BarBri - NY Exam - July 2014 Forum

[jets098]

Question on Essay 9, if anyone might have thoughts. Is there a reasonable argument that the company being profitable is a condition precedent to the obligation to repurchase shares, thus making the statement an exception to the PER? It's not in the model answer and not in either of the student answers, but I made the argument and am just wondering if I have some gross misunderstanding of conditions. (Probably).

I have a question into Barbri about this because I completely agree with you. I will post the answer when I get it.

[peanut123]

Question on Essay 9, if anyone might have thoughts. Is there a reasonable argument that the company being profitable is a condition precedent to the obligation to repurchase shares, thus making the statement an exception to the PER? It's not in the model answer and not in either of the student answers, but I made the argument and am just wondering if I have some gross misunderstanding of conditions. (Probably).

I have a question into Barbri about this because I completely agree with you. I will post the answer when I get it.

Great, thanks. I don't think it would matter too much in terms of grading; it's probably good that we thought of it and analyzed, but it'd be good to understand.

Edit: Was looking at a printed version of the Paced Program and saw this - just wanted to call others' attention to it: "In this final stretch, when you are working to commit the basic principles to memory, the best thing to do is to continue to follow the Paced Program and work through practice questions. Our
BARBRI Staff Attorneys are available to answer any last minute study and strategy questions, however the "Submit a Question” opportunity will conclude at close of business on Thursday,
July 24."

[enziguri]

Question on Essay 9, if anyone might have thoughts. Is there a reasonable argument that the company being profitable is a condition precedent to the obligation to repurchase shares, thus making the statement an exception to the PER? It's not in the model answer and not in either of the student answers, but I made the argument and am just wondering if I have some gross misunderstanding of conditions. (Probably).

I have a question into Barbri about this because I completely agree with you. I will post the answer when I get it.

Great, thanks. I don't think it would matter too much in terms of grading; it's probably good that we thought of it and analyzed, but it'd be good to understand.

Edit: Was looking at a printed version of the Paced Program and saw this - just wanted to call others' attention to it: "In this final stretch, when you are working to commit the basic principles to memory, the best thing to do is to continue to follow the Paced Program and work through practice questions. Our
BARBRI Staff Attorneys are available to answer any last minute study and strategy questions, however the "Submit a Question” opportunity will conclude at close of business on Thursday,
July 24."

Came here just to look for this. First thing that popped into my mind was condition precedent. Interesting that the model answer didn't have that, but had half a page on agency law for a routine professional responsibility question.

[peanut123]

Came here just to look for this. First thing that popped into my mind was condition precedent. Interesting that the model answer didn't have that, but had half a page on agency law for a routine professional responsibility question.

Yeah I thought that was odd, too. I think, though, that the agency stuff is somewhat important because the professional responsibility rules wouldn't keep the settlement from being binding, it would just be a malpractice claim against the attorney. Regardless, I just try to keep reminding myself that the model answer is not what I need to achieve. I'm not used to studying to pass though.

[PennBull]

I'm fuckin hopeless with essays man haha

I'm thinking if I average 75% on the nonessay stuff I'll only need about a 50% on the essays; I can do that

[thetashster]

I'm fuckin hopeless with essays man haha

I'm thinking if I average 75% on the nonessay stuff I'll only need about a 50% on the essays; I can do that

if you score 75 with nonessay, you could write "this sucks" for every essay and still pass.

[moneko]

I'm fuckin hopeless with essays man haha

I'm thinking if I average 75% on the nonessay stuff I'll only need about a 50% on the essays; I can do that

if you score 75 with nonessay, you could write "this sucks" for every essay and still pass.

^this. How badly exactly can we do on the essays if we manage a ~75% on the MBE. I tried to look at the Separac calculator thing but couldn't work it out

[thetashster]

I'm fuckin hopeless with essays man haha

I'm thinking if I average 75% on the nonessay stuff I'll only need about a 50% on the essays; I can do that

if you score 75 with nonessay, you could write "this sucks" for every essay and still pass.

