BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[Lacepiece23]

Anyone have any motivational anecdotes or stories? Someone who was doing well in Barbri, slacked off the last week, and failed the exam? I need some sense of urgency to get me going.

I think we all have bad days. I had my fair share this month. On a day when you take it easy don't make it a habit yeah know. If you need a little break today take it! If you don't then don't take it. You need to be at your best next week not this week so if a little break for you sanity is what you need, then by all means take some breaks. You aren't going to fail because you didn't have your best week the last week. You are going to fail if you had 9 bad weeks of bar prep and one good week.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Anyone have any motivational anecdotes or stories? Someone who was doing well in Barbri, slacked off the last week, and failed the exam? I need some sense of urgency to get me going.

How about you went to law school to be a lawyer, why do you need any other motivation than that?

No, I want to be a lawyer and have a job. I don't feel like I need to study anymore.

[zta_themis]

SOS - I think I lost that little slip of paper with the code for Civ Pro questions that came with my Emanuel S&T book. I've done all Barbri questions assigned and I've pulled up the NCBE questions they released. Did anyone do the ones from S&T?? Should I tear apart my room looking for it??

[kyle010723]

SOS - I think I lost that little slip of paper with the code for Civ Pro questions that came with my Emanuel S&T book. I've done all Barbri questions assigned and I've pulled up the NCBE questions they released. Did anyone do the ones from S&T?? Should I tear apart my room looking for it??

It is HARD! I got 75% on Barbri, 10/10 on NCBE, and only like 50%ish on E&T...

[Ludacrispat26]

Are express warranties and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose considered strict liability? I know they're separately categorized but you don't need to prove anything other than failure to live up to the warranty, right? I ask because an essay asked about what theories of strict products liability a homeowner could raise. I was confused and assumed that they must be hinting at the warranties. The answer was 95% about a single cause of action for strict liability and then just said "alternatively they could bring an action based on warranty."

Breach of warranty is a breach of contract claim. Though you can probably make a similar claim in tort under product defects if your house collapses when you step in there...

I think a better way to think of this is (as you can tell by now I learn by examples): if you buy a TV and your TV blows up. You can sue for tort of product liability via negligent or strict liability, and/or sue for breach of contract under breach of warranty.

Yeah, basically a baby fell out a window. The company advertised the windows as being safe and unable to be opened more than a few inches. Then they buyers told the salesman about their child and why they wanted the windows. But, it was a torts essay.

This may be stretching it but I feel like in those cases one of the reasons you go tort > contract is that you can get punitive damages in tort. When a baby falls out a window bc of a design/manufacturing defect, you're gonna want those punitivesssss

[Kage3212]

Anyone else continuously say "sucker pick" while doing MBE sets? If not, give it a go. Brings some humorous enjoyment to an otherwise monotonous task.

[mer]

Anyone else noticing mistakes in the Barbri Sample Answers? I''ve spotted a few and it's a bit alarming since I'm sure I'm not the only person trying to learn rules from the essays, but specifically I'm curious about MEE Torts #5 where the kid is falsely imprisoned on the Ferris Wheel. They say the employer is vicariously liable for the intentional tort of the employee, even though it doesn't fall under the three exceptions. I emailed them and got this weird answer back, "Employers may be liable for their own negligence by negligently selecting or supervising their employees. This is not vicarious liability, however. MEE question #5 for Torts is addressing this theory. In the situation in that question the employer would be held liable for their own negligence in supervising their employee." If anyone sees something I'm missing here, great, but if you've found other mistakes and are just annoyed by Barbri's wrong-ness, that's fine too

[brotherdarkness]

Are express warranties and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose considered strict liability? I know they're separately categorized but you don't need to prove anything other than failure to live up to the warranty, right? I ask because an essay asked about what theories of strict products liability a homeowner could raise. I was confused and assumed that they must be hinting at the warranties. The answer was 95% about a single cause of action for strict liability and then just said "alternatively they could bring an action based on warranty."

Breach of warranty is a breach of contract claim. Though you can probably make a similar claim in tort under product defects if your house collapses when you step in there...

I think a better way to think of this is (as you can tell by now I learn by examples): if you buy a TV and your TV blows up. You can sue for tort of product liability via negligent or strict liability, and/or sue for breach of contract under breach of warranty.

Yeah, basically a baby fell out a window. The company advertised the windows as being safe and unable to be opened more than a few inches. Then they buyers told the salesman about their child and why they wanted the windows. But, it was a torts essay.

This may be stretching it but I feel like in those cases one of the reasons you go tort > contract is that you can get punitive damages in tort. When a baby falls out a window bc of a design/manufacturing defect, you're gonna want those punitivesssss

Punitive damages require more than mere negligence, right? So how does that work when the claim is a strict liability tort (e.g., manufacturing defect)?

Also, the fact that they told the people about their baby seems to key up the whole implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Not sure why that matters given the other claims, but might as well address it.

