Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[ndp1234]

If any of you need a sugar rush to get through the day, and if you have the McDonalds app they're giving away Free Small Smoothie or Frappe no purchase necessary. This may just be for the NYC area though.

[AlanShore]

Does anyone do the mixed sets and have several questions where you definitely knew the law but just have trouble remembering the exact rule/details?

[ultimolugar]

Does anyone do the mixed sets and have several questions where you definitely knew the law but just have trouble remembering the exact rule/details?

I do the mixed sets and then curse Themis for being way too nitpicky.

[Easy-E]

Does anyone do the mixed sets and have several questions where you definitely knew the law but just have trouble remembering the exact rule/details?

Sure. I think eliminating other answer choices helps in these situations. I find a lot of wrong answer choices either misstate the facts or the law, and can be eliminated outright. Not gonna help every time, but it's useful when you can't call the rule to mind.

[AlanShore]

Does anyone do the mixed sets and have several questions where you definitely knew the law but just have trouble remembering the exact rule/details?

Sure. I think eliminating other answer choices helps in these situations. I find a lot of wrong answer choices either misstate the facts or the law, and can be eliminated outright. Not gonna help every time, but it's useful when you can't call the rule to mind.

thanks - good advice. doesnt happen often but probably at least 5 per set. I try to review all the stuff I couldnt remember.. but theres always new stuff I forgot next set.

[Fivedham]

New MBE pet peeve: Con law questions where the right answer is phrased as, "Plaintiff will win because there's no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest" when the affected class is one of the two intermediate scrutiny classes, and there is no answer using IS language. "Answer X is correct because even though the class gets intermediate scrutiny, if he showed there was no rational relationship to the government interest, he'd still win." Deceptive, intended to throw you off your game even when you know the rule. NCBE's a mofo.

[Vantwins]

Are we expected to memorize all of the outines?

I did all of my graded essays from memory and the last few were pretty good (except commercial paper), but I'm concerned I won't be able to remember everything come game time.

It's rough and too much info to retain. Rack up the points on the topics you know decently to make up for another essay or two where you're basically making crap up!

Yesterday, I read through my corporations law stuff, and wrote a decent essay answer that matched the major points in the sample answer. Today I'm reading through partnerships and again wrote a decent answer, but I feel like I already forgot 80% of corporations that I studied yesterday. It is so frustrating.

I am basically slamming my face on the keyboard for secured transactions and commercial paper. Any broad overviews for CP would be helpful.

Honestly, all I'm doing is memorizing the two standards for (1) whether it is a negotiable instrument, and (2) whether a holder is in due course. I'm also just looking at what defense there is under real vs. personal.

After that, just sue up the chain (the chain of the instrument passing hands) regardless of who was at fault, until you get to the wrongdoer.

Agreed. One thing I'm doing differently is using the MD frequently tested subjects that Themis sent us and tailoring my studies to the ones that are actually tested. A majority of the UCC stuff is not tested.

Yes, and that's why I'm reviewing professional conduct because even though it's mostly common sense, I haven't reviewed it since watching the lecture and that is one thing we're absolutely guaranteed to see on essay day.

On another note, I am sure everyone here will pass with flying colors!!

which is why I'm reviewing professional conduct for the first time since watching the lectures - that's one area that we are definitely going to be tested on!

[ChocolateTruffle]

If any of you need a sugar rush to get through the day, and if you have the McDonalds app they're giving away Free Small Smoothie or Frappe no purchase necessary. This may just be for the NYC area though.

You always seem to know about free food and good deals! Which app do you use?

[ndp1234]

If any of you need a sugar rush to get through the day, and if you have the McDonalds app they're giving away Free Small Smoothie or Frappe no purchase necessary. This may just be for the NYC area though.

You always seem to know about free food and good deals! Which app do you use?

LOL. I just love food so I download all the apps for different popular food establishments. Most fast food places have them. I'm also on Twitter a lot. So most of these great deals are usually trending topics.

[unidentifiable]

If any of you need a sugar rush to get through the day, and if you have the McDonalds app they're giving away Free Small Smoothie or Frappe no purchase necessary. This may just be for the NYC area though.

You always seem to know about free food and good deals! Which app do you use?

LOL. I just love food so I download all the apps for different popular food establishments. Most fast food places have them. I'm also on Twitter a lot. So most of these great deals are usually trending topics.

