Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[Nebby]

I'm doing the first set of K's MBE questions. Lol i apparently learned nothing...

no point in freaking out yet though, right?!

I feel the same way about torts. We're good.

Just keep chugging. We're gonna make it fam

[FSK]

It had we watch all of torts today. Jeesus. I did it. But wow. That guy blows.

I watch everything on 2x.

[Vantwins]

It had we watch all of torts today. Jeesus. I did it. But wow. That guy blows.

I watch everything on 2x.

I don't feel like I have great comprehension at 2x, so I do 1.5, but had to watch torts guy at 2x for a bit, just because it's so entertaining. I agree with the poster above who said he's stuck in law professor mode - we don't need his theories and opinions, we just need black letter law. and it would be nice to not waste time guessing what goes in the blanks when he goes off script.

[inveniamviam]

Hi all, a quick question: for conflicts in the articulation of the substantive law between the Long Outlines, Lecture Handouts, and Essay Workshop Handouts, is there a hierarchy that we should stick by? (e.g., would Long Outline win over the Lecture Handout when they have different articulations of one of the elements of Constructive Eviction)

On a separate note, does anyone know how to change the topic for the quiz function on the Themis smartphone app? Trying to move on from Contracts...

Thanks!

[bsktbll28082]

On a separate note, does anyone know how to change the topic for the quiz function on the Themis smartphone app? Trying to move on from Contracts...

Thanks!

Didn't even know there was an app...

[Rahviveh]

On a separate note, does anyone know how to change the topic for the quiz function on the Themis smartphone app? Trying to move on from Contracts...

Thanks!

Didn't even know there was an app...

It sucks. You aren't missing anything

[Easy-E]

On a separate note, does anyone know how to change the topic for the quiz function on the Themis smartphone app? Trying to move on from Contracts...

Thanks!

Didn't even know there was an app...

It sucks. You aren't missing anything

Yeah it's pretty garbage. The main thing I would like is to be able to check my schedule, and you can't do that.

[Easy-E]

Question about the graded Ks essay (organs)...

[+] Spoiler

I still don't understand the impracticability issue. I thought impracticability was EXCUSE from a contract. The sample answer/grader say impracticability is a substitute for consideration for a modification? Does this go for all the "excuses"? You can modify a contract w/o consideration if there has been a frustration of purpose? I mean, I guess it makes sense, it's just news to me. God I hate Ks.

[bsktbll28082]

With regard to the schedule, I thought Themis built in about two weeks for review at the end of the course? But looking at my calendar online, it has me working until the Sunday before the exam. Should I just work faster to build in the days? Percentages say I'm ahead a little bit already, but I don't see how I'll finish the course in time without doubling down.

[Rahviveh]

Do you guys think the graded essay scores are legit?

[bsktbll28082]

Do you guys think the graded essay scores are legit?

I missed a big issue on Ks and my guy gave me a 6 overall, so I'm wondering this too. Kinda hope they are.

[Nebby]

I got my graded K's essay back. I got 3s across the board. It must be different depending on the grader. He said it was overall a good first essay, and that the only issue I forgot to mention was economic duress by the conservatory. Although I thought that was kinda bullshit because there was no facts that could be applicable to such argument, and the sample answer essentially mentions and dismisses economic duress in one paragraph. Here is what he said: "Nice job on your first bar prep essay. They will get easier with practice. Keep working with the TRAC format. It is designed to help you get the most points possible. On your next essay, focus on creating a clearly defined rule section for each answer."

[Fivedham]

I took the Adaptibar plunge because I keep getting the Themis goal % in every practice set (with rare exceptions), and I started getting worried. I had a significant discount though, so it wasn't a huge expense.

Still waiting on my graded essay. I did it last Friday, no response yet.

[Nebby]

I took the Adaptibar plunge because I keep getting the Themis goal % in every practice set (with rare exceptions), and I started getting worried. I had a significant discount though, so it wasn't a huge expense.

Still waiting on my graded essay. I did it last Friday, no response yet.

