2018 July California Bar Forum

[BlueLaw11]

(1) Has anyone here taken the test in San Diego before? If so, what was the A/C situation? Feel much more comfortable taking tests in shorts (lol) but want to be prepared if it's cold

(2) Confirming that calculators are not permitted? Some of these community property formulas worry me, given that I haven't taken a math class in almost 12 years

(3) Good luck everyone!

From what I’ve heard, the points from the CP formulas come from explaining how the formulas are applied, rather than reaching an actual number, i.e. Pereira Method is used here because X, under this method the CP/SP share = [formula]

Good to know, thanks!

[a male human]

Also, the calculations tend to be dead simple (can you divide $60,000 by 3?). I think they prefer you to make the calculations, but Atmosphere may be right, too.

Either way, do your best on the exam, everyone! Don't hold back, and do it just like you practiced...

If all else fails, here's a quick checklist to use:
A = adrenaline
B = bullshit

[PhantomBMAN]

How the hell are their phone AND admissions site down!?

Not only do they not work on weekends, but now they can't even take calls on a Monday?

How is any of this even remotely acceptable the days before an exam?

[Underoath]

Guys, chill out. They will fix the issue and if they don't I'm sure there will be some type of announcement or something. Focus on the bigger issues right now like, "I keep forgetting all the elements of X law" figure out a quick shortcut to remember it. Printing out the admission ticket isn't the big issue.

[AspiringAspirant]

I hate to do this the day before but it's just my luck that I've ran into a distinction I just can't wrap my head around for the life of me: bilateral vs unilateral offers.

I get the distinction in the abstract -- unilateral offers are rare instances when an individual seeks only a return performance, rather than a promise, as acceptance of their offer. It only occurs in public reward situations and when the offeror "unambiguously indicates that completion of performance is the only matter of acceptance." It's the part in quotes I can't get right. I look at these fact patterns, and I see no discernible difference between offers that apparently "unambiguously" demand performance instead of a promise, and those that don't. Here are some of the fact patters:

A doctor writes to a lawyer "i need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your suzuki for 1200 upon our bringing it to my home address on or before noon, November 12 next." this is a unilateral offer

"I'll pay you $50 if you paint my house." According to Emmanuels, this is a bilateral offer

"If you stand in line for more than five minutes, we will pay you $25! We like happy customers." This is a unilateral offer

A buyer sending a signed letter to a seller, stating: "Ship 100 boxes of nails at $3 per box, the price quoted in your circular." This is a bilateral offer, acceptable by return promise

An uncle writes to his niece: "If you come and live with me and take care of me and my farm for the rest of my life, I will leave the farm to you in my will. This is a unilateral offer


I just don't get it. I've been staring at these hypos and I just don't get how some of them use conditional language like "if" and are bilateral while others seem to use the same construction but are unilateral. Some of them call for specific performance, with no language referencing return promises or agreement, yet are still "ambiguous" enough to be bilateral. Please, someone help me out here lol

[bru1n]

FYI the website is up and running again. Crisis averted.

[hearsay77]

This might be a dumb question but are we allowed to bring water/coffee into the exam room?

[estefanchanning]

I hate to do this the day before but it's just my luck that I've ran into a distinction I just can't wrap my head around for the life of me: bilateral vs unilateral offers.

I get the distinction in the abstract -- unilateral offers are rare instances when an individual seeks only a return performance, rather than a promise, as acceptance of their offer. It only occurs in public reward situations and when the offeror "unambiguously indicates that completion of performance is the only matter of acceptance." It's the part in quotes I can't get right. I look at these fact patterns, and I see no discernible difference between offers that apparently "unambiguously" demand performance instead of a promise, and those that don't. Here are some of the fact patters:

1) A doctor writes to a lawyer "i need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your suzuki for 1200 upon our bringing it to my home address on or before noon, November 12 next." this is a unilateral offer

2) "I'll pay you $50 if you paint my house." According to Emmanuels, this is a bilateral offer

