let alone be productive before noon. It's why I started going to bed at midnight and waking up at 8am every single day I'm studying for the bar. I even stick to the 8am wakeup call on Saturdays and Sundays, because if I let it slip for so much as a few days I'll be back to square one. The first days back to work from vacation have been and will continue to be the most nonexistent sleeps of my life, forever. After I take vacations and lose my sleeping schedule, the mere knowledge on night before I come back that I have to wake up for something important again will keep me awake all night.

[bport hopeful]

A charity, seeking to raise funds, held a legally permitted raffle in which the prize is a new automobile. A week before the raffle, the organizer of the raffle contacted a friend who had purchased a raffle ticket. The organizer promised to ensure that the friend would win the raffle if the friend gave the organizer $1,000. The friend agreed and gave the organizer $1,000. On the day before the raffle, the friend began to feel guilty. He went to the organizer, renounced the scheme, and demanded his $1,000 back. The organizer refused. The next day at the raffle, the automobile was awarded to someone else.

Can the friend successfully bring a legal action against the organizer?
A. No, because the agreement between the friend and the organizer was illegal.
B. No, because the friend failed to take any action to prevent the raffle from being held.
C. Yes, because there was a valid contract between the organizer and the friend.
D. Yes, because the friend is entitled to a return of the $1,000 paid to the organizer.
Incorrect: Answer choice D is correct. Although the friend is not entitled to enforce the illegal agreement between him and the organizer, the friend is entitled to restitution with regard to the $1,000 paid to the organizer since he withdrew from the transaction before the raffle was held and did not engage in serious misconduct. For this reason, answer choice A is incorrect. Answer choice B is incorrect because, even though the friend’s failure to take action to prevent the raffle from being held may result in criminal liability, the friend’s action in withdrawing from the transaction before the illegal purpose was accomplished does give rise to the right to restitution. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although there was a valid offer and acceptance and valuable consideration was given by both the friend and the organizer, the contract was made for an illegal purpose and therefore is unenforceable.

I thought that with illegal contracts, you let the losses lie where they end up?

[Tanicius]

A charity, seeking to raise funds, held a legally permitted raffle in which the prize is a new automobile. A week before the raffle, the organizer of the raffle contacted a friend who had purchased a raffle ticket. The organizer promised to ensure that the friend would win the raffle if the friend gave the organizer $1,000. The friend agreed and gave the organizer $1,000. On the day before the raffle, the friend began to feel guilty. He went to the organizer, renounced the scheme, and demanded his $1,000 back. The organizer refused. The next day at the raffle, the automobile was awarded to someone else.

Can the friend successfully bring a legal action against the organizer?
A. No, because the agreement between the friend and the organizer was illegal.
B. No, because the friend failed to take any action to prevent the raffle from being held.
C. Yes, because there was a valid contract between the organizer and the friend.
D. Yes, because the friend is entitled to a return of the $1,000 paid to the organizer.
Incorrect: Answer choice D is correct. Although the friend is not entitled to enforce the illegal agreement between him and the organizer, the friend is entitled to restitution with regard to the $1,000 paid to the organizer since he withdrew from the transaction before the raffle was held and did not engage in serious misconduct. For this reason, answer choice A is incorrect. Answer choice B is incorrect because, even though the friend’s failure to take action to prevent the raffle from being held may result in criminal liability, the friend’s action in withdrawing from the transaction before the illegal purpose was accomplished does give rise to the right to restitution. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although there was a valid offer and acceptance and valuable consideration was given by both the friend and the organizer, the contract was made for an illegal purpose and therefore is unenforceable.

I thought that with illegal contracts, you let the losses lie where they end up?

The sticking point is serious misconduct, it seems. I would say trying to fraudulently win $1,000, which is basically a felony, would constitute serious misconduct and should bar you from restitution damages.

[Lilly76]

I wish I could sleep in past 615... and be able to turn my brain "off" when I lay down to sleep at night

I sleep fine at night, but if I take a nap my brain won't shut off. I feel like I'm semi-conscious. It's like my brain won't rest because in the back of mind I know that this is an hour I could be studying.

[northwood]

I wish I could sleep in past 615... and be able to turn my brain "off" when I lay down to sleep at night

I sleep fine at night, but if I take a nap my brain won't shut off. I feel like I'm semi-conscious. It's like my brain won't rest because in the back of mind I know that this is an hour I could be studying.

I keep reviewing the subject that Ive been working that day and trying to recite all of the notes to my pillow- as if somehow I can do this, then I will not have to take the darned test even though I know I will have to anyways.

[dreakol]

I wish I could sleep in past 615... and be able to turn my brain "off" when I lay down to sleep at night

I'm saving the last of my sleep meds for the two nights of the bar. I'll need them.

Ill prolly just drink

titcr

[lisjjen]

I feel fucked an I don't know what to do about it.

I got 48% on the MBE midterm, but I had been out of town the last two weeks of June so I hadn't watched K, Torts, or ConLaw yet.

