BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[charlesxavier]

Jacking this from the Themis thread but I'm curious about it too because this assignment/delegation/third party beneficiary stuff ALWAYS trips me up....

Can someone explain to me 3rd Party Beneficiaries in these contexts?

1) A contracts with B. B owes A $1,000. A tells B to give the $1,000 to C (assigning A's rights to C). A tells C that B will give her money. C goes out and buys $1,000 worth of stuff on her credit card. B later gives $1,000 to A. Can C sue B for not giving her the money?

2) Same facts as above, EXCEPT B doesn't give money at all to A. Can C sue B for payment?

I've been really confused whether incidental beneficiaries can ever vest by detrimental reliance if they had notice (like A telling C that B will give her money).

Also, is there a difference between creditor/donee beneficiaries as to how their interests vest?

If anyone can tell me how they handle assignments of payment on K questions, I would greatly appreciate it! (e.g., who owes who the money, who can sue whom).

Thanks!

I'll take a shot at this, but others should check my work.

(1) This isn't a TPB question; it's an assignment question. I think that C could sue B because B knew about the assignment. I don't think C could sue A, though, because it was a gratuitous assignment (no consideration), which means it's revocable. Is this right?

(2) Yes, C can sue B. (Assignee can sue obligor)

I don't think there's any difference between creditor and donee beneficiaries regarding vesting. The only difference is that a creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisee to the extent of the pre-existing debt, whereas donee beneficiaries can't enforce the contract against the promisee at all (only the promisor).

According to my notes a gratuitous assignment is irrevocable if the assignee reasonably and foreseeably relied on the assignment.

[xChiTowNx]

What are people bringing for lunch? Just realized we have no access to fridge and our lunch has to be in our bag that we bring the entire time? Anyone have a good meal regime they are planning that doesnt require a fridge?

My hotel is next door and it miraculously has a fridge. But I went to walmart and got carrot sticks, almonds, and deli turkey meat - a poor man's protein booster, with some Arizona green tea as my boost for the afternoon.

I also found these Gatorade energy chews for a dollar since we're allowed to bring candy into the room.

[murray18]

What are people bringing for lunch? Just realized we have no access to fridge and our lunch has to be in our bag that we bring the entire time? Anyone have a good meal regime they are planning that doesnt require a fridge?

My state lets you leave for lunch, but the exam is smack dab in the middle of the worst city i've ever been to. Think there's like one jimmy johns within walking distance. So I'm going to bring a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on wheat, an apple, and a thing of almonds just in case. None of those things have to be refrigerated, and it'll probably be about the most healthy thing I've eaten all summer.

[BVest]

we're only allowed a quart-sized bag. wtf. Pencils barely fit in it.

Our instruction sheet doesn't appear to specify what size bag (it does say we can use a 2.5 gallon bag for our laptop), but I've put my stuff in a gallon size because the admission ticket itself doesn't fit in the quart size.

[Good Guy Gaud]

I'm going to bring like a protein/energy bar but that's it. I perform better if I'm a little hungry and I'd rather be hungry than eat too much because I'm stressed then get tired.

Some people's problems.

[brotherdarkness]

I'm going to bring like a protein/energy bar but that's it. I perform better if I'm a little hungry and I'd rather be hungry than eat too much because I'm stressed then get tired.

Some people's problems.

I'm the same. I'll have a Quest bar for lunch and that's it. Not trying to get lethargic.

[musicfor18]

Jacking this from the Themis thread but I'm curious about it too because this assignment/delegation/third party beneficiary stuff ALWAYS trips me up....

Can someone explain to me 3rd Party Beneficiaries in these contexts?

1) A contracts with B. B owes A $1,000. A tells B to give the $1,000 to C (assigning A's rights to C). A tells C that B will give her money. C goes out and buys $1,000 worth of stuff on her credit card. B later gives $1,000 to A. Can C sue B for not giving her the money?

2) Same facts as above, EXCEPT B doesn't give money at all to A. Can C sue B for payment?

I've been really confused whether incidental beneficiaries can ever vest by detrimental reliance if they had notice (like A telling C that B will give her money).

Also, is there a difference between creditor/donee beneficiaries as to how their interests vest?

If anyone can tell me how they handle assignments of payment on K questions, I would greatly appreciate it! (e.g., who owes who the money, who can sue whom).

Thanks!

I'll take a shot at this, but others should check my work.

(1) This isn't a TPB question; it's an assignment question. I think that C could sue B because B knew about the assignment. I don't think C could sue A, though, because it was a gratuitous assignment (no consideration), which means it's revocable. Is this right?

(2) Yes, C can sue B. (Assignee can sue obligor)

I don't think there's any difference between creditor and donee beneficiaries regarding vesting. The only difference is that a creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisee to the extent of the pre-existing debt, whereas donee beneficiaries can't enforce the contract against the promisee at all (only the promisor).

According to my notes a gratuitous assignment is irrevocable if the assignee reasonably and foreseeably relied on the assignment.

Good point. That's true. But I still don't know if the assignee can sue the assignor.

[charlesxavier]

Jacking this from the Themis thread but I'm curious about it too because this assignment/delegation/third party beneficiary stuff ALWAYS trips me up....