Wait... I don't see the logical connection between attaining the Themis goal % and the need to buy Adaptibar. Adaptibar is only necessary if you want even more MBE Practice questions. If you said that you have done every single PQ then I'd understand getting Adaptibar, but otherwise I don't get it. Am I missing something?

[Chardee_MacDennis]

Question about the graded Ks essay (organs)...

[+] Spoiler

I still don't understand the impracticability issue. I thought impracticability was EXCUSE from a contract. The sample answer/grader say impracticability is a substitute for consideration for a modification? Does this go for all the "excuses"? You can modify a contract w/o consideration if there has been a frustration of purpose? I mean, I guess it makes sense, it's just news to me. God I hate Ks.

[+] Spoiler

To me, it seems like they're conflating economic duress, which is a defense to formation, with impracticability, which is a defense to enforcement. I guess what they wanted us to argue was that the modification wasn't binding under common law b/c no additional consideration, that the modification amounted to economic duress because the CFO said "We're broke, if you want your only busted organ fixed, pay us more," or that the financial difficulties made the performance impracticable, so additional consideration was warranted under the circumstances.

[Nebby]

Question about the graded Ks essay (organs)...

[+] Spoiler

I still don't understand the impracticability issue. I thought impracticability was EXCUSE from a contract. The sample answer/grader say impracticability is a substitute for consideration for a modification? Does this go for all the "excuses"? You can modify a contract w/o consideration if there has been a frustration of purpose? I mean, I guess it makes sense, it's just news to me. God I hate Ks.

[+] Spoiler

To me, it seems like they're conflating economic duress, which is a defense to formation, with impracticability, which is a defense to enforcement. I guess what they wanted us to argue was that the modification wasn't binding under common law b/c no additional consideration, that the modification amounted to economic duress because the CFO said "We're broke, if you want your only busted organ fixed, pay us more," or that the financial difficulties made the performance impracticable, so additional consideration was warranted under the circumstances.

[+] Spoiler

Under the common law, a modification requires consideration. Impracticability acts as a way around this requirement. When the organ fixers called and requested more money (modification), their reason was that it became financially impractical. Whether the organ owner is liable for the extra $$$ depends on whether there was a modification, thus whether there was either consideration to the upcharge or whether consideration was not required due to impracticability. An unexpected event does not satisfy impracticability if the risk of such event was assumed by the person asserting it, and in this case financial difficulties is a risk assumed by the organ fixer. Therefore, there was not the type of impracticality required, and therefore in order to modify the contract there needed to be consideration. Due to the preexisting duty rule, there was no consideration on the part of the organ fixer because they were not required to do anything more than originally contracted. Thus, no modification and the organ owner is not required to pay the upcharge.

The part about economic duress concerns the organ owner, not the organ fixer. There are almost no facts applicable to economic duress for the organ owner to use so I don't know why Themis thought it should be included...

[Chardee_MacDennis]

Question about the graded Ks essay (organs)...

[+] Spoiler

I still don't understand the impracticability issue. I thought impracticability was EXCUSE from a contract. The sample answer/grader say impracticability is a substitute for consideration for a modification? Does this go for all the "excuses"? You can modify a contract w/o consideration if there has been a frustration of purpose? I mean, I guess it makes sense, it's just news to me. God I hate Ks.

[+] Spoiler

To me, it seems like they're conflating economic duress, which is a defense to formation, with impracticability, which is a defense to enforcement. I guess what they wanted us to argue was that the modification wasn't binding under common law b/c no additional consideration, that the modification amounted to economic duress because the CFO said "We're broke, if you want your only busted organ fixed, pay us more," or that the financial difficulties made the performance impracticable, so additional consideration was warranted under the circumstances.

[+] Spoiler

Under the common law, a modification requires consideration. Impracticability acts as a way around this requirement. When the organ fixers called and requested more money (modification), their reason was that it became financially impractical. Whether the organ owner is liable for the extra $$$ depends on whether there was a modification, thus whether there was either consideration to the upcharge or whether consideration was not required due to impracticability. An unexpected event does not satisfy impracticability if the risk of such event was assumed by the person asserting it, and in this case financial difficulties is a risk assumed by the organ fixer. Therefore, there was not the type of impracticality required, and therefore in order to modify the contract there needed to be consideration. Due to the preexisting duty rule, there was no consideration on the part of the organ fixer because they were not required to do anything more than originally contracted. Thus, no modification and the organ owner is not required to pay the upcharge.

