Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[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."

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.

Well the Themis outline states: "the persons who are the natural objects of the testator’s bounty"

I have never taken wills, but I assume it means that the testator must comprehend the relationship between him and the person he is intended to convey to.

But more importantly, the barzam generally only tests you on testable subjects. Whether a person comprehends who the natural objects of his bounty are is amorphous, and likely an untestable or highly constrained subject to test.

I don't think you're going to actually run into the type of questions you're worrying about.

[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.

[+] 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

So now I'm really confused. The sample answer and my answer covered duress, but then my grader's comments read: "Note that duress is generally evidenced by bad faith or a malicious threat - probably not the case with these facts."

Also, I guess I just didn't understand that impracticability can substitute for consideration in a contract modification. I'm guessing that's in the big outline?

[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

So now I'm really confused. The sample answer and my answer covered duress, but then my grader's comments read: "Note that duress is generally evidenced by bad faith or a malicious threat - probably not the case with these facts."

Also, I guess I just didn't understand that impracticability can substitute for consideration in a contract modification. I'm guessing that's in the big outline?

Yes. Fuck the lecture outlines. The big outlines are always better

[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.

[+] 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

So now I'm really confused. The sample answer and my answer covered duress, but then my grader's comments read: "Note that duress is generally evidenced by bad faith or a malicious threat - probably not the case with these facts."

Also, I guess I just didn't understand that impracticability can substitute for consideration in a contract modification. I'm guessing that's in the big outline?

Yes. Fuck the lecture outlines. The big outlines are always better

Yeah, the lecture/handouts are missing a ton of stuff. What's your approach at this point? Watch lecture, create outline and then review it against the big outline? Now I feel like the lectures are the waste of time if I need to review the outline to get everything anyway.

[alicen]

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.

Never got a solid answer on this, but are Themis questions not real MBE questions, so we should get Adaptibar if we want actual questions?

+1 haven't gotten my graded essay back yet and submitted on Friday...should we send a message to someone?

[Nebby]

Yeah, the lecture/handouts are missing a ton of stuff. What's your approach at this point? Watch lecture, create outline and then review it against the big outline? Now I feel like the lectures are the waste of time if I need to review the outline to get everything anyway.

The lectures are really helpful. I watch the lectures, and then when doing practice questions if I am unsure about a question I'll find the answer in the outline. Some of the time I still don't quite know and then I'll choose what I think is the best. If I miss it, then I read why I miss it and remember the rule for the future.

I am not creating my own independent outline. Any outline I eventually create will be comprimised of the info in the Themis outline

The lecture handouts are a good tool to force you to pay attention to the lectures, but the lectures don't cover everything. The outline does cover everything.

[Virindi]

Yeah, the lecture/handouts are missing a ton of stuff. What's your approach at this point? Watch lecture, create outline and then review it against the big outline? Now I feel like the lectures are the waste of time if I need to review the outline to get everything anyway.

I'm starting to watch lectures on 2x, skip to assessment questions, and/or only watch the chapters with topics I need to be refreshed on.

I'm finding that for me personally it's better to sit down with the big outline and fashion my own rule statements onto Word and then to flashcards. It's better retention for MBE, and now I've got verbatim rule statements for the essays.

[FSK]

Ive basically skipped reviewing the full outlines. Ive been scoring very well on mbe pqs, and have yet to feel that i needed information outside the handout. I hope to go back and make attack sheets from the themis handout, but more as a memorization exercise a few days from first learning the subject.

Am I way off on this?

[FSK]

Rules statement flashcards will probably happen, because I learn from writing and write/type fast.

[Easy-E]

Ive basically skipped reviewing the full outlines. Ive been scoring very well on mbe pqs, and have yet to feel that i needed information outside the handout. I hope to go back and make attack sheets from the themis handout, but more as a memorization exercise a few days from first learning the subject.

Am I way off on this?

I've definitely hit a few issues in the PQs and PEs where the answer couldn't be found in the handout. In those cases, I've been pulling the rule that I didn't know from the explanation and putting it into my outline. Yesterday I reviewed the big Ks outline against mine (from the lecture/handout) and there was quite a bit missing from mine.

Honestly though, I can't learn every little thing in the big outline. It just isn't going to happen.

[rambleon65]

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.

I've been doing this exact thing, but (if you have state specific distinctions) adding state law variances in them. This way, everything re each subjects are in one condensed outline. I found the lecture handouts to be unnecessarily long.

i think the best advice is to just do what you did for law school exams and you'll be just fine.