Also, if you like free shit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/freebies/

[ChocolateTruffle]

If any of you need a sugar rush to get through the day, and if you have the McDonalds app they're giving away Free Small Smoothie or Frappe no purchase necessary. This may just be for the NYC area though.

You always seem to know about free food and good deals! Which app do you use?

LOL. I just love food so I download all the apps for different popular food establishments. Most fast food places have them. I'm also on Twitter a lot. So most of these great deals are usually trending topics.

Also, if you like free shit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/freebies/

Cool, thanks, guys!

[rambleon65]

I also HATE it when the answer turns on whether someone was negligent or grossly negligent--even when i get it right.

[ultimolugar]

I also HATE it when the answer turns on whether someone was negligent or grossly negligent--even when i get it right.

Just had a civ pro question about a temporary injunction for non-competes - specifically, what the time limit was absent a showing of a need to extend it ... (14 days, if you were wondering).

[NaeDeen]

Are we expected to memorize all of the outines?

I did all of my graded essays from memory and the last few were pretty good (except commercial paper), but I'm concerned I won't be able to remember everything come game time.

It's rough and too much info to retain. Rack up the points on the topics you know decently to make up for another essay or two where you're basically making crap up!

Yesterday, I read through my corporations law stuff, and wrote a decent essay answer that matched the major points in the sample answer. Today I'm reading through partnerships and again wrote a decent answer, but I feel like I already forgot 80% of corporations that I studied yesterday. It is so frustrating.

I am basically slamming my face on the keyboard for secured transactions and commercial paper. Any broad overviews for CP would be helpful.

Honestly, all I'm doing is memorizing the two standards for (1) whether it is a negotiable instrument, and (2) whether a holder is in due course. I'm also just looking at what defense there is under real vs. personal.

After that, just sue up the chain (the chain of the instrument passing hands) regardless of who was at fault, until you get to the wrongdoer.

Agreed. One thing I'm doing differently is using the MD frequently tested subjects that Themis sent us and tailoring my studies to the ones that are actually tested. A majority of the UCC stuff is not tested.

Yes, and that's why I'm reviewing professional conduct because even though it's mostly common sense, I haven't reviewed it since watching the lecture and that is one thing we're absolutely guaranteed to see on essay day.

On another note, I am sure everyone here will pass with flying colors!!

which is why I'm reviewing professional conduct for the first time since watching the lectures - that's one area that we are definitely going to be tested on!

That's weird, the comment part I bolded was not part of my original post, it must have been yours Vantwins.
As for PR, I've reviewed it quite often since the lecture since it's not as much to read. The lecturer was pretty cool and I had him for corporations I believe. The rules are definitely intuitive but we must know them cold according to our MD bar app...in addition to the code of judicial conduct. So I'd review those also...not now lol

[minimumcontacts]

So who else here started the 100 PQ set from the book and didn't realize there was a supplement?

Halfway through I remembered so I had to stop the clock to go print out the supplement. Annoying.

I was going to do it time and on paper / whatnot... but I decided to just do it like the 50 question in interactive mode. Based on simulated timing really won't be an issue and i found that I tend to learn better if I know immediately (a) whether I got it wrong/right, and (b) why i got it wrong/right.

They were noticeably harder than the other mixed sets though... as well as few questions that were just.. idk... off. anyone else?

yeah a lot of those questions were just shit.

There were some that seemed to have two potentially correct answers and there were others that seemed to have no "good" answers that just involved picking the least shitty one. I remember there was a contract question that

[+] Spoiler

involved a repudiation where the buyer relied on the repudiation and purchased replacement goods. The seller recovered the difference between the new contract and the repudiated and the question asked why. One answer said because the seller repudiated and another answer recited how expectation damages are calculated. Obviously but for the repudiation the buyer would not be able to recover and the recovery would be in expectation damages. So both seemed to be right, but I chose the repudiation option because that seemed to be more what the question was asking about. Nope the answer was the seller could recover expectation damages.

Yes!

[+] Spoiler

The question said that BECAUSE the repudiator COULD retract its repudiation, this wasn't the determining answer. HOWEVER, this answer ignores the rule that if the other party relies on a valid repudiation, that retraction is not allowed. Here, the non-repudiating party had relied on the repudiation and signed a contract w/ a different party (at a higher price).

I'm not making that rule up re repudiation and retraction, right?

That set was rough. The only upside is I kept seeing patterns where I'm not super strong on the BLL, so it'll give me some places to focus on over the next few days. Otherwise? I'd want to sob at my score.

