Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[zot1]

Text exchange with a friend:

Friend: hey I'm going to a bar by your house come out!!!

Me: lol I would love to but I'm taking the bar on Tuesday so I'm studying

Friend: I've been studying all week too! My real estate exam is on the 3rd.



(Inexplicable rage at the comparison)

Lololololol real estate exam...

[zot1]

Raise your hand if you haven't done a lot today and feel super guilty about it but not guilty enough to actually do something about it!

*Slowly raises hand*

I'm done soon, 2 sets of 50 MBE questions and maybe a secured transactions essay later. Dear God I just want to have a beer and fall asleep by the pool.

Yes, yes, and yes. I've decided not to do anymore MBEs or essays and am literally spending the time now until forever rereading my outlines.

I'm drinking wine and watching The Goonies, y'all.

You weren't at Asser Levy Rec center watching it outside were you? I took the evening off and watched Goonies there with my wife. Totally worth it.

Hahaha nope! I watched from home... in a different state. But I'm glad you watched it too. We need this.

[Peanut666]

Long time lurker here and freaking out about the next few days, this board has been the most helpful thing to read so far btw.

For NY, I need advice: I've totally put off doing anything in regards to Secured Transactions and Admin Law, never took them in school, and got to them too late to really care. Are they worth trying to cram into my head over the next day or likely not going to be worth giving up time for to review other subjects? Are there certain pts for those subjects that I should just focus on and hope that's all they ask about?

I'm so over this test, I honestly feel I barely care anymore about the results, I just want to be done with it and sleep a few days straight.

[smalogna]

Text exchange with a friend:

Friend: hey I'm going to a bar by your house come out!!!

Me: lol I would love to but I'm taking the bar on Tuesday so I'm studying

Friend: I've been studying all week too! My real estate exam is on the 3rd.



(Inexplicable rage at the comparison)

Lololololol real estate exam...

Just spit my coffee all over my keyboard. LOL

[smalogna]

Long time lurker here and freaking out about the next few days, this board has been the most helpful thing to read so far btw.

For NY, I need advice: I've totally put off doing anything in regards to Secured Transactions and Admin Law, never took them in school, and got to them too late to really care. Are they worth trying to cram into my head over the next day or likely not going to be worth giving up time for to review other subjects? Are there certain pts for those subjects that I should just focus on and hope that's all they ask about?

I'm so over this test, I honestly feel I barely care anymore about the results, I just want to be done with it and sleep a few days straight.

Admin I would be careful with, this will be the second exam since it was added and it didn't show up on the first one so I think it's a pretty good shot this time.

Sec. Transactions has shown up on 6 out of 212 essays so if you like those odds feel free to not look at it.

[zor]

Suggested pace today... 7.3%.

Best thing ever: my partner has strep. If he gets me sick, I will literally murder him and hopefully will have studied this enough to know how to get away with it.

[addy11]

Alright I've finally got one, could use some insight

[+] Spoiler

A driver negligently drove his car into a pedestrian, breaking her leg. The pedestrian's leg was put in a cast, and she used crutches to get about. While shopping at the local supermarket, the pedestrian non-negligently placed one of her crutches on a banana peel that had been negligently left on the floor by the manager of the supermarket's produce department. The pedestrian's crutch slipped on the peel, and she fell to the floor, breaking her arm. Had the pedestrian stepped on the banana peel at a time when she did not have to use crutches, she would have regained her balance.
The pedestrian sued the driver and the supermarket for her injuries.
The pedestrian will be able to recover from

A The driver, for her broken leg only.
B The driver, for both of her injuries, and the supermarket, for her broken arm only.
C The supermarket, for both of her injuries.
D The driver, for her broken leg only, and the supermarket, for her broken arm only.

Answer choice B is correct. Generally, a defendant is liable for harm caused by foreseeable intervening forces that occur between the time of the defendant’s act and the plaintiff’s injury. When an intervening force is unforeseeable, a defendant will still be liable for his acts if the result was nevertheless foreseeable. Subsequent negligence usually is considered a foreseeable intervening force, but even if the supermarket’s negligence were not foreseeable, the result—plaintiff’s slipping and falling as a consequence of using crutches—was foreseeable.