[xdeuceswild81xx]

Ive basically skipped reviewing the full outlines. Ive been scoring very well on mbe pqs, and have yet to feel that i needed information outside the handout. I hope to go back and make attack sheets from the themis handout, but more as a memorization exercise a few days from first learning the subject.

Am I way off on this?

That's exactly what I've done. Haven't looked at the long outlines for more than 5 minutes per subject and I've continued to score fine. Different strokes for different folks imo. I was never an outline guy for most of law school, so why start now

[Nebby]

i think the best advice is to just do what you did for law school exams and you'll be just fine.

+!

[blueapple]

+1 haven't gotten my graded essay back yet and submitted on Friday...should we send a message to someone?

Are you sure you haven't gotten it back? It's possible you just missed the email about it. I didn't get a notification through the website, I just got an email that told me where to check it (Graded Essays -- click the essay title -- Review). But then I'd send a message through the portal if you haven't gotten the grade back yet.

[Easy-E]

Feels weird starting on property when I'm still struggling with torts and Ks

[sdphill]

I printed them out and studied them. I didn't make an outline and I definitely didn't read those long outlines that Themis provided!

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?

[FallonJ]

+1 haven't gotten my graded essay back yet and submitted on Friday...should we send a message to someone?

Are you sure you haven't gotten it back? It's possible you just missed the email about it. I didn't get a notification through the website, I just got an email that told me where to check it (Graded Essays -- click the essay title -- Review). But then I'd send a message through the portal if you haven't gotten the grade back yet.

I haven't received my Graded Essay either. So much for 2 business days.

[meliketoparty]

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.

Regarding Economic Duress as a defense to Formation & Impracticability as defense to Enforcement or as a "Discharge of Duty" -
I agree with what the second & third responders in this thread (^). It's supported by the long Themis outline (Duress, p. 22; Impracticability p. 28). It's sort of worrisome if the Grader conflated these ideas. I've never learned (and it doesn't seem like it's the case) that Impracticability could serve as a Consideration substitute.

I have a question about the 2d part of the question: the organ sale. Did anyone say UCC modification only requires Good Faith, not new consideration, but the Business seemed like it might've failed good faith since it said "yeah, we'll lower the price since you're paying up front," but then it spent the contract money & asked for more money (so it was no longer some great bargain). So basically, no good faith, no effective modification, no additional money. That's what I put. I haven't gotten it back yet.

[just_me]

Hi all - just saying hello!

I'm a solicitor in the UK and need to take the UBE for my job - don't have any context for how this all works, so I feel a bit adrift. I'm basically just putting my faith in Themis and hoping for the best.

Started the Constitutional Law lectures today, and - to assist in my study - have had to consult a website (explaining the branches of U.S government) that is specifically for Grade K - 5 kids. Just in case that makes anyone feel a little bit better about themselves ;p

[Chardee_MacDennis]

I have a question about the 2d part of the question: the organ sale. Did anyone say UCC modification only requires Good Faith, not new consideration, but the Business seemed like it might've failed good faith since it said "yeah, we'll lower the price since you're paying up front," but then it spent the contract money & asked for more money (so it was no longer some great bargain). So basically, no good faith, no effective modification, no additional money. That's what I put. I haven't gotten it back yet.

I mentioned that, but the facts certainly don't indicate the CFO said that with any bad faith, so I said if good faith, then modification binding; if not good faith, then not binding. My grader liked that I mentioned both sides of it.

[not guilty]

does themis have short outlines and full outlines? I'm only seeing 1 option online.

[kay2016]

does themis have short outlines and full outlines? I'm only seeing 1 option online.

aren't the FRO's short outlines? then the book/online outlines are the long ones. and then the handouts are in between. But i haven't looked at the FROs.

[FSK]

The grades K's essay I had was different than the one you all had? Also, the essay I wrote was hot garbage. Need to really memorize these rule statements.

[Vantwins]

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 go back through the handouts and make flash cards on Quizlet. I can make them on my laptop on the website and it automatically updates to the app on my phone. I look at the flash cards here and there when I have some time and don't have my materials with me. I will also print it out - you can print it out more like an outline too. So I'll have both handy to study and it's more concise than the handouts. When I come across an explanation in the PQ answers that I don't recall from the handouts, I add it into Quizlet. I've been making separate flash cards for the MD distinctions, but I think going forward I will add the MD distinctions into the flash cards/outline I've already made of the MBE material. That way I can look quickly and see the differences (i.e. - landlord can evict a holdover tenant, MD calls this a summary ejectment action).

This is pretty much how I did it when I took/passed the VA bar in 2003, except no quizlet then since there were no smart phones or apps. OMG I'm old.

Vanessa

[kay2016]

Trying to catch up and do all of Torts in a day is rough.