[Fivedham]

What's up with the "Read & Outline" essay tasks? You just write a short outline of the essay answer?

[Hmasterflex]

Texas doesn't use the mee and has a gripload of additional topics. On several of them, the Themis materials had all the crucial points of law but failed to connect the dots (like forgetting an application paragraph in a jury instruction). Took an estates and administration practice essay and was certain I was going to fail -- felt like I had no clue wtf was going on. Got everything right -- straight intestacy questions. On one hand -- i feel more confident in my ability to bs -- on the other hand, i feel completely unprepared.

I hate the bar

[unidentifiable]

What's up with the "Read & Outline" essay tasks? You just write a short outline of the essay answer?

yep, i'll issue spot and write brief rule statements. if its a difficult issue, i try to do a little more (maybe some fact analysis).

If its something I totally do not know, i'll try to bullshit it just to see what happens.

I spend anywhere from 10-15 minutes on these.

[NaeDeen]

Well so much for not getting upset about a messed up MC question. *sigh*

[Robb]

Anyone else get this "wild deed" question?

[+] Spoiler

Question 6229

The owner of a restaurant decided to pursue a different line of work, so he conveyed the restaurant to an up-and-coming chef. The owner executed a valid, written deed to the chef, who did not record the deed. The chef was talented, but he did not understand how to run a business, so his restaurant failed within a few months. A culinary school, in search of a new location to hold their cooking classes, purchased the restaurant from the chef. The chef executed a valid, written deed to the culinary school, and the culinary school promptly recorded the deed. After the sale, but before the culinary school had a chance to occupy the restaurant space, the original owner noticed that the restaurant was vacant. The owner then conveyed the space to a fast-food chain, and the fast food chain promptly recorded the deed. The owner did not tell the fast-food chain of his earlier conveyance of the restaurant to the chef and the fast-food chain otherwise lacked actual knowledge of this conveyance. Subsequently, the chef recorded the deed from the owner conveying the restaurant to him. When the fast-food chain attempted to take possession of the restaurant, it discovered the culinary school had moved into the restaurant. The fast-food chain has filed an appropriate action for quiet title against the owner, the chef and the cooking school. The jurisdiction in which the restaurant is located applies a race-notice recording statute. Who will prevail?

Answers:

The owner
The chef
The culinary school
Correct Answer: The fast-food chain

Rationale:

Answer choice D is correct. Although an instrument is recorded and indexed in the recording office, it’s possible that it was not recorded in such a way as to give notice to subsequent purchasers. The school’s recording would not suffice to put the fast-food chain on notice of the earlier sale because the chef never recorded his deed. A search by the owner’s name would indicate that the owner had the ability to transfer a valid deed to the fast-food restaurant. Here, the restaurant is located in a race-notice jurisdiction. Under the race-notice statute, the culinary school’s prior recording of the deed from the chef to the culinary school does not count because it is a “wild deed”—a deed not within the chain of title—due to the failure of the chef to promptly record his deed to the restaurant that he received from the owner. In addition, the fast-food chain did not have inquiry notice of the owner’s deed to the chef at the time of its purchase of the restaurant from the owner because the restaurant was then unoccupied. The fast food chain also did not have actual or constructive notice of the deed to the chef. For these reasons, the fast food chain will prevail, and thus answer choices A, B, and C are incorrect.

fuck that.

Just got this. The analysis says that 80% of people get the same wrong answer.

Agree: fuck that.

[ndp1234]

LOL just got back my graded essay for that insanely crazy will question. 50. One week before the exam. Cheers.

[PotLuck]

I hate admin and wills so much. PLEASE NO ADMIN OR WILLS ON THE MEE FOR THE LOVE OF THE LEGAL GODS.

[ndp1234]

I hate admin and wills so much. PLEASE NO ADMIN OR WILLS ON THE MEE FOR THE LOVE OF THE LEGAL GODS.

Wills was on the Feb 2016 MEE, so it will most likely be a trusts question this time around. Can't speak to Admin because I'm in a UBE state.

[pheerful22]

Texas doesn't use the mee and has a gripload of additional topics. On several of them, the Themis materials had all the crucial points of law but failed to connect the dots (like forgetting an application paragraph in a jury instruction). Took an estates and administration practice essay and was certain I was going to fail -- felt like I had no clue wtf was going on. Got everything right -- straight intestacy questions. On one hand -- i feel more confident in my ability to bs -- on the other hand, i feel completely unprepared.