^this. How badly exactly can we do on the essays if we manage a ~75% on the MBE. I tried to look at the Separac calculator thing but couldn't work it out

I think it depends on the state. You might still have to say 'this sucks' using IRAC. aka the issue is this sucks. The rule is if it sucks I don't do it. It sucks here so I'm not gonna do it.

But honestly I think if you score THAT high on MBE and NYMC your essays can probably be pretty shitty and you'll be fine. Because in that case it'd be a 50-50 split.

[belowthelaw57]

Question on Essay 9, if anyone might have thoughts. Is there a reasonable argument that the company being profitable is a condition precedent to the obligation to repurchase shares, thus making the statement an exception to the PER? It's not in the model answer and not in either of the student answers, but I made the argument and am just wondering if I have some gross misunderstanding of conditions. (Probably).

I thought the same originally. Then I looked at the big MS outline. If you look at pg 50-51 under contracts, it says there's a distinction between "conditions precedent to effectiveness," for which parol evidence is admissible, and "conditions precedent to performance" for which it is not.

A condition precedent to effectiveness means that the contract never came into being because the requisite condition never occurred. A condition precedent to performance modifies a duty under the contract and is therefore inadmissible. It's a very fine and hair-splitting distinction.

In #9, I think the side agreement would have had to be "the corporation will not be obligated to buy shares unless and until it turns a profit." Once it turns a profit, then the contract would have gone into effect. However, they were presenting it as "the corporation will not be obligated to buy shares if it does not earn a profit in that year." This was just modifying its duty to perform and so it was not admissible.

[Guchster]

Question on Essay 9, if anyone might have thoughts. Is there a reasonable argument that the company being profitable is a condition precedent to the obligation to repurchase shares, thus making the statement an exception to the PER? It's not in the model answer and not in either of the student answers, but I made the argument and am just wondering if I have some gross misunderstanding of conditions. (Probably).

I thought the same originally. Then I looked at the big MS outline. If you look at pg 50-51 under contracts, it says there's a distinction between "conditions precedent to effectiveness," for which parol evidence is admissible, and "conditions precedent to performance" for which it is not.

A condition precedent to effectiveness means that the contract never came into being because the requisite condition never occurred. A condition precedent to performance modifies a duty under the contract and is therefore inadmissible. It's a very fine and hair-splitting distinction.

In #9, I think the side agreement would have had to be "the corporation will not be obligated to buy shares unless and until it turns a profit." Once it turns a profit, then the contract would have gone into effect. However, they were presenting it as "the corporation will not be obligated to buy shares if it does not earn a profit in that year." This was just modifying its duty to perform and so it was not admissible.

I actually included a very similar analysis in my outline. For those of you who submitted your Q to Barbri, could you please post their response here?

[jets098]

Question on Essay 9, if anyone might have thoughts. Is there a reasonable argument that the company being profitable is a condition precedent to the obligation to repurchase shares, thus making the statement an exception to the PER? It's not in the model answer and not in either of the student answers, but I made the argument and am just wondering if I have some gross misunderstanding of conditions. (Probably).

I thought the same originally. Then I looked at the big MS outline. If you look at pg 50-51 under contracts, it says there's a distinction between "conditions precedent to effectiveness," for which parol evidence is admissible, and "conditions precedent to performance" for which it is not.

A condition precedent to effectiveness means that the contract never came into being because the requisite condition never occurred. A condition precedent to performance modifies a duty under the contract and is therefore inadmissible. It's a very fine and hair-splitting distinction.

In #9, I think the side agreement would have had to be "the corporation will not be obligated to buy shares unless and until it turns a profit." Once it turns a profit, then the contract would have gone into effect. However, they were presenting it as "the corporation will not be obligated to buy shares if it does not earn a profit in that year." This was just modifying its duty to perform and so it was not admissible.

I actually included a very similar analysis in my outline. For those of you who submitted your Q to Barbri, could you please post their response here?