I know that almost everything is foreseeable when it comes to later injuries due to an injury from negligence. However, this seemed way disconnected to me. Is this just a bad Themis question? Or am I not thinking broadly enough? I thought once someone was patched up and on the road to recovery, any further negligence isn't attributable to the original tortfeasor?

This is a preposterously bad question. I would still say D after reading their explanation. The only subsequent negligence you should generally be held liable for is something that naturally occurs as a result of the injury. So if the person got hit by a pickup truck while riding in the ambulance because of the broken arm, that could definitely be within the scope. And medical malpractice is certainly within the scope. But this is runaway scope. Ugh, Themis!!

Can I just ask -- is this a modified question or one that is taken verbatim?

[hadisious]

Alright I've finally got one, could use some insight

[+] Spoiler

A driver negligently drove his car into a pedestrian, breaking her leg. The pedestrian's leg was put in a cast, and she used crutches to get about. While shopping at the local supermarket, the pedestrian non-negligently placed one of her crutches on a banana peel that had been negligently left on the floor by the manager of the supermarket's produce department. The pedestrian's crutch slipped on the peel, and she fell to the floor, breaking her arm. Had the pedestrian stepped on the banana peel at a time when she did not have to use crutches, she would have regained her balance.
The pedestrian sued the driver and the supermarket for her injuries.
The pedestrian will be able to recover from

A The driver, for her broken leg only.
B The driver, for both of her injuries, and the supermarket, for her broken arm only.
C The supermarket, for both of her injuries.
D The driver, for her broken leg only, and the supermarket, for her broken arm only.

Answer choice B is correct. Generally, a defendant is liable for harm caused by foreseeable intervening forces that occur between the time of the defendant’s act and the plaintiff’s injury. When an intervening force is unforeseeable, a defendant will still be liable for his acts if the result was nevertheless foreseeable. Subsequent negligence usually is considered a foreseeable intervening force, but even if the supermarket’s negligence were not foreseeable, the result—plaintiff’s slipping and falling as a consequence of using crutches—was foreseeable.

I know that almost everything is foreseeable when it comes to later injuries due to an injury from negligence. However, this seemed way disconnected to me. Is this just a bad Themis question? Or am I not thinking broadly enough? I thought once someone was patched up and on the road to recovery, any further negligence isn't attributable to the original tortfeasor?

This is a preposterously bad question. I would still say D after reading their explanation. The only subsequent negligence you should generally be held liable for is something that naturally occurs as a result of the injury. So if the person got hit by a pickup truck while riding in the ambulance because of the broken arm, that could definitely be within the scope. And medical malpractice is certainly within the scope. But this is runaway scope. Ugh, Themis!!

Can I just ask -- is this a modified question or one that is taken verbatim?

Thanks for the replies everyone. How can I tell if it's a modified one? It doesn't say "NCBE Modified yada yada" at the bottom. What exactly does that mean anyway? Some of the questions Themis makes up? Others are verbatim from old administered MBEs? Does that mean this one was from a prior real MBE!?

That said, I went back and looked - 72% picked D

[addy11]

Alright I've finally got one, could use some insight

[+] Spoiler

A driver negligently drove his car into a pedestrian, breaking her leg. The pedestrian's leg was put in a cast, and she used crutches to get about. While shopping at the local supermarket, the pedestrian non-negligently placed one of her crutches on a banana peel that had been negligently left on the floor by the manager of the supermarket's produce department. The pedestrian's crutch slipped on the peel, and she fell to the floor, breaking her arm. Had the pedestrian stepped on the banana peel at a time when she did not have to use crutches, she would have regained her balance.
The pedestrian sued the driver and the supermarket for her injuries.
The pedestrian will be able to recover from

A The driver, for her broken leg only.
B The driver, for both of her injuries, and the supermarket, for her broken arm only.
C The supermarket, for both of her injuries.
D The driver, for her broken leg only, and the supermarket, for her broken arm only.

