MBE - how'd you feel? Forum

[jaysnooginz]

All I have learned from taking the Bar Exam is that the Bar Exam is useless and tests only our perseverance, not our ability to practice law. (Especially the MBE. Could you imagine winning a case because you were better at the multiple choice exam the judge gave you than opposing counsel? Haha.)

[kyle010723]

30500 right?

i don't even remember the question i just remember 30500 and picked that one lol

Same boat.

Depends on if the settlement was foreseeable. That was my biggest issue with that. But we probably shouldn't go into details.

This sums up that entire exam. The facts were just so sparse in some of these questions that it was never close to obvious what the right answer was even when you knew all the rules. And in my opinion, when that happens you really aren't testing basic legal competency, you've created a reading comprehension test where any competent lawyer would have just asked a couple of follow up questions.

Ah right, the settlement thing. I think there's not enough facts there... b/c I don't think it mentioned whether the settlement was reasonable. That might have helped my thinking.

i picked 30500 too but there definitely weren't enough facts. i spent way too long on that question bc i knew the damn rule and couldn't figure out if it applied or not. UGHHhh.

I switched back and forth between the two answers several times and ended up picking the lower amount cause the settlement was too speculative for me.

Also, duress or undue influence?

[jaysnooginz]

duress.

[somuchbooty]

.

[kyle010723]

duress.

Depended on if the alternative was reasonable. It was not that there was no alternative at all, which wouldve made it an easy case.

[spacecaps]

^ didn't wanna keep quoting a shit ton of things, but i picked duress (if we're thinking of the same question). wouldn't undue influence be more of an unconscionability thing?

[jaysnooginz]

Undue influence is not a doctrine I've seen argued for arms length transactions.

[kyle010723]

^ didn't wanna keep quoting a shit ton of things, but i picked duress (if we're thinking of the same question). wouldn't undue influence be more of an unconscionability thing?

Me too, until I read CMR afterward and it says economic duress usually doesn't count as duress.

[RufioRufio]

Consent = defense to a certain type of battery? Or am I the only one who lost all common sense midway through. Yeah, that was stupid.

[spacecaps]

.

[UVAIce]

Undue influence is taking advantage of a preexisting power differential - think of a parent and a child. Duress is taking advantage of someone because of changed circumstances - they really need the deal to come through - or the whole gun to the head scenario, which would be way too obvious for this MBE.

[kyle010723]

Consent = defense to a certain type of battery? Or am I the only one who lost all common sense midway through. Yeah, that was stupid.

I picked consent cause the answer that said the only remedy was to sue made no sense to me.

[jaysnooginz]

^ didn't wanna keep quoting a shit ton of things, but i picked duress (if we're thinking of the same question). wouldn't undue influence be more of an unconscionability thing?

Me too, until I read CMR afterward and it says economic duress usually doesn't count as duress.

We must be talking about different things. I'm thinking Alaska Packers.

[spacecaps]

^ didn't wanna keep quoting a shit ton of things, but i picked duress (if we're thinking of the same question). wouldn't undue influence be more of an unconscionability thing?

Me too, until I read CMR afterward and it says economic duress usually doesn't count as duress.

shit. i specifically remember epstein being like "duress can be economic!!!!!"

[somuchbooty]

Consent = defense to a certain type of battery? Or am I the only one who lost all common sense midway through. Yeah, that was stupid.

I don't know what you're talking about so either experimental or I just can't remember. The statutory rape Q?

[PJP]

^ didn't wanna keep quoting a shit ton of things, but i picked duress (if we're thinking of the same question). wouldn't undue influence be more of an unconscionability thing?

Me too, until I read CMR afterward and it says economic duress usually doesn't count as duress.

Duress as well. There was no consideration either for the extra money for meeting the deadline.. so it was def. either Y or N same as the duress one, not the other two options.

[kyle010723]

^ didn't wanna keep quoting a shit ton of things, but i picked duress (if we're thinking of the same question). wouldn't undue influence be more of an unconscionability thing?

Me too, until I read CMR afterward and it says economic duress usually doesn't count as duress.

We must be talking about different things. I'm thinking Alaska Packers.

Yea, we're talking about the same thing. It's just Barbri had this weird footnote in there that made me second guess my answer.

[RufioRufio]

Consent = defense to a certain type of battery? Or am I the only one who lost all common sense midway through. Yeah, that was stupid.

I don't know what you're talking about so either experimental or I just can't remember. The statutory rape Q?

That's the one.

[PJP]

.

[Veridian40]

.

[somuchbooty]

.

[kyle010723]

So hey, we know we got at least 3 right! Haha

[RufioRufio]

.

[spacecaps]

what about the crim pro car one? i knew the rule for SILA for a car and both of the exceptions and i couldn't find a fucking answer that matched up. did i just misread it like 5 times?

[Veridian40]

Consent = defense to a certain type of battery? Or am I the only one who lost all common sense midway through. Yeah, that was stupid.

I picked consent cause the answer that said the only remedy was to sue made no sense to me.

Picked consent as well. So battery fails.

I googled this whole thing, and found nothing to support this, so was convinced I got it wrong. I hate the fact that half of these questions rested on flimsy fact patterns/wording. How about that accomplice clusterfuck.

The one that killed me was the one that was loosely about an ex post facto law. That should have been a gimme for everyone - instead they give us a rogue judge randomly talking out loud about her internal thought process (very freakin' realistic) and complicate the whole thing. The whole exam pissed me off, but that was the point where I was just done.