"If you stand in line for more than five minutes, we will pay you $25! We like happy customers." This is a unilateral offer

3) A buyer sending a signed letter to a seller, stating: "Ship 100 boxes of nails at $3 per box, the price quoted in your circular." This is a bilateral offer, acceptable by return promise

4) An uncle writes to his niece: "If you come and live with me and take care of me and my farm for the rest of my life, I will leave the farm to you in my will. This is a unilateral offer


I just don't get it. I've been staring at these hypos and I just don't get how some of them use conditional language like "if" and are bilateral while others seem to use the same construction but are unilateral. Some of them call for specific performance, with no language referencing return promises or agreement, yet are still "ambiguous" enough to be bilateral. Please, someone help me out here lol

I numbered the hypos you gave. This is my opinion:

1) Unilateral
2) Unilateral
3) Not even an offer. There is no consideration for the offeror, so this seems illusory
4) Unilateral

To me, a unilateral offer asks for a performance rather than a promise. In 2, it would be bilateral if it said "i'll give you $50 if you agree to paint my house"

[AspiringAspirant]

I hate to do this the day before but it's just my luck that I've ran into a distinction I just can't wrap my head around for the life of me: bilateral vs unilateral offers.

I get the distinction in the abstract -- unilateral offers are rare instances when an individual seeks only a return performance, rather than a promise, as acceptance of their offer. It only occurs in public reward situations and when the offeror "unambiguously indicates that completion of performance is the only matter of acceptance." It's the part in quotes I can't get right. I look at these fact patterns, and I see no discernible difference between offers that apparently "unambiguously" demand performance instead of a promise, and those that don't. Here are some of the fact patters:

1) A doctor writes to a lawyer "i need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your suzuki for 1200 upon our bringing it to my home address on or before noon, November 12 next." this is a unilateral offer

2) "I'll pay you $50 if you paint my house." According to Emmanuels, this is a bilateral offer

"If you stand in line for more than five minutes, we will pay you $25! We like happy customers." This is a unilateral offer

3) A buyer sending a signed letter to a seller, stating: "Ship 100 boxes of nails at $3 per box, the price quoted in your circular." This is a bilateral offer, acceptable by return promise

4) An uncle writes to his niece: "If you come and live with me and take care of me and my farm for the rest of my life, I will leave the farm to you in my will. This is a unilateral offer


I just don't get it. I've been staring at these hypos and I just don't get how some of them use conditional language like "if" and are bilateral while others seem to use the same construction but are unilateral. Some of them call for specific performance, with no language referencing return promises or agreement, yet are still "ambiguous" enough to be bilateral. Please, someone help me out here lol

I numbered the hypos you gave. This is my opinion:

1) Unilateral
2) Unilateral
3) Not even an offer. There is no consideration for the offeror, so this seems illusory
4) Unilateral

To me, a unilateral offer asks for a performance rather than a promise. In 2, it would be bilateral if it said "i'll give you $50 if you agree to paint my house"

I might just have to drop this because it's not doing me any good, but I thought the same as you, which is why I got some of these wrong as I did questions out of adaptibar and emmanuel's. Very annoying, there doesn't seem to be a clear line for when the offeror is demanding performance vs. when he's asking for performance but a return promise would suffice.

And for #3, the consideration is the $3 payment for each box sent. In adaptibar this was a valid, bilateral offer that was accepted upon return promise.

[Auxilio]

2) Unilateral

3) Not even an offer. There is no consideration for the offeror, so this seems illusory

To me, a unilateral offer asks for a performance rather than a promise. In 2, it would be bilateral if it said "i'll give you $50 if you agree to paint my house"

(2) I think we are supposed to interpret the implied promise aspect. A unilateral offer is generally more clear that it's a condition "I will pay you $50 once you paint my entire house" etc. Although I agree it's not a great example. Another aspect that i sometimes think about is that the house painting can be partially performed (and then entitled to some damages) whereas the other options are less so.

(3) I think this is partly special under the UCC. A order request to a merchant can be interpreted as an offer to the manufacturer/distributor.