Answer choice B is correct. Generally, a defendant is liable for harm caused by foreseeable intervening forces that occur between the time of the defendant’s act and the plaintiff’s injury. When an intervening force is unforeseeable, a defendant will still be liable for his acts if the result was nevertheless foreseeable. Subsequent negligence usually is considered a foreseeable intervening force, but even if the supermarket’s negligence were not foreseeable, the result—plaintiff’s slipping and falling as a consequence of using crutches—was foreseeable.

I know that almost everything is foreseeable when it comes to later injuries due to an injury from negligence. However, this seemed way disconnected to me. Is this just a bad Themis question? Or am I not thinking broadly enough? I thought once someone was patched up and on the road to recovery, any further negligence isn't attributable to the original tortfeasor?

This is a preposterously bad question. I would still say D after reading their explanation. The only subsequent negligence you should generally be held liable for is something that naturally occurs as a result of the injury. So if the person got hit by a pickup truck while riding in the ambulance because of the broken arm, that could definitely be within the scope. And medical malpractice is certainly within the scope. But this is runaway scope. Ugh, Themis!!

Can I just ask -- is this a modified question or one that is taken verbatim?

Thanks for the replies everyone. How can I tell if it's a modified one? It doesn't say "NCBE Modified yada yada" at the bottom. What exactly does that mean anyway? Some of the questions Themis makes up? Others are verbatim from old administered MBEs? Does that mean this one was from a prior real MBE!?

That said, I went back and looked - 72% picked D

Ugh. Questions like this are treacherous. And yeah, it's the NCBE modified disclaimer at the bottom. Themis almost certainly just takes questions and tweaks them, either to add in new concepts or to test a different concept than the bar examiners tested, while maintaining the MBE style. And I guess that does mean that this was a legit question... but as I said, I'm not going to go into Wednesday thinking that scope is this broad. If I get a question like this I may reconsider, but otherwise I am going to ignore whatever this question is meant to teach us.

[addy11]

fuck i just realized i completely forgot to study ny civil practice...is it worth trying to cram it all in one day or should i just give up and pray that theres no essay related to it? HELP

I kind of did the same. Between 140 pages of CPLR and generally hating civ pro, I put this off forever. But now that I am much more comfortable with federal civil procedure than I ever was in law school, I am going back and watching the lectures (not reading), and finding that helpful and not too granular. I recommend them to you!

[sd5289]

Long time lurker here and freaking out about the next few days, this board has been the most helpful thing to read so far btw.

For NY, I need advice: I've totally put off doing anything in regards to Secured Transactions and Admin Law, never took them in school, and got to them too late to really care. Are they worth trying to cram into my head over the next day or likely not going to be worth giving up time for to review other subjects? Are there certain pts for those subjects that I should just focus on and hope that's all they ask about?

I'm so over this test, I honestly feel I barely care anymore about the results, I just want to be done with it and sleep a few days straight.

Admin I would be careful with, this will be the second exam since it was added and it didn't show up on the first one so I think it's a pretty good shot this time.

Sec. Transactions has shown up on 6 out of 212 essays so if you like those odds feel free to not look at it.

I agree about Admin since it wasn't on the last one, which was the first time they would have tested on it. I'd spend more time on Admin (specifically the rule-making vs adjudicative hearing distinction, the notice and open comment requirements for rule-making, administrative investigatory and subpoena procedures, and the due process rights a person has at adjudicative hearings).

As far as Sec. Transactions go, I'd just focus on attachment of a security interest and perfection (filing financing statement after executing a security agreement with the debtor, or if you if you don't have one of those, with the permission of the debtor). Also the purchase money security interest ("PMSI"), which automatically attaches even without a security agreement.

[sd5289]

Suggested pace today... 7.3%.

Best thing ever: my partner has strep. If he gets me sick, I will literally murder him and hopefully will have studied this enough to know how to get away with it.

This is partially why my wife has spent the past two weeks up at her parent's house. And also because I wanted no human around me during these last two weeks, even a human I love.

