BarBri - NY Exam - July 2014 Forum

[peanut123]

There are from the superior candidate answers:
...

Wait, what? Is the point just that we can make shit up and still be "superior"?

[Guchster]

Schechter OWNS. Wish this guy did the Wills lecture. Too many quotables from today's DR lecture.

I think while entertaining he has a stunningly good ability to tell us not to worry about something only to have that material come up in essays we're assigned. And to entirely skip over a topic that appears in an essay that we have no idea how to answer.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that. All I have to say is that this thing is 12 days away and these were the essay issues we get, I think I'd have to walk out and come back in Feb.

I felt the same way after today's essays

That adoption revocation rule...

WTF, ARE YOU KIDDING ME BAR? *cries*

[Guchster]

... which wasn't there, and could have been discovered immediately. You didn't have to await the leak to discover the breach...

I think that's right and the missing piece of the puzzle. Disappointing Barbri couldn't just write that (or at least explain why the exception didn't apply in their application). SCORE 25 BARBRI. In other words, the date of breach of the express warranty happened day 1. So if there are two clocks: (clock 1 -date of tender; clock 2- breach of warranty) both clocks started at the same time - June 98.

Thanks guys for pitching in. Hey AJS, thanks so much for the model answers too. It's good to see what "superior" means.

[turquoiseturtle]

There are from the superior candidate answers:

3) The issue is whether the statute of limitations has expired such that the action is not timely.
The general rule is that a warranty of merchantability will be good for four years. A warranty of merchantability is on behalf of a merchant who deals in goods of the kind who warrants that the goods will be fit for their ordinary purpose. A warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, however, warrants that the goods will be fit for the specific purpose to which the buyer is putting the goods.
In this case, however, the contract had an express warranty against leakage for three years. Despite the fact that there was an express warranty for only three years, it must be noted that in this case John had specific knowledge of what use Bob was going to have for the windows. John knew that Bob wanted hand-made stained glass windows for his home that were to have a special lead lining to prevent leakage. For this reason, the statute of limitations on the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose has not yet run. The statute of limitations would begin to run from the time that Bob learned of the defect which was in March 2001. Bob brought suit in January 2005 which was within the four year period.
Thus, summary judgment dismissing the claim on statute of limitations grounds would be improper



3) At issue is whether Bob’s claims against John and Hand-Crafted Windows are timely.
Under the CPLR, the statute of limitations for a breach of warranty claim is four years from the date of sale. The sale contract between Bob and John was executed in January 1998, and Bob commenced his suit against John in January 2005 (seven years later). Thus, the breach of warranty claim against John is not timely.
The statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is six years from the date of breach. John and Bob had a valid contract with an express warranty against leakage for three years. Bob discovered the leakage problem within the three year period, measured from the date of installation and he requested that John repair the windows. John refused, thereby breaching his contract with Bob. Bob thus timely filed his claim for breach of contract on January 2005.
The claim for breach of contract is similarly timely against Hand-Crafted Windows because it adopted the contract between Bob and John with the same terms agreed to by them. Thus it was similarly liable under the same statute of limitations period.

Woah. Thanks for looking these up. Totally totally different answers from each other and also totally different from the Barbri answer. I'm seriously counting on just ID'ing the issue, writing a somewhat reasonable-ish rule, and applying it, then choosing one side.

[Stringer6]

I'd love to see the superior answers to the adoption question

[jets098]

I'd love to see the superior answers to the adoption question

For any of Barbri's essays just google. "Month (ex. February) Year (ex. 2002) New York Bar Exam Essays" and it will always be one of the top two or three results. This works for older ones that aren't on the NY Bar Exam website.

It should say the Month and Year in the NY Essay Book

[Guchster]

I'd love to see the superior answers to the adoption question

Fucking Barbri Answer scared the shit out of me, but looks like these superior answers were just as in left field as my answer outline.



Ans 1: The issue is under what circumstances a biological mother may challenge an order of
adoption entered after a duly commenced adoption proceeding.

In an adoption undertaken through a private placement, a biological mother may revoke her consent to her child’s adoption using any of the "real defenses" available in contract law. For example, she may allege that the agreement was based on fraud, duress, or
misrepresentation, or that she was incapacitated at the time she entered the contract.
However, if the biological mother was the party who engaged in fraud or misrepresentation, she may not use this fact to her advantage to void an otherwise valid adoption.