ETA: I think that bilateral is the default when not clear, which also helps clarify #2

[estefanchanning]

I hate to do this the day before but it's just my luck that I've ran into a distinction I just can't wrap my head around for the life of me: bilateral vs unilateral offers.

I get the distinction in the abstract -- unilateral offers are rare instances when an individual seeks only a return performance, rather than a promise, as acceptance of their offer. It only occurs in public reward situations and when the offeror "unambiguously indicates that completion of performance is the only matter of acceptance." It's the part in quotes I can't get right. I look at these fact patterns, and I see no discernible difference between offers that apparently "unambiguously" demand performance instead of a promise, and those that don't. Here are some of the fact patters:

1) A doctor writes to a lawyer "i need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your suzuki for 1200 upon our bringing it to my home address on or before noon, November 12 next." this is a unilateral offer

2) "I'll pay you $50 if you paint my house." According to Emmanuels, this is a bilateral offer

"If you stand in line for more than five minutes, we will pay you $25! We like happy customers." This is a unilateral offer

3) A buyer sending a signed letter to a seller, stating: "Ship 100 boxes of nails at $3 per box, the price quoted in your circular." This is a bilateral offer, acceptable by return promise

4) An uncle writes to his niece: "If you come and live with me and take care of me and my farm for the rest of my life, I will leave the farm to you in my will. This is a unilateral offer


I just don't get it. I've been staring at these hypos and I just don't get how some of them use conditional language like "if" and are bilateral while others seem to use the same construction but are unilateral. Some of them call for specific performance, with no language referencing return promises or agreement, yet are still "ambiguous" enough to be bilateral. Please, someone help me out here lol

I numbered the hypos you gave. This is my opinion:

1) Unilateral
2) Unilateral
3) Not even an offer. There is no consideration for the offeror, so this seems illusory
4) Unilateral

To me, a unilateral offer asks for a performance rather than a promise. In 2, it would be bilateral if it said "i'll give you $50 if you agree to paint my house"

I might just have to drop this because it's not doing me any good, but I thought the same as you, which is why I got some of these wrong as I did questions out of adaptibar and emmanuel's. Very annoying, there doesn't seem to be a clear line for when the offeror is demanding performance vs. when he's asking for performance but a return promise would suffice.

And for #3, the consideration is the $3 payment for each box sent. In adaptibar this was a valid, bilateral offer that was accepted upon return promise.

Sorry, #2 was referring to the customers standing in line. But yeah, I would rather get 1 or 2 unilateral Qs wrong than spend anymore time on this lol.

[estefanchanning]

Ugh ignore everything I'm saying, I have my numbering mixed up. tldr; fuck unilateral offers

[lytieul0ng]

This might be a dumb question but are we allowed to bring water/coffee into the exam room?

I don't think we're allowed to bring either. Sucks

[AspiringAspirant]

2) Unilateral

3) Not even an offer. There is no consideration for the offeror, so this seems illusory

To me, a unilateral offer asks for a performance rather than a promise. In 2, it would be bilateral if it said "i'll give you $50 if you agree to paint my house"

(2) I think we are supposed to interpret the implied promise aspect. A unilateral offer is generally more clear that it's a condition "I will pay you $50 once you paint my entire house" etc. Although I agree it's not a great example. Another aspect that i sometimes think about is that the house painting can be partially performed (and then entitled to some damages) whereas the other options are less so.

(3) I think this is partly special under the UCC. A order request to a merchant can be interpreted as an offer to the manufacturer/distributor.

ETA: I think that bilateral is the default when not clear, which also helps clarify #2

Thanks for helping. I think my biggest problem is that it's almost always not clear lol Like, how is it a bilateral offer to say "if you paint my house, I'll pay you $50" but not a bilateral offer to say "if you wait in line for 5 minutes, I'll give you $25." It just makes no sense to me.