ETA: mine is 7.5%. Sure Themis, I'll do all 26 assignments you have me scheduled for both today and tomorrow. Even though I have no plans to study tomorrow (certainly not doing any MBE's or essays).

[zot1]

I just got a pep talk email from my advisor regarding the exam, including a suggestion to take tomorrow off. With that in mind, I plan to be as productive as possible today so I can let myself go tomorrow.

[zot1]

Just did the final MBE set. That was bittersweet--I was happy it was the last one. It can only mean that the real thing is about to happen. Not really feeling like doing essays today at all, but want to review. Maybe I'll just outline the essays and see if I generally would have gotten it right.

These final days feel WEIRD.

[Pleasye]

These final days feel WEIRD.

Yup. And it's not a good weird.

[zot1]

These final days feel WEIRD.

Yup. And it's not a good weird.

Nope. Like I said yesterday, I feel like a cow who knows that I'm about to walk into the slaughterhouse. Woo hoo!

[laduper]

NY people - I made a 4-page handwritten chart of FRCP v. CPLR timing stuff; some of it is rather incomprehensible because of my writing/organization, but hopefully it's helpful. I had to take pictures with my phone because my scanner doesn't work...

Page 1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7a6ut8ax29wlo ... 2.jpg?dl=0

Page 2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sb5ki1xy89hhp ... 2.jpg?dl=0

Page 3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcumybffuibow ... 9.jpg?dl=0

Page 4: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lx43qfca4dbte ... 8.jpg?dl=0

[Ahyis]

These final days feel WEIRD.

Yup. And it's not a good weird.

Someone tell me to actually review my outlines. All I want to do is watch Netflix...

[zot1]

These final days feel WEIRD.

Yup. And it's not a good weird.

Someone tell me to actually review my outlines. All I want to do is watch Netflix...

I started today saying I'd be really good today because I'm taking tomorrow off completely. I did an MBE set and outlined three essays. But then the Dodgers game came up and it's a big game for Greinke. Yes, I'm still watching the game.

[zot1]

These final days feel WEIRD.

Yup. And it's not a good weird.

Someone tell me to actually review my outlines. All I want to do is watch Netflix...

I started today saying I'd be really good today because I'm taking tomorrow off completely. I did an MBE set and outlined three essays. But then the Dodgers game came up and it's a big game for Greinke. Yes, I'm still watching the game.

Yes, I realize I'm not actually helping you either.

[ineptimusprime]

Isn't a merchant any business person (not necessarily one who deals in goods of the kind) for purposes of the firm offer rule? If so, Themis is wrong on this question I just missed.

[Confused7]

Isn't a merchant any business person (not necessarily one who deals in goods of the kind) for purposes of the firm offer rule? If so, Themis is wrong on this question I just missed.

I think you're right. This is Themis' definition of a merchant for the firm offer rule: "a merchant includes not only a person who regularly deals in the type of goods involved in the transaction, but also any business person when the transaction is of a commercial nature." Can I ask what the question was?

[Ahyis]

Isn't a merchant any business person (not necessarily one who deals in goods of the kind) for purposes of the firm offer rule? If so, Themis is wrong on this question I just missed.

No, you're only a merchant if you deal in those goods. If you're a shoe salesman, and you're selling shoes, you're a merchant. But when you sell your old Macbook Pro to your buddy, you're not a merchant (although it would still be UCC, since its goods).

EDIT: Ah, I misread your post. For the FIRM OFFER RULE ONLY, then yes. Otherwise, merchants are only for that type of good they specialize in.

[ineptimusprime]

I think you're right. This is Themis' definition of a merchant for the firm offer rule: "a merchant includes not only a person who regularly deals in the type of goods involved in the transaction, but also any business person when the transaction is of a commercial nature." Can I ask what the question was?

It was a drug salesmen promising in writing to hold open an offer to sell his scooter by a specified date. From your quoted portion, I'm guessing the reason drug salesmen wasn't a merchant for firm offer purposes is that it wasn't a "commercial transaction," but rather a consumer goods transaction for the scooter.

[Raiden]

So many different essay topics but they only pick 6...well, I hope I am good at making up rules on the fly.