I've done about 450 practice MBE questions and a couple dozen essays. I have been consistently putting in 3-4 hours a day but I don't know if that's enough. Probably not. See, Supra Note 1 ("I feel fucked an I don't know what to do about it.")

I want to do more, but I think I'm burnt out. I sit down to watch a lecture, and anything and everything on the internet is more interesting than doing work, so that by the time I finish my lecture(s) for the day, it's too late to do any practice tests. Today is the last day for substance review, and I've been stacking up lectures so that I'll be caught up from the two weeks I was gone in June. I guess I'll have to wait for the tests coming up this week to really assess where I'm at.

Am I seriously behind on how much work I'm doing every day?

[hous]

I feel fucked an I don't know what to do about it.

I got 48% on the MBE midterm, but I had been out of town the last two weeks of June so I hadn't watched K, Torts, or ConLaw yet.

I've done about 450 practice MBE questions and a couple dozen essays. I have been consistently putting in 3-4 hours a day but I don't know if that's enough. Probably not. See, Supra Note 1 ("I feel fucked an I don't know what to do about it.")

I want to do more, but I think I'm burnt out. I sit down to watch a lecture, and anything and everything on the internet is more interesting than doing work, so that by the time I finish my lecture(s) for the day, it's too late to do any practice tests. Today is the last day for substance review, and I've been stacking up lectures so that I'll be caught up from the two weeks I was gone in June. I guess I'll have to wait for the tests coming up this week to really assess where I'm at.

Am I seriously behind on how much work I'm doing every day?

I think you should rush to get the lectures complete before doing the practice problems. You can do them in the next three days.

[numbertwo88]

I seriously do not want to pay $100 to type this exam. This entire process is such a fucking money pit.

[bport hopeful]

Some of these are worded stupid or, in the alternative, I am very stupid

In March, when the buyer was 17, the seller delivered to the buyer a television set. At that time, the buyer agreed in writing to pay $400 for the set on July 1 when he would reach his eighteenth birthday. Eighteen is the applicable statutory age of majority, and on that date the buyer was to receive the proceeds of a trust. On July 1, when the reasonable value of the television set was $250, the buyer sent the seller a signed letter stating, "I'll only pay you $300; that is all the set is worth."

In an action against the buyer for money damages on July 2, what is the maximum amount that the seller will be entitled to recover?
A. Nothing
B. $250, the reasonable value of the set
C. $300, the amount the buyer promised to pay in his letter of July 1
D. $400, the original sale price
Answer choice C is correct. When a contract is made by an infant, it is voidable by the infant, but not the other party. This means that the infant may disaffirm (void) the contract and avoid any liability under it or choose to hold the adult party to the contract. The buyer's July 1 letter acted as a disaffirmation of the original contract and an offer to pay $300 for the television. Answer choice B is incorrect because the reasonable value calculation is used when a minor contracts for "necessities" before reaching the age of majority; a television is not a necessity. Answer choice D is incorrect because it fails to take into account that the buyer had no legal capacity to contract when he was 17. Answer choice A is incorrect because it fails to take into account that the buyer did have the legal capacity to contract on the buyer's 18th birthday, and in fact offered $300 for the television in the July 1 letter.

Where is the seller's acceptance?

[numbertwo88]

Some of these are worded stupid or, in the alternative, I am very stupid

In March, when the buyer was 17, the seller delivered to the buyer a television set. At that time, the buyer agreed in writing to pay $400 for the set on July 1 when he would reach his eighteenth birthday. Eighteen is the applicable statutory age of majority, and on that date the buyer was to receive the proceeds of a trust. On July 1, when the reasonable value of the television set was $250, the buyer sent the seller a signed letter stating, "I'll only pay you $300; that is all the set is worth."

In an action against the buyer for money damages on July 2, what is the maximum amount that the seller will be entitled to recover?
A. Nothing
B. $250, the reasonable value of the set
C. $300, the amount the buyer promised to pay in his letter of July 1
D. $400, the original sale price
Answer choice C is correct. When a contract is made by an infant, it is voidable by the infant, but not the other party. This means that the infant may disaffirm (void) the contract and avoid any liability under it or choose to hold the adult party to the contract. The buyer's July 1 letter acted as a disaffirmation of the original contract and an offer to pay $300 for the television. Answer choice B is incorrect because the reasonable value calculation is used when a minor contracts for "necessities" before reaching the age of majority; a television is not a necessity. Answer choice D is incorrect because it fails to take into account that the buyer had no legal capacity to contract when he was 17. Answer choice A is incorrect because it fails to take into account that the buyer did have the legal capacity to contract on the buyer's 18th birthday, and in fact offered $300 for the television in the July 1 letter.

Where is the seller's acceptance?

Was it when the TV was delivered?