The part about economic duress concerns the organ owner, not the organ fixer. There are almost no facts applicable to economic duress for the organ owner to use so I don't know why Themis thought it should be included...

[+] Spoiler

The way I tackled it was, the conservatory had one shitty organ, so presumably it's the only way it can make money. The CFO of the company said, we're broke, you want your organ fixed, pay us more, take it or leave it. But the facts don't indicate the conservatory felt unduly influenced or had no other course of action, so this likely won't fly, but for other reasons, modification not binding.

[Nebby]

Question about the graded Ks essay (organs)...

[+] Spoiler

I still don't understand the impracticability issue. I thought impracticability was EXCUSE from a contract. The sample answer/grader say impracticability is a substitute for consideration for a modification? Does this go for all the "excuses"? You can modify a contract w/o consideration if there has been a frustration of purpose? I mean, I guess it makes sense, it's just news to me. God I hate Ks.

[+] Spoiler

To me, it seems like they're conflating economic duress, which is a defense to formation, with impracticability, which is a defense to enforcement. I guess what they wanted us to argue was that the modification wasn't binding under common law b/c no additional consideration, that the modification amounted to economic duress because the CFO said "We're broke, if you want your only busted organ fixed, pay us more," or that the financial difficulties made the performance impracticable, so additional consideration was warranted under the circumstances.

[+] Spoiler

Under the common law, a modification requires consideration. Impracticability acts as a way around this requirement. When the organ fixers called and requested more money (modification), their reason was that it became financially impractical. Whether the organ owner is liable for the extra $$$ depends on whether there was a modification, thus whether there was either consideration to the upcharge or whether consideration was not required due to impracticability. An unexpected event does not satisfy impracticability if the risk of such event was assumed by the person asserting it, and in this case financial difficulties is a risk assumed by the organ fixer. Therefore, there was not the type of impracticality required, and therefore in order to modify the contract there needed to be consideration. Due to the preexisting duty rule, there was no consideration on the part of the organ fixer because they were not required to do anything more than originally contracted. Thus, no modification and the organ owner is not required to pay the upcharge.

The part about economic duress concerns the organ owner, not the organ fixer. There are almost no facts applicable to economic duress for the organ owner to use so I don't know why Themis thought it should be included...

[+] Spoiler

The way I tackled it was, the conservatory had one shitty organ, so presumably it's the only way it can make money. The CFO of the company said, we're broke, you want your organ fixed, pay us more, take it or leave it. But the facts don't indicate the conservatory felt unduly influenced or had no other course of action, so this likely won't fly, but for other reasons, modification not binding.

[+] Spoiler

Exactly! Like you have to include some sort of fact that at least indicates that the organ owner felt unduly influenced, but there was nothing! I wonder who makes these sample answers. Like, I thought the bar examiners wanted to us analyze all of the available issues, and you can "create" a lot of issues that are not really indicated in the fact pattern, and I don't think the bar examiners want us to do this. I felt like Themis' sample answer including economic duress was creating an issue that I don't know if the bar examiners really wanted us to explore, but whatevz.

[ultimolugar]

Hey, I know no one will be in this boat with me - but I am suffering through Civil Procedure. I have under performed on two sets of 17 Qs so far and I am feeling a little panicky. This is unjustified at this point, right guys?

[rambleon65]

Essay grading, based on what i've read, appears to be entirely based on the grader (which, i suppose, is not that different from the actual thing?). For reference, I got 4's across the board but he said I didn't miss any issues.

Also, thinking about making my own outlines from the handout outlines. Because, frankly, the handout outlines are hot garbage in terms of organization. And, because, that's how i've always done them throughout school...

I also found a few conflicts with the outlines / lecture / assessment questions that Themis has confirmed to be errors.

I also find that Themis doesn't do a good job of how a rule looks as applied to facts...

[Nebby]

Essay grading, based on what i've read, appears to be entirely based on the grader (which, i suppose, is not that different from the actual thing?). For reference, I got 4's across the board but he said I didn't miss any issues.