I hate the bar

'

I too am taking the Texas bar - the sheer volume of state specific subjects is crap. There weren't even half this many when I took the arizona bar in 2009 but i know a lot of stuff has changed.

[bobbypin]

I'm struggling with "but for" in negligence. Here are 2 examples that I don't understand how the original tortfeasor could be responsible:

[+] Spoiler

A city ordinance makes it unlawful to park a motor vehicle on a city street within ten feet of a fire hydrant. At 1:55 p.m. a man, realizing he must be in the bank before it closed at 2:00 p.m., and finding no other space available, parked his automobile in front of a fire hydrant on a city street. The man then hurried into the bank, leaving his aged neighbor as a passenger in the rear seat of the car. About 5 minutes later, and while the man was still in the bank, a driver was driving down the street. The driver swerved to avoid what he mistakenly thought was a hole in the street and sideswiped the man's car. The man's car was turned over on top of the hydrant, breaking the hydrant and causing a small flood of water. The man's car was severely damaged and the neighbor was badly injured. There is no applicable guest statute.

If the city asserts a claim against the driver for the damage to the fire hydrant and the driver was negligent in swerving his car, his negligence is
A: a cause in fact and a legal cause of the city's harm.
B: a cause in fact, but not a legal cause, of the city's harm because the man parked illegally.
C: a legal cause, but not a cause in fact, of the city's harm because the man's car struck the hydrant.
D: neither a legal cause nor a cause in fact of the city's harm.

The explanation for the answer is: A is the correct answer. Negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damages. The driver had a duty to drive with ordinary care, and breached that duty by sideswiping a parked car and damaging the fire hydrant. Therefore, the issue here is causation. The driver was the cause-in-fact of the damage because but for the driver's sideswiping of the man's car, the car would not have overturned onto the hydrant and caused damage. Likewise, the driver is the proximate cause of the damage because the resulting damages were a foreseeable result of the driver's negligence. The unforeseeable manner in which the damage occurred does not relieve the driver of liability. Thus, the driver's negligence is the actual and proximate cause of the city's harm. Therefore, B, C, and D are incorrect.

I understand that but for the driver sideswiping man's car, the city's hydrant would not have been damaged, but wouldn't that also be the case if the man hadn't have parked there in the first place?

[+] Spoiler

While driving at a speed in excess of the statutory limit, the defendant negligently collided with another car, and the disabled vehicles blocked two of the highway's three northbound lanes. When the plaintiff approached the scene two minutes later, he slowed his car to see if he could help those involved in the collision. As he slowed, he was rear- ended by the driver of another vehicle. The plaintiff, who sustained damage to his car and was seriously injured, brought an action against the defendant to recover damages. The jurisdiction adheres to the traditional common law rules pertaining to contributory negligence.

If the defendant moves to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, should the motion be granted?
A: Yes, because it was the driver, not the defendant, who collided with the plaintiff's car and caused the plaintiff's injuries.
B: Yes, because the plaintiff could have safely passed the disabled vehicles in the traffic lane that remained open.
C: No, because a jury could find that the plaintiff's injury arose from a risk that was a continuing consequence of the defendant's negligence.
D: No, because the defendant was driving in excess of the statutory limit when he negligently caused the first accident.

The explanation for the answer is: C is the correct answer. This question addresses the issue of causation in a negligence action, and causation requires that the defendant's negligence be both the actual and legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The defendant is the actual cause of the plaintiff's injuries because but for the defendant's negligent speeding, the plaintiff would not have been injured. Furthermore, it is possible the defendant is the legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries because it is foreseeable that speeding would cause an accident, and that the accident would create a dangerous road condition leading to subsequent accidents.
A is incorrect because it is possible that the driver was a foreseeable independent intervening force, and his collision with the plaintiff's car was a foreseeable result of the accident caused by the defendant. B is incorrect because even if the plaintiff was negligent in not taking the open lane, his contributory negligence would only go to damages, it would not automatically sever the defendant's liability. D is incorrect because although it is the right outcome, it is based on the wrong reasoning. Even if the defendant was speeding when he caused the first accident, the plaintiff must still prove that the defendant was the actual and proximate cause of the second accident, between the plaintiff and the driver.

How is it foreseeable to a speeder involved in a car accident that a lookie-loo would be rear-ended by another driver?

Really, my plan for the MBE is to say the person is liable but I want to understand why.