[shemori]

Some of these are worded stupid or, in the alternative, I am very stupid

In March, when the buyer was 17, the seller delivered to the buyer a television set. At that time, the buyer agreed in writing to pay $400 for the set on July 1 when he would reach his eighteenth birthday. Eighteen is the applicable statutory age of majority, and on that date the buyer was to receive the proceeds of a trust. On July 1, when the reasonable value of the television set was $250, the buyer sent the seller a signed letter stating, "I'll only pay you $300; that is all the set is worth."

In an action against the buyer for money damages on July 2, what is the maximum amount that the seller will be entitled to recover?
A. Nothing
B. $250, the reasonable value of the set
C. $300, the amount the buyer promised to pay in his letter of July 1
D. $400, the original sale price
Answer choice C is correct. When a contract is made by an infant, it is voidable by the infant, but not the other party. This means that the infant may disaffirm (void) the contract and avoid any liability under it or choose to hold the adult party to the contract. The buyer's July 1 letter acted as a disaffirmation of the original contract and an offer to pay $300 for the television. Answer choice B is incorrect because the reasonable value calculation is used when a minor contracts for "necessities" before reaching the age of majority; a television is not a necessity. Answer choice D is incorrect because it fails to take into account that the buyer had no legal capacity to contract when he was 17. Answer choice A is incorrect because it fails to take into account that the buyer did have the legal capacity to contract on the buyer's 18th birthday, and in fact offered $300 for the television in the July 1 letter.

Where is the seller's acceptance?

Was it when the TV was delivered?

You mean where was the acceptance of the July 1 offer? yeah the question is worded confusingly . They want you to assume an acceptance I guess.

[lisjjen]

Some of these are worded stupid or, in the alternative, I am very stupid

In March, when the buyer was 17, the seller delivered to the buyer a television set. At that time, the buyer agreed in writing to pay $400 for the set on July 1 when he would reach his eighteenth birthday. Eighteen is the applicable statutory age of majority, and on that date the buyer was to receive the proceeds of a trust. On July 1, when the reasonable value of the television set was $250, the buyer sent the seller a signed letter stating, "I'll only pay you $300; that is all the set is worth."

In an action against the buyer for money damages on July 2, what is the maximum amount that the seller will be entitled to recover?
A. Nothing
B. $250, the reasonable value of the set
C. $300, the amount the buyer promised to pay in his letter of July 1
D. $400, the original sale price
Answer choice C is correct. When a contract is made by an infant, it is voidable by the infant, but not the other party. This means that the infant may disaffirm (void) the contract and avoid any liability under it or choose to hold the adult party to the contract. The buyer's July 1 letter acted as a disaffirmation of the original contract and an offer to pay $300 for the television. Answer choice B is incorrect because the reasonable value calculation is used when a minor contracts for "necessities" before reaching the age of majority; a television is not a necessity. Answer choice D is incorrect because it fails to take into account that the buyer had no legal capacity to contract when he was 17. Answer choice A is incorrect because it fails to take into account that the buyer did have the legal capacity to contract on the buyer's 18th birthday, and in fact offered $300 for the television in the July 1 letter.

Where is the seller's acceptance?

Was it when the TV was delivered?

You mean where was the acceptance of the July 1 offer? yeah the question is worded confusingly . They want you to assume an acceptance I guess.

I mean if he's going to court to collect on the K, it isn't too much of a stretch to see him accepting.

[klbisho4]

Some of these are worded stupid or, in the alternative, I am very stupid

In March, when the buyer was 17, the seller delivered to the buyer a television set. At that time, the buyer agreed in writing to pay $400 for the set on July 1 when he would reach his eighteenth birthday. Eighteen is the applicable statutory age of majority, and on that date the buyer was to receive the proceeds of a trust. On July 1, when the reasonable value of the television set was $250, the buyer sent the seller a signed letter stating, "I'll only pay you $300; that is all the set is worth."

In an action against the buyer for money damages on July 2, what is the maximum amount that the seller will be entitled to recover?
A. Nothing
B. $250, the reasonable value of the set
C. $300, the amount the buyer promised to pay in his letter of July 1
D. $400, the original sale price
Answer choice C is correct. When a contract is made by an infant, it is voidable by the infant, but not the other party. This means that the infant may disaffirm (void) the contract and avoid any liability under it or choose to hold the adult party to the contract. The buyer's July 1 letter acted as a disaffirmation of the original contract and an offer to pay $300 for the television. Answer choice B is incorrect because the reasonable value calculation is used when a minor contracts for "necessities" before reaching the age of majority; a television is not a necessity. Answer choice D is incorrect because it fails to take into account that the buyer had no legal capacity to contract when he was 17. Answer choice A is incorrect because it fails to take into account that the buyer did have the legal capacity to contract on the buyer's 18th birthday, and in fact offered $300 for the television in the July 1 letter.

Where is the seller's acceptance?

Was it when the TV was delivered?

You mean where was the acceptance of the July 1 offer? yeah the question is worded confusingly . They want you to assume an acceptance I guess.

I don't see why acceptance would matter in this question. It's asking you about contracting with a minor, so all you need to do is apply the rule of contracting with minors.