[AspiringAspirant]

Ugh ignore everything I'm saying, I have my numbering mixed up. tldr; fuck unilateral offers

lol yeah probably time for me to let it go

[estefanchanning]

2) Unilateral

3) Not even an offer. There is no consideration for the offeror, so this seems illusory

To me, a unilateral offer asks for a performance rather than a promise. In 2, it would be bilateral if it said "i'll give you $50 if you agree to paint my house"

(2) I think we are supposed to interpret the implied promise aspect. A unilateral offer is generally more clear that it's a condition "I will pay you $50 once you paint my entire house" etc. Although I agree it's not a great example. Another aspect that i sometimes think about is that the house painting can be partially performed (and then entitled to some damages) whereas the other options are less so.

(3) I think this is partly special under the UCC. A order request to a merchant can be interpreted as an offer to the manufacturer/distributor.

ETA: I think that bilateral is the default when not clear, which also helps clarify #2

Thanks for helping. I think my biggest problem is that it's almost always not clear lol Like, how is it a bilateral offer to say "if you paint my house, I'll pay you $50" but not a bilateral offer to say "if you wait in line for 5 minutes, I'll give you $25." It just makes no sense to me.

Was that the actual question verbatim? that straight up sounds unilateral. Offeror must perform upon the happening of a stated condition, while offeree is not bound at all. Performance is the only way to accept this offer.

[AspiringAspirant]

2) Unilateral

3) Not even an offer. There is no consideration for the offeror, so this seems illusory

To me, a unilateral offer asks for a performance rather than a promise. In 2, it would be bilateral if it said "i'll give you $50 if you agree to paint my house"

(2) I think we are supposed to interpret the implied promise aspect. A unilateral offer is generally more clear that it's a condition "I will pay you $50 once you paint my entire house" etc. Although I agree it's not a great example. Another aspect that i sometimes think about is that the house painting can be partially performed (and then entitled to some damages) whereas the other options are less so.

(3) I think this is partly special under the UCC. A order request to a merchant can be interpreted as an offer to the manufacturer/distributor.

ETA: I think that bilateral is the default when not clear, which also helps clarify #2

Thanks for helping. I think my biggest problem is that it's almost always not clear lol Like, how is it a bilateral offer to say "if you paint my house, I'll pay you $50" but not a bilateral offer to say "if you wait in line for 5 minutes, I'll give you $25." It just makes no sense to me.

Was that the actual question verbatim? that straight up sounds unilateral. Offeror must perform upon the happening of a stated condition, while offeree is not bound at all. Performance is the only way to accept this offer.

Here's the exact quote from Emmanuel's, which has a section on unilateral vs bilateral offers (that sucks and doesn't clarify anything btw): "Say that an offeror states, 'I'll pay you $50 if you paint my house.' Because either a promise to paint or the actual painting of the house would suffice, this offer could be interpreted as seeking either a bilateral or a unilateral contract. When in doubt, a court will construe an offer as a bilateral offer."

The question then, which Emanuel's doesn't remotely help answer, is when a promise "suffices" even though there has been a request for performance.

[estefanchanning]

I think Emmanuel is making the argument that, in that example, the offer was not clearly unambiguous that performance can ONLY be via painting it. Thus, it defaults to bilateral.

While technically true, idk if the bar examiners follow this approach? I swear I did an adaptibar question where it was ambiguous whether a uni K was made, and the answer was that it was uni K.

W/e. I'm just gonna do process of elimination on bar exam. I don't think they'll give us something where reasonable minds can disagree

[AspiringAspirant]

I think Emmanuel is making the argument that, in that example, the offer was not clearly unambiguous that performance can ONLY be via painting it. Thus, it defaults to bilateral.

While technically true, idk if the bar examiners follow this approach? I swear I did an adaptibar question where it was ambiguous whether a uni K was made, and the answer was that it was uni K.

W/e. I'm just gonna do process of elimination on bar exam. I don't think they'll give us something where reasonable minds can disagree

Yea that's the problem, there are previous bar exams questions that had the same ambiguity as the house painting example, yet they were unilateral contracts -- see question re: uncle leaving farm to niece in the will. This is no more or less explicit that a promise is insufficient for acceptance, yet it is a unilateral contract while the house painting hypo is not.