Here, the facts indicate that the adoption proceeded without incident. Meg signed and
acknowledged her consent before a notary public, an adoption proceeding was duly
commenced, and an order of adoption was made. Given these facts, the only evidence upon which Meg could seek to revoke her consent to adoption is misrepresentation. However, Meg engaged in the misrepresentation, by first stating that she did not know the identity of Child’s father, and later confessing that she had lied, and that the biological father was Don. Because Meg cannot use her own misrepresentation as a sword with which to void the adoption agreement, she may not now revoke her consent to Child’s adoption.

Ans 2. Adoption agreements are controlled by contract law and are subject to the same defenses to formation as contracts. Duress or incapacity could provide adequate defenses to the creation of an adoption agreement, but when a mother simply changes her mind she may not revoke consent to the adoption, absent some provision allowing for said change of heart.

Here, Meg was unmarried and claimed not to know the identity of the father. Neither
Howard, Wendy, nor the Family Court issuing the order of adoption could have suspected
that she would later discover the paternity (or simply change her mind). Her call to Wendy informing her that she now knew the identity of Don was, apart from fraudulent, not a
proper assertion of mistake of fact to prevent formation of the adoption consent agreement.

Hence, she is not entitled to revoke the consent to Child’s adoption.

[turquoiseturtle]

I'd love to see the superior answers to the adoption question

Fucking Barbri Answer scared the shit out of me, but looks like these superior answers were just as in left field as my answer outline.

Ans 1: The issue is under what circumstances a biological mother may challenge an order of
adoption entered after a duly commenced adoption proceeding.

In an adoption undertaken through a private placement, a biological mother may revoke her consent to her child’s adoption using any of the "real defenses" available in contract law. For example, she may allege that the agreement was based on fraud, duress, or
misrepresentation, or that she was incapacitated at the time she entered the contract.
However, if the biological mother was the party who engaged in fraud or misrepresentation, she may not use this fact to her advantage to void an otherwise valid adoption.

Here, the facts indicate that the adoption proceeded without incident. Meg signed and
acknowledged her consent before a notary public, an adoption proceeding was duly
commenced, and an order of adoption was made. Given these facts, the only evidence upon which Meg could seek to revoke her consent to adoption is misrepresentation. However, Meg engaged in the misrepresentation, by first stating that she did not know the identity of Child’s father, and later confessing that she had lied, and that the biological father was Don. Because Meg cannot use her own misrepresentation as a sword with which to void the adoption agreement, she may not now revoke her consent to Child’s adoption.

Ans 2. Adoption agreements are controlled by contract law and are subject to the same defenses to formation as contracts. Duress or incapacity could provide adequate defenses to the creation of an adoption agreement, but when a mother simply changes her mind she may not revoke consent to the adoption, absent some provision allowing for said change of heart.

Here, Meg was unmarried and claimed not to know the identity of the father. Neither
Howard, Wendy, nor the Family Court issuing the order of adoption could have suspected
that she would later discover the paternity (or simply change her mind). Her call to Wendy informing her that she now knew the identity of Don was, apart from fraudulent, not a
proper assertion of mistake of fact to prevent formation of the adoption consent agreement.

Hence, she is not entitled to revoke the consent to Child’s adoption.

These make me feel much better.

But looking at the superior answers in the NYT book does not make me feel good. Obviously don't have time to do all the essays, but I've been trying to read at least most of them. For example, just last summer, number 95. One of the examinee answers is citing CPLR numbers and stating the exact cost of filing fees. That's crazy right?

"Only one CPLR 3211(a) motion may be made, and it may be made at any time, even prior to issue being joined. A CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion is made by the defendant for failure to state a cognizable cause of action" and "CPLR 201 prohibits courts from extending statutes of limitations, but the legislature may, not must, revive a time barred claim. The statute of limitations can be pleaded in the defendant's answer as an affirmative defense or, in the alternative; he may make a CPLR 3211(a)(S) motion to dismiss" and that is, purchasing an index number for $210 and filing process with the Clerk of the Court, which is the Clerk of the County and Supreme Court."

[AP-375]

I'd love to see the superior answers to the adoption question

Fucking Barbri Answer scared the shit out of me, but looks like these superior answers were just as in left field as my answer outline.

Ans 1: The issue is under what circumstances a biological mother may challenge an order of
adoption entered after a duly commenced adoption proceeding.

Ans 2. Adoption agreements are controlled by contract law and are subject to the same defenses to formation as contracts. Duress or incapacity could provide adequate defenses to the creation of an adoption agreement, but when a mother simply changes her mind she may not revoke consent to the adoption, absent some provision allowing for said change of heart.

Wait, so those were "superior" answers according to NY Bar? Those are totally made up - straight up BS answers. That makes me feel so much better.