Here is the response from Barbri for Question 9:

"Thanks for your question! If you look at the Multistate volume, page 50 of the Contracts outline, you'll see there that the conditions precedent exception to the parol evidence rule applies when there is an oral agreement that states that the written contract will not become effective until a certain condition is met. That is not the case in the essay. In this essay, the oral agreement doesn't limit the entire contract from being effective (remember, we're only seeing the pertinent part, not the whole contract), but instead Major's claim is that this specific provision would only apply if the company has made a profit. In order for your theory to work, this provision would have had to be the entire contract, and we know that it's not."

[legalbeagle56]

I'm fuckin hopeless with essays man haha

I'm thinking if I average 75% on the nonessay stuff I'll only need about a 50% on the essays; I can do that

if you score 75 with nonessay, you could write "this sucks" for every essay and still pass.

^this. How badly exactly can we do on the essays if we manage a ~75% on the MBE. I tried to look at the Separac calculator thing but couldn't work it out

I think it depends on the state. You might still have to say 'this sucks' using IRAC. aka the issue is this sucks. The rule is if it sucks I don't do it. It sucks here so I'm not gonna do it.

But honestly I think if you score THAT high on MBE and NYMC your essays can probably be pretty shitty and you'll be fine. Because in that case it'd be a 50-50 split.

According to the Separac matrix based on the July 2013 exam, if you get a raw score of 143 on the MBE (75% of 190), you can average a 44 on the essays/MPT and 10 NYMC correct and still pass with a 669. If you average a 50 on the essays/MPT, you can literally get zero NYMC correct. If you get a 130 on the MBE, you can pass with an average of a 47 on the essays/MPT and 10 NYMC correct. This gives me hope.

[peanut123]

And there's a pretty good consensus that Barbri grades essays down, yes?

And thanks all for talking through the stuff on CPs. I never opened the big outline, per their instructions that we shouldn't need to. Great.

[thetashster]

if you score 75 with nonessay, you could write "this sucks" for every essay and still pass.[/quote]

^this. How badly exactly can we do on the essays if we manage a ~75% on the MBE. I tried to look at the Separac calculator thing but couldn't work it out[/quote]

I think it depends on the state. You might still have to say 'this sucks' using IRAC. aka the issue is this sucks. The rule is if it sucks I don't do it. It sucks here so I'm not gonna do it.

But honestly I think if you score THAT high on MBE and NYMC your essays can probably be pretty shitty and you'll be fine. Because in that case it'd be a 50-50 split.[/quote]

According to the Separac matrix based on the July 2013 exam, if you get a raw score of 143 on the MBE (75% of 190), you can average a 44 on the essays/MPT and 10 NYMC correct and still pass with a 669. If you average a 50 on the essays/MPT, you can literally get zero NYMC correct. If you get a 130 on the MBE, you can pass with an average of a 47 on the essays/MPT and 10 NYMC correct. This gives me hope.[/quote]


i think i just cried tears of happiness instead of tears of fright for the first time in weeks.

[thetashster]

I don't know if anyone remembers this question. I can't find it but it's been bothering me.

It was an Evidence question regarding limited admissibility. The court was supposed to instruct the jury not to use the evidence for one thing and not another. But the answer was that the judge couldn't do that because it would bias the jury.

I've tried to look for any info on this but can't find it. Does anybody know when you can't instruct the jury and have to throw the evidence out?

[peanut123]

Are we bound by NY and MBE security policies? MBE says no watches and no earplugs in "MBE testing sites" (--LinkRemoved--, page 5). Is that a term of art, or is it literally places where the MBE is administered? The NY security policy indicates that, for example, pens are not allowed on MBE day but has no such designation for earplugs and watches.

[thetashster]

Are we bound by NY and MBE security policies? MBE says no watches and no earplugs in "MBE testing sites" (--LinkRemoved--, page 5). Is that a term of art, or is it literally places where the MBE is administered? The NY security policy indicates that, for example, pens are not allowed on MBE day but has no such designation for earplugs and watches.

I think MBE is default rules and then each place does whatever if it wants. NY allows earplugs and a "quiet snack," which is way laxer than MA that allows no food at all.

http://www.nybarexam.org/Docs/secpolicy.pdf

You can also ask the first day about earplugs for MBE day, since it's Wednesday. But the site says it's cool.