[rhs100]

I am noticing that many of my incorrect answers tend to bundle together in one segment of the question set ... either I miss a handful of questions back to back or every other one in a row for a while. And then back to like 10 straight correct answers or something. Does anyone have this issue? I am trying to figure out if this has anything to do with time pressure / being too worried when I was just unsure about an answer and that impacting my focus or breaking confidence etc.

[cdelgado]

Are express warranties and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose considered strict liability? I know they're separately categorized but you don't need to prove anything other than failure to live up to the warranty, right? I ask because an essay asked about what theories of strict products liability a homeowner could raise. I was confused and assumed that they must be hinting at the warranties. The answer was 95% about a single cause of action for strict liability and then just said "alternatively they could bring an action based on warranty."

Breach of warranty is a breach of contract claim. Though you can probably make a similar claim in tort under product defects if your house collapses when you step in there...

I think a better way to think of this is (as you can tell by now I learn by examples): if you buy a TV and your TV blows up. You can sue for tort of product liability via negligent or strict liability, and/or sue for breach of contract under breach of warranty.

Yeah, basically a baby fell out a window. The company advertised the windows as being safe and unable to be opened more than a few inches. Then they buyers told the salesman about their child and why they wanted the windows. But, it was a torts essay.

This may be stretching it but I feel like in those cases one of the reasons you go tort > contract is that you can get punitive damages in tort. When a baby falls out a window bc of a design/manufacturing defect, you're gonna want those punitivesssss

Punitive damages require more than mere negligence, right? So how does that work when the claim is a strict liability tort (e.g., manufacturing defect)?

Also, the fact that they told the people about their baby seems to key up the whole implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Not sure why that matters given the other claims, but might as well address it.

I'm having a hard time with this one.

Implied warranties are an offshoot of products liability. So is strict liability. So, if the answer specifically said "can manufacturer be sued in strict products liability" I think that's what I would answer, with a sentence to cover myself on implied warranties.

[charlesxavier]

Anyone else noticing mistakes in the Barbri Sample Answers? I''ve spotted a few and it's a bit alarming since I'm sure I'm not the only person trying to learn rules from the essays, but specifically I'm curious about MEE Torts #5 where the kid is falsely imprisoned on the Ferris Wheel. They say the employer is vicariously liable for the intentional tort of the employee, even though it doesn't fall under the three exceptions. I emailed them and got this weird answer back, "Employers may be liable for their own negligence by negligently selecting or supervising their employees. This is not vicarious liability, however. MEE question #5 for Torts is addressing this theory. In the situation in that question the employer would be held liable for their own negligence in supervising their employee." If anyone sees something I'm missing here, great, but if you've found other mistakes and are just annoyed by Barbri's wrong-ness, that's fine too

For Ohio, the barbri answers are the same ones that the state supplies. They're actual past responses that received good scores. I've noticed that a lot of them either completely ignore state distinctions, state the wrong rule, or state the wrong element. The first time I asked barbri the responses was basically "they probably meant X and said Y, but they still got a good score."

[kyle010723]

This will not likely be tested, but how can a condo owner ever convey a marketable title given all the encumbrances imposed by the HOA?

[mer]

For Ohio, the barbri answers are the same ones that the state supplies. They're actual past responses that received good scores. I've noticed that a lot of them either completely ignore state distinctions, state the wrong rule, or state the wrong element. The first time I asked barbri the responses was basically "they probably meant X and said Y, but they still got a good score."

Interesting, I thought they had emphasized how these were not written under exam conditions and were perfect, so we shouldn't stress about living up to them. I'm in an MBE state with no state specific essays though, so I'd imagine they might be a little lazier about the state specific subjects, as everyone here seems to have observed.

[Kage3212]

This will not likely be tested, but how can a condo owner ever convey a marketable title given all the encumbrances imposed by the HOA?

Usually a contract will address all of these encumbrances, so you have a prior agreement by the Buyer about what he is getting himself into. This implied promise of marketable title only comes into play when the land sale K is silent about whats on the land.

[shecallingme]

This will not likely be tested, but how can a condo owner ever convey a marketable title given all the encumbrances imposed by the HOA?

If the encumbrances are disclosed then there is no issue. Marketable title is an issue for undisclosed encumbrances.

[DportIA]

PSA for Illinois takers pretty certain the MPT is actually 10% of the exam scoring and Barbri is wrong. The February 2015* scoring memo states that the MPT is 2.25x the value of the other 9 essays. In contrast, the July 2014 scoring memo states the MPT is a 1.5x multiplier.

Do the math: 2.25*(40/9)=10. So the MPT is now 10% rather than 7%

[Good Guy Gaud]

I cannot fit any more law into my head. "Reviewing outlines" has become a complete joke.

[kyle010723]

Ahh, I see. Thanks!

[kyle010723]

PSA for Illinois takers, pretty certain the MPT is actually 10% of the exam scoring and Barbri is wrong. The February 2015* scoring memo states that the MPT is 2.25x the value of the other 9 essays. In contrast, the July 2014 scoring memo states the MPT is a 1.5x multiplier.