Can someone explain to me 3rd Party Beneficiaries in these contexts?

1) A contracts with B. B owes A $1,000. A tells B to give the $1,000 to C (assigning A's rights to C). A tells C that B will give her money. C goes out and buys $1,000 worth of stuff on her credit card. B later gives $1,000 to A. Can C sue B for not giving her the money?

2) Same facts as above, EXCEPT B doesn't give money at all to A. Can C sue B for payment?

I've been really confused whether incidental beneficiaries can ever vest by detrimental reliance if they had notice (like A telling C that B will give her money).

Also, is there a difference between creditor/donee beneficiaries as to how their interests vest?

If anyone can tell me how they handle assignments of payment on K questions, I would greatly appreciate it! (e.g., who owes who the money, who can sue whom).

Thanks!

I'll take a shot at this, but others should check my work.

(1) This isn't a TPB question; it's an assignment question. I think that C could sue B because B knew about the assignment. I don't think C could sue A, though, because it was a gratuitous assignment (no consideration), which means it's revocable. Is this right?

(2) Yes, C can sue B. (Assignee can sue obligor)

I don't think there's any difference between creditor and donee beneficiaries regarding vesting. The only difference is that a creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisee to the extent of the pre-existing debt, whereas donee beneficiaries can't enforce the contract against the promisee at all (only the promisor).

According to my notes a gratuitous assignment is irrevocable if the assignee reasonably and foreseeably relied on the assignment.

Good point. That's true. But I still don't know if the assignee can sue the assignor.

The assignor taking performance directly from the obligor is a method of revocation, right? So if A accepts the money from B knowing that it was assigned then he's attempting to revoke an irrevocable assignment (assuming C relied). The outline makes it seem like A doesn't have the right to revoke but still has the power to revoke. So, A is liable for breach of contract. Or am I misunderstanding?

[Kage3212]

Anyone know if the OBE 4 is the same OPE 4 offered on Adaptibar? Adaptibar states that it is 100 questions from 2013 exam.

[3|ink]

If my notes are right, an assignee cannot sue and assignor for the obligor's failure to perform. However, the assignee can sue the assignor when it attempts to revoke an irrevocable assignment. And justifiable reliance on the assignment to the assignee's detriment makes the assignment irrevocable. So I think Charles is right.

[Good Guy Gaud]

Anyone know if the OBE 4 is the same OPE 4 offered on Adaptibar? Adaptibar states that it is 100 questions from 2013 exam.

I think that sounds the same.

[lawstudent_87]

Is assault a specific intent crime? I know it is a specific intent crime if it is an "attempted battery," but is it a specific intent crime if it is for purposes of putting another person in apprehension of fear or danger?

In other words, if you point a gun at someone but are "stage 9" drunk, are you guilty of assault?

[Tiago Splitter]

Is assault a specific intent crime? I know it is a specific intent crime if it is an "attempted battery," but is it a specific intent crime if it is for purposes of putting another person in apprehension of fear or danger?

In other words, if you point a gun at someone but are "stage 9" drunk, are you guilty of assault?

yeah it's a specific intent crime so voluntary intox. is a defense

[RufioRufio]

I think that the form of assault that causes immediate fear or apprehension of offensive contact is general intent. In the tort context, obviously it is. In the criminal law context, I had assumed the specific intent aspect of assault applied only to it insofar as it is an attempted battery.

I'm probably wrong though. The barbri essays for civil procedure and remedies have made me uncertain about anything I ever thought I knew.

[RaleighStClair]

I can't find where you guys were talking about the OPE #4, etc. I was curious - how did you think those questions felt stylistically compared to Emanuel's practice exam and/or BarBri's Mixed Sets? And how did you do relatively?

I've been getting 40ish/50 on the mixed sets, and got 153/200 on the full-day Emanuel. But I didn't do well at all on the 21 NCBE sample, so I'm a little concerned.

[Kage3212]

I can't find where you guys were talking about the OPE #4, etc. I was curious - how did you think those questions felt stylistically compared to Emanuel's practice exam and/or BarBri's Mixed Sets? And how did you do relatively?

I've been getting 40ish/50 on the mixed sets, and got 153/200 on the full-day Emanuel. But I didn't do well at all on the 21 NCBE sample, so I'm a little concerned.

I am working my way through the OPE 4 from Adaptibar (apparently, same thing as the NCBE one; its from 2013 so guessing that Adaptibar was also licensed to use it). Ill provide some input once I get through.

[musicfor18]

If my notes are right, an assignee cannot sue and assignor for the obligor's failure to perform. However, the assignee can sue the assignor when it attempts to revoke an irrevocable assignment. And justifiable reliance on the assignment to the assignee's detriment makes the assignment irrevocable. So I think Charles is right.

Yeah, this sounds right.

[kyle010723]

I can't find where you guys were talking about the OPE #4, etc. I was curious - how did you think those questions felt stylistically compared to Emanuel's practice exam and/or BarBri's Mixed Sets? And how did you do relatively?