[champ33]

I don't know if anyone remembers this question. I can't find it but it's been bothering me.

It was an Evidence question regarding limited admissibility. The court was supposed to instruct the jury not to use the evidence for one thing and not another. But the answer was that the judge couldn't do that because it would bias the jury.

I've tried to look for any info on this but can't find it. Does anybody know when you can't instruct the jury and have to throw the evidence out?

Only thing I can think of is the Bruton doctrine, where the Supreme Court has said that when two defendants are being jointly tried for the same crime, admitting the first defendant's confession is too prejudicial to the second defendant, and it can't come in, even with a limiting instruction to consider it only as to the first defendant.

[bigredforlaw]

I don't know if anyone remembers this question. I can't find it but it's been bothering me.

It was an Evidence question regarding limited admissibility. The court was supposed to instruct the jury not to use the evidence for one thing and not another. But the answer was that the judge couldn't do that because it would bias the jury.

I've tried to look for any info on this but can't find it. Does anybody know when you can't instruct the jury and have to throw the evidence out?

Only thing I can think of is the Bruton doctrine, where the Supreme Court has said that when two defendants are being jointly tried for the same crime, admitting the first defendant's confession is too prejudicial to the second defendant, and it can't come in, even with a limiting instruction to consider it only as to the first defendant.

I think it was in this context too, but I think it was a Confrontation Clause problem because the first defendant who confessed (implicating the second defendant) did not take the witness stand. It wouldn't even matter if the second defendant had also made a similar confession (which would be admitted if she took the stand). The second defendant's inability to confront the first defendant was too big of a problem for a limiting instruction to the jury.

[5ky]

You'll obviously want to confirm for this year, but I wore earplugs both days last year.

[turquoiseturtle]

I've been just reading and issue spotting most of the essays in the NYT. Sometimes the superior student answers freak me out, sometimes they make me feel better.

An example to calm everyone down an make you feel better. The background: secured transactions question. The issue: does an attached but unperfected creditor have priority over a buyer not in the ordinary course. The two model answer: A says "yes!" B says "no!" Despite one of them clearly getting the law 100% opposite, both chosen as superior answers.

(ps: B is right. Attached unperfected creditors lose to everyone except later attached unperfected creditors, creditors without any security interest, and the debtor.)

[AJS30]

You'll obviously want to confirm for this year, but I wore earplugs both days last year.

Is it safe to assume that the outlets provided are 3 prong? Also, do you know if you can just put a sandwich in your gallon bag that you bring to test room?

[thetashster]

I've been just reading and issue spotting most of the essays in the NYT. Sometimes the superior student answers freak me out, sometimes they make me feel better.

An example to calm everyone down an make you feel better. The background: secured transactions question. The issue: does an attached but unperfected creditor have priority over a buyer not in the ordinary course. The two model answer: A says "yes!" B says "no!" Despite one of them clearly getting the law 100% opposite, both chosen as superior answers.

(ps: B is right. Attached unperfected creditors lose to everyone except later attached unperfected creditors, creditors without any security interest, and the debtor.)

you can also go look at baressays.com they're for CA essays I think, but it still gives a range of what answers are okay.

we can ALL do IRAC!! we really can. we wouldn't have graduated without it, even if we graduated at the bottom of our class. as long as we have the general rule, i think we should be fine, right?

we're aiming to pass, we're not aiming to impress!

[thetashster]

You'll obviously want to confirm for this year, but I wore earplugs both days last year.

Is it safe to assume that the outlets provided are 3 prong? Also, do you know if you can just put a sandwich in your gallon bag that you bring to test room?

you're allowed a "quiet snack" whatever the hell that means. probably no loud wrappers and you'll get punched in the face by somebody for chewing loudly.

[5ky]

You'll obviously want to confirm for this year, but I wore earplugs both days last year.

Is it safe to assume that the outlets provided are 3 prong? Also, do you know if you can just put a sandwich in your gallon bag that you bring to test room?

Mine was 3 prong, but I think I brought both just in case.