[Guchster]

"Only one CPLR 3211(a) motion may be made, and it may be made at any time, even prior to issue being joined. A CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion is made by the defendant for failure to state a cognizable cause of action" and "CPLR 201 prohibits courts from extending statutes of limitations, but the legislature may, not must, revive a time barred claim. The statute of limitations can be pleaded in the defendant's answer as an affirmative defense or, in the alternative; he may make a CPLR 3211(a)(S) motion to dismiss" and that is, purchasing an index number for $210 and filing process with the Clerk of the Court, which is the Clerk of the County and Supreme Court."

[Stringer6]

I'd love to see the superior answers to the adoption question

Fucking Barbri Answer scared the shit out of me, but looks like these superior answers were just as in left field as my answer outline.

Ans 1: The issue is under what circumstances a biological mother may challenge an order of
adoption entered after a duly commenced adoption proceeding.

Ans 2. Adoption agreements are controlled by contract law and are subject to the same defenses to formation as contracts. Duress or incapacity could provide adequate defenses to the creation of an adoption agreement, but when a mother simply changes her mind she may not revoke consent to the adoption, absent some provision allowing for said change of heart.

Wait, so those were "superior" answers according to NY Bar? Those are totally made up - straight up BS answers. That makes me feel so much better.

[5ky]

I would highly recommend ditching the Barbri essays and looking at the old ones on the NY bar website. I found them substantially easier than Barbri, even the released ones. I think Barbri just took he most difficult/obscure essays for the "real/released" ones.

Seriously, just look st the ones on the bar website. You'll be shocked how simple they are.

[Stringer6]

Is it even true that adoptions are governed by contract principles?

[thetashster]

I'd love to see the superior answers to the adoption question

Fucking Barbri Answer scared the shit out of me, but looks like these superior answers were just as in left field as my answer outline.

Ans 1: The issue is under what circumstances a biological mother may challenge an order of
adoption entered after a duly commenced adoption proceeding.

Ans 2. Adoption agreements are controlled by contract law and are subject to the same defenses to formation as contracts. Duress or incapacity could provide adequate defenses to the creation of an adoption agreement, but when a mother simply changes her mind she may not revoke consent to the adoption, absent some provision allowing for said change of heart.

Wait, so those were "superior" answers according to NY Bar? Those are totally made up - straight up BS answers. That makes me feel so much better.

i wanna just remind everyone that i was told you can still makeup the rule and do IRAC and be fine!!! barbri's plan is working. scare the ever living shit out of us, over prepare us, and then have us tell everyone they're amazing after.

[AJS30]

Do any of the materials cover alibi's? I feel like when I was looking at one of the essays on the NY site a few weeks ago there was a question regarding the use of an alibi, but I feel like that was never discussed at all in any of our lectures or materials....but maybe I'm wrong?

[thetashster]

Do any of the materials cover alibi's? I feel like when I was looking at one of the essays on the NY site a few weeks ago there was a question regarding the use of an alibi, but I feel like that was never discussed at all in any of our lectures or materials....but maybe I'm wrong?

crimpro or crimlaw talk about alibis briefly IIRC. basically, it's an ordinary defense, and the prosecution has to prove its nonexistence beyond a reasonable doubt (along with other ordinary defenses like self-defense).

[encore1101]

Do any of the materials cover alibi's? I feel like when I was looking at one of the essays on the NY site a few weeks ago there was a question regarding the use of an alibi, but I feel like that was never discussed at all in any of our lectures or materials....but maybe I'm wrong?

crimpro or crimlaw talk about alibis briefly IIRC. basically, it's an ordinary defense, and the prosecution has to prove its nonexistence beyond a reasonable doubt (along with other ordinary defenses like self-defense).

Just an addendum -- this is essentially true, but keep in mind that prosecution can technically win a case without ever explicitly addressing the defendant's alibis. Theoretically, if the alibi is unsupported or unbelievable, and the prosecution's case is so strong, the prosecution could get a conviction, and thus necessarily disproving the alibi, without even trying to disprove the alibi.

In terms of NY CrimPro, NY Criminal Procedure Law (C.P.L.) § 250.20, says that a defendant must furnish any alibis he intends to offer at trial, upon demand of the prosecutor.
Prosecutor must serve demand within 20 days of arraignment, defendant must furnish alibi within 8 days of demand, or extendable for good cause shown.