And there are examples that go the other way.The hypo about sending the $3 boxes seems to clearly be calling for performance, not a return promise (i.e., it didn't say "agree to ship 100 boxes," it just said to send them). Yet the bar examiners called this a bilateral offer and a return promise was sufficient.

Oh well. Think I got everything there is to get from this. Appreciate your help.

[estefanchanning]

I think Emmanuel is making the argument that, in that example, the offer was not clearly unambiguous that performance can ONLY be via painting it. Thus, it defaults to bilateral.

While technically true, idk if the bar examiners follow this approach? I swear I did an adaptibar question where it was ambiguous whether a uni K was made, and the answer was that it was uni K.

W/e. I'm just gonna do process of elimination on bar exam. I don't think they'll give us something where reasonable minds can disagree

Yea that's the problem, there are previous bar exams questions that had the same ambiguity as the house painting example, yet they were unilateral contracts -- see question re: uncle leaving farm to niece in the will. This is no more or less explicit that a promise is insufficient for acceptance, yet it is a unilateral contract while the house painting hypo is not.

And there are examples that go the other way.The hypo about sending the $3 boxes seems to clearly be calling for performance, not a return promise (i.e., it didn't say "agree to ship 100 boxes," it just said to send them). Yet the bar examiners called this a bilateral offer and a return promise was sufficient.

Oh well. Think I got everything there is to get from this. Appreciate your help.

That was actually my bad (Re: ship 100 boxes) bc I got my #s mixed up and ignored it. That would indeed be a bilateral offer because the UCC specifically explains that an offer that invites acceptance via immediate shipment is construed as bilateral offer. Don't remember which code it is, but that is UCC-specific.

[AspiringAspirant]

I think Emmanuel is making the argument that, in that example, the offer was not clearly unambiguous that performance can ONLY be via painting it. Thus, it defaults to bilateral.

While technically true, idk if the bar examiners follow this approach? I swear I did an adaptibar question where it was ambiguous whether a uni K was made, and the answer was that it was uni K.

W/e. I'm just gonna do process of elimination on bar exam. I don't think they'll give us something where reasonable minds can disagree

Yea that's the problem, there are previous bar exams questions that had the same ambiguity as the house painting example, yet they were unilateral contracts -- see question re: uncle leaving farm to niece in the will. This is no more or less explicit that a promise is insufficient for acceptance, yet it is a unilateral contract while the house painting hypo is not.

And there are examples that go the other way.The hypo about sending the $3 boxes seems to clearly be calling for performance, not a return promise (i.e., it didn't say "agree to ship 100 boxes," it just said to send them). Yet the bar examiners called this a bilateral offer and a return promise was sufficient.

Oh well. Think I got everything there is to get from this. Appreciate your help.

That was actually my bad (Re: ship 100 boxes) bc I got my #s mixed up and ignored it. That would indeed be a bilateral offer because the UCC specifically explains that an offer that invites acceptance via immediate shipment is construed as bilateral offer. Don't remember which code it is, but that is UCC-specific.

Ok gotcha. That's good to know

[dabigchina]

Anybody know how bad the parking situation is around the Santa Clara convention center. Wondering if I should show up at 7 just to snag a spot?

[paragonloop]

Anybody know how bad the parking situation is around the Santa Clara convention center. Wondering if I should show up at 7 just to snag a spot?

There's a very large, free parking structure attached to the convention center. You shouldn't have any trouble getting a spot.

[estefanchanning]

What about parking situation for downtown LA convention center?

[dabigchina]

Anybody know how bad the parking situation is around the Santa Clara convention center. Wondering if I should show up at 7 just to snag a spot?

There's a very large, free parking structure attached to the convention center. You shouldn't have any trouble getting a spot.

Thanks. I saw how many seats they were setting up and suspected parking might be a problem. Hopefully a decent amount of people are getting dropped off/coming from the attached hotel.