I've been getting 40ish/50 on the mixed sets, and got 153/200 on the full-day Emanuel. But I didn't do well at all on the 21 NCBE sample, so I'm a little concerned.

Here's what GGG said earlier

For anyone else who was curious after the post about the OBE-MBE from the NCBE:
I took the OBE 4 test this morning and got a scaled score of 164 (which would be low 150s raw using past raw score conversion charts). Consistent with what other posters have said, the questions are just more straight-forward. Like, there's usually just one issue they're testing on and it tends not to be that difficult to recognize which issue it is. Also, it's usually easier to toss out 1-2 of the answer choices almost immediately.

And what Sharklet said

MBE-OPE 4: 173/200 (last week) - scaled
Barbri Half-Day: 70/100. (this week)
Mixed Set 6: 30/50 (this week)
MBE-OPE 3: 180/200 (today) - scaled

[diowad]

Finished Emanuel's last set of 50 in his 200. Somehow, some way pulled a 43/50, when I had been in the mid-30's.

I think that's a wrap for my 10 weeks of studying. Day off tomorrow before the games begin on Tuesday.

[kyle010723]

Finished Emanuel's last set of 50 in his 200. Somehow, some way pulled a 43/50, when I had been in the mid-30's.

I think that's a wrap for my 10 weeks of studying. Day off tomorrow before the games begin on Tuesday.

Good job! Always nice to end on a high note!

[gmail]

Is it just me or are the barbri tort lecutres frequently insufficient to actually answer barbri tort questions. For example, the lecture clearly states that there is an affirmative duty to act in only three instances, (1) close family relationships, (2) common carriers inkeepers, (3) invitee/invitors. Then there's a StudySmart question where a farmer on a tractor sees a storm was coming and fled to a lightening-safe area, leaving his 16 yr old, city-slicker, farmworker in the back of the tractor to get struck. We're supposed to find the farmer liable b/c "modern cases" extend the affirmative duty to act/rescue to the employer in an employer/employee relationship.

How the shit are we supposed to know that??

[diowad]

Is it just me or are the barbri tort lecutres frequently insufficient to actually answer barbri tort questions. For example, the lecture clearly states that there is an affirmative duty to act in only three instances, (1) close family relationships, (2) common carriers inkeepers, (3) invitee/invitors. Then there's a StudySmart question where a farmer on a tractor sees a storm was coming and fled to a lightening-safe area, leaving his 16 yr old, city-slicker, farmworker in the back of the tractor to get struck. We're supposed to find the farmer liable b/c "modern cases" extend the affirmative duty to act/rescue to the employer in an employer/employee relationship.

How the shit are we supposed to know that??

Can't really answer your question but as far as their Torts coverage based off of practice questions is concerned, they should have had a separate day just for strict and products liability. Seems that both BarBri and Emanuel have a hard on for that sub-topic.

[3|ink]

Is it just me or are the barbri tort lecutres frequently insufficient to actually answer barbri tort questions. For example, the lecture clearly states that there is an affirmative duty to act in only three instances, (1) close family relationships, (2) common carriers inkeepers, (3) invitee/invitors. Then there's a StudySmart question where a farmer on a tractor sees a storm was coming and fled to a lightening-safe area, leaving his 16 yr old, city-slicker, farmworker in the back of the tractor to get struck. We're supposed to find the farmer liable b/c "modern cases" extend the affirmative duty to act/rescue to the employer in an employer/employee relationship.

How the shit are we supposed to know that??

Did you have that guy who doesn't provide a lecture handout?

[3|ink]

Is it just me or are the barbri tort lecutres frequently insufficient to actually answer barbri tort questions. For example, the lecture clearly states that there is an affirmative duty to act in only three instances, (1) close family relationships, (2) common carriers inkeepers, (3) invitee/invitors. Then there's a StudySmart question where a farmer on a tractor sees a storm was coming and fled to a lightening-safe area, leaving his 16 yr old, city-slicker, farmworker in the back of the tractor to get struck. We're supposed to find the farmer liable b/c "modern cases" extend the affirmative duty to act/rescue to the employer in an employer/employee relationship.

How the shit are we supposed to know that??

Can't really answer your question but as far as their Torts coverage based off of practice questions is concerned, they should have had a separate day just for strict and products liability. Seems that both BarBri and Emanuel have a hard on for that sub-topic.

Yeah. I really struggled with that topic until a poster in this thread basically explained everything we need to know about strict and negligence-based product liability in one paragraph.

[kyle010723]

Is it just me or are the barbri tort lecutres frequently insufficient to actually answer barbri tort questions. For example, the lecture clearly states that there is an affirmative duty to act in only three instances, (1) close family relationships, (2) common carriers inkeepers, (3) invitee/invitors. Then there's a StudySmart question where a farmer on a tractor sees a storm was coming and fled to a lightening-safe area, leaving his 16 yr old, city-slicker, farmworker in the back of the tractor to get struck. We're supposed to find the farmer liable b/c "modern cases" extend the affirmative duty to act/rescue to the employer in an employer/employee relationship.

How the shit are we supposed to know that??

I mean, you would think a reasonable person under that circumstance would tell the 16 yr old to get the heck out of there.