[AJS30]

From the Feb 2009 Test:

After the defense rested and at the conclusion of all the evidence, Don moved for a trial order of dismissal on the grounds that: (a) as he had a key to enter Doctor's office and nothing was stolen, the evidence did not establish the crime of burglary; (b) the evidence did not establish the crime of unlawful imprisonment; and (c) his alibi had been established. The judge reserved decision on Don’s motion.
Overruling Don's objection, the court allowed the prosecution to argue in its closing argument that Don’s failure to mention the alibi at the time of his arrest was an indication that the alibi was fabricated.
(1) How should the court rule with regard to grounds (a), (b) and (c) of Don’s motion for a trial order of dismissal?

[Guchster]

From the Feb 2009 Test:

After the defense rested and at the conclusion of all the evidence, Don moved for a trial order of dismissal on the grounds that: (a) as he had a key to enter Doctor's office and nothing was stolen, the evidence did not establish the crime of burglary; (b) the evidence did not establish the crime of unlawful imprisonment; and (c) his alibi had been established. The judge reserved decision on Don’s motion.
Overruling Don's objection, the court allowed the prosecution to argue in its closing argument that Don’s failure to mention the alibi at the time of his arrest was an indication that the alibi was fabricated.
(1) How should the court rule with regard to grounds (a), (b) and (c) of Don’s motion for a trial order of dismissal?

LOL part (c) probably would've generated similar answers to the adoption revocation one where 99% 90% of people (including Barbri and superior answers) make up their own law and invent new doctrinal areas. I can totally see NYBOLE immediately regretting issuing it and feeling "I'VEMADEAHUGEMISTAKE" about it.

edit.

[turquoiseturtle]

I would highly recommend ditching the Barbri essays and looking at the old ones on the NY bar website. I found them substantially easier than Barbri, even the released ones. I think Barbri just took he most difficult/obscure essays for the "real/released" ones.

Seriously, just look st the ones on the bar website. You'll be shocked how simple they are.

Wait, I'm confused. Are the Barbri essays in the NYT book not actual old NY ones? Every one of them has either February or July and a year at the bottom. (with the exception of those essays for the simulated NY halfday, which were only online and which I think were Barbri created). Do you mean just ditching the Barbri model answers versus student ones?

[5ky]

I would highly recommend ditching the Barbri essays and looking at the old ones on the NY bar website. I found them substantially easier than Barbri, even the released ones. I think Barbri just took he most difficult/obscure essays for the "real/released" ones.

Seriously, just look st the ones on the bar website. You'll be shocked how simple they are.

Wait, I'm confused. Are the Barbri essays in the NYT book not actual old NY ones? Every one of them has either February or July and a year at the bottom. (with the exception of those essays for the simulated NY halfday, which were only online and which I think were Barbri created). Do you mean just ditching the Barbri model answers versus student ones?

No, as I said, I think Barbri goes through and finds the most difficult/weird/obscure essays and includes those as the released essays, when in reality the average essay is substantially easier.

For example, imagine your LSAT study book giving you "Real Released Logic Games" and then giving you the 10 most difficult of all time. If you actually opened up the old tests, you would see that the games were generally much easier than those.

[Guchster]

No, as I said, I think Barbri goes through and finds the most difficult/weird/obscure essays and includes those as the released essays, when in reality the average essay is substantially easier.

For example, imagine your LSAT study book giving you "Real Released Logic Games" and then giving you the 10 most difficult of all time. If you actually opened up the old tests, you would see that the games were generally much easier than those.

Again, 5ky you bring down the panic volume from about a 9 to about a 6 (which is livable). I feel like we owe you money as our therapist/bar exam coach.

[AJS30]

No, as I said, I think Barbri goes through and finds the most difficult/weird/obscure essays and includes those as the released essays, when in reality the average essay is substantially easier.

For example, imagine your LSAT study book giving you "Real Released Logic Games" and then giving you the 10 most difficult of all time. If you actually opened up the old tests, you would see that the games were generally much easier than those.

Again, 5ky you bring down the panic volume from about a 9 to about a 6 (which is livable). I feel like we owe you money as our therapist/bar exam coach.

Also, if anyone is interested, I believe it is Pace law school that has all of the older essays that are no longer on the NY Bar site, on their site with sample answers, so you can look at those answers as well instead of looking at the answers that barbri has made.

[PennBull]

anyone else find the "Mixed Sets" on Barbri to be a little easier than all the other shit?

[AJS30]

Question in regards to the hypo on page 16 of the crim pro handout. Lets say Alice was justified in ordering Martha to halt and Martha still ran. Even though it is a seizure, Martha would not be able to move to suppress the drugs, correct?