Also, thinking about making my own outlines from the handout outlines. Because, frankly, the handout outlines are hot garbage in terms of organization. And, because, that's how i've always done them throughout school...

I also found a few conflicts with the outlines / lecture / assessment questions that Themis has confirmed to be errors.

I also find that Themis doesn't do a good job of how a rule looks as applied to facts...

You're supposed to do rule application analysis. I think it's pretty straightforward. E.g., "whether x applies to this contract depends on whether y occurred. However, if z occurs, then you can show x without y. In the present case, y did not occur. However, because z occured, then x."

[Nebby]

I'm so happy the exam only asks a couple of RAP questions. I just had this PQ and immediate was like... fuck it I'm just answering at random and going to the next

[+] Spoiler

Eighty years ago, a woman conveyed land to her son for life, then to her son’s widow for her life, then to her son’s children. At the time of the conveyance, her son was only five years old. The woman died a few weeks later, devising her entire estate to a charity. Thirty years ago, the son married. The following year the son and his wife had a child, but his wife died shortly thereafter. The child died at the age of 25, leaving her entire estate by will to a church. A year after his child died, the son married a woman who was 50 years old. The couple had no children. The son died this year and was survived by his widow, to whom he willed his entire estate.
In a jurisdiction applying the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities, who has a properly vested interest in the land?

[rambleon65]

Essay grading, based on what i've read, appears to be entirely based on the grader (which, i suppose, is not that different from the actual thing?). For reference, I got 4's across the board but he said I didn't miss any issues.

Also, thinking about making my own outlines from the handout outlines. Because, frankly, the handout outlines are hot garbage in terms of organization. And, because, that's how i've always done them throughout school...

I also found a few conflicts with the outlines / lecture / assessment questions that Themis has confirmed to be errors.

I also find that Themis doesn't do a good job of how a rule looks as applied to facts...

You're supposed to do rule application analysis. I think it's pretty straightforward. E.g., "whether x applies to this contract depends on whether y occurred. However, if z occurs, then you can show x without y. In the present case, y did not occur. However, because z occured, then x."

You're missing my point. Yes, I know how to take a law exam. But my point re the law in Themis is this: "Whether x applies to this contract depends on whether y occurred" rests on the assumption and knowledge that Y is probative of the application of X. This is easy with intuitive concepts, such as negligence.

But this is harder with antiquated laws that aren't self-explanatory. For example, if a rule states, for testamentary capacity, "he must know the natural objects of his bounty are." What types of facts would be probative on this point? Without providing examples, this rule in vacuum means very little to those not having taken wills. Could I do case law research to see what this element means? Sure, but you get my point.

[PotLuck]

Hey all,

I'm looking for some advice regarding the lecture handouts. I'm not really sure how to handle these. I've been basically summarizing them in an outline trying to decipher the BLL associated, but handouts are already fairly concise. Wouldn't it make more sense to just print them out, write any notes or rules on them, and study them vigorously? I'm just not sure my method is super useful. I feel like I'm not able to memorize anything currently and am barely scrapping by on the PQs.

Anyone have any suggestions or want to share their methods?

[ndp1234]

Hey all,

I'm looking for some advice regarding the lecture handouts. I'm not really sure how to handle these. I've been basically summarizing them in an outline trying to decipher the BLL associated, but handouts are already fairly concise. Wouldn't it make more sense to just print them out, write any notes or rules on them, and study them vigorously? I'm just not sure my method is super useful. I feel like I'm not able to memorize anything currently and am barely scrapping by on the PQs.

Anyone have any suggestions or want to share their methods?

I've printed all the handouts and put them in a binder. I follow the handouts during the lectures (trying to actively engage during the lecture). At the end of each subject (because my comprehension of the subject as a whole is better if I don't split the summarization as Themis suggests) I summarize the handouts into a very condensed outline with basically just the BLL. Then I skim through the large outline and add what important points that either was not in the lecture/handout or that I may have missed. This process forces me to think about the content and the rules.

However, I've also always been an outline person instead of a flashcard person so this might not work for you.