Do the math: 2.25*(40/9)=10. So the MPT is now 10% rather than 7%

Yay! That means we can further marginalized essays... That being said, anyone know anything about family law? Lol

[myrtlewinston]

Anyone else continuously say "sucker pick" while doing MBE sets? If not, give it a go. Brings some humorous enjoyment to an otherwise monotonous task.

I did it yesterday and laughed.

[jamescastle]

I am noticing that many of my incorrect answers tend to bundle together in one segment of the question set ... either I miss a handful of questions back to back or every other one in a row for a while. And then back to like 10 straight correct answers or something. Does anyone have this issue? I am trying to figure out if this has anything to do with time pressure / being too worried when I was just unsure about an answer and that impacting my focus or breaking confidence etc.

If you're meaning BARBRI sets, I feel like this happens to me too. I know for instance that one criminal law set had about half its questions on accomplices, conspiracies, and attempts and they were hitting nuances on all of those. I consistently was missing them and then after that bump of questions I think I coasted through the rest of the set. Now I don't remember if this coasting was because it was all on one topic that I knew or what (naturally, we remember more when we missed a string of questions than when we got a string of questions right). So I think sometimes the BARBRI sets are trained to have a bunch of one type of question in a row so that if you miss it your brain recognizes that you need to study that subject.
That's just how I feel though.

[rhs100]

I am noticing that many of my incorrect answers tend to bundle together in one segment of the question set ... either I miss a handful of questions back to back or every other one in a row for a while. And then back to like 10 straight correct answers or something. Does anyone have this issue? I am trying to figure out if this has anything to do with time pressure / being too worried when I was just unsure about an answer and that impacting my focus or breaking confidence etc.

If you're meaning BARBRI sets, I feel like this happens to me too. I know for instance that one criminal law set had about half its questions on accomplices, conspiracies, and attempts and they were hitting nuances on all of those. I consistently was missing them and then after that bump of questions I think I coasted through the rest of the set. Now I don't remember if this coasting was because it was all on one topic that I knew or what (naturally, we remember more when we missed a string of questions than when we got a string of questions right). So I think sometimes the BARBRI sets are trained to have a bunch of one type of question in a row so that if you miss it your brain recognizes that you need to study that subject.
That's just how I feel though.

Well definitely Barbri MPQ sets and I also think it's b/c of the reason you mentioned. But I was also talking about long sets like their mixed 50 q's or Emanuel's practice exam where I did the AM only so far. I don't know - maybe just luck, who knows. I just want this all to end that's all

[rickgrimes69]

This will not likely be tested, but how can a condo owner ever convey a marketable title given all the encumbrances imposed by the HOA?

If the encumbrances are disclosed then there is no issue. Marketable title is an issue for undisclosed encumbrances.

Is this right? I thought that was only for known easements. Wouldn't the presence of, say, a judicial lien on the property, even if disclosed, render title unmarketable?

[rhs100]

Just did Emanuel's A.M. and got 68/100. Honestly was expecting better. 128/200 on simulated. Not really sure what else to do to improve - I feel like on the real one performance will be worse due to anxiety.

What do you guys think?

I did the Emanuel's A.M. today too and got almost exactly the same number (69/100). I'm at a bit of a loss, because I expected a bit better too. Seemed like the questions had a different feel than Barbri's, so my hope is that I just needed to adjust, and that I'll do better on the P.M. later this week.

Best I can tell, the best thing to do is just review the ones you got wrong and move on. Realistically, 68% is going to pass in most (if not all) states.

Thanks, that's assuring. Yeah the format was a little uncomfortable at times, and these are the actual questions! Did you find it particularly true for Evidence? Because I thought there were Evidence questions Barbri didn't cover (at least not in lecture).

I haven't gone through to figure out which ones I missed, but I felt particularly uncomfortable on evidence and con law, which is weird because I'm usually pretty confident on those subjects. Hoping that most of the ones I missed were just variations on things I know so that I'll be ready come test time.

Did you find that these questions took more time than Barbri? It may be exhaustion kicking in, but it took me about 15 minutes longer to do these 100 questions than it has for the barbri ones I've done.

Omg I just found out I mis-scored one question and in fact I did't miss it so I got 69! hahahaha I think it's funny how that makes me soo excited. we are like prisoners at this point.

[brotherdarkness]

This will not likely be tested, but how can a condo owner ever convey a marketable title given all the encumbrances imposed by the HOA?

If the encumbrances are disclosed then there is no issue. Marketable title is an issue for undisclosed encumbrances.

Is this right? I thought that was only for known easements. Wouldn't the presence of, say, a judicial lien on the property, even if disclosed, render title unmarketable?

Easements, mortgages, etc. are all fine so long as they're disclosed. As long as the buyer knows (s)he's taking the property subject to the encumbrance, it's all good.

Or just use a quitclaim deed and anything goes.