NY July 2016 Thread Forum

[whitecollar23]

They purposely made this MEE ridiculously difficult and for the most part tested on obscure laws. I wonder what the MBE is going to be like tomorrow. Going to be very interesting!

[Br3v]

One more day of testing!

[whitecollar23]

Lol at that intricate ST rule. Props to anyone who knew that.

What about the last part of the ST about anything else? I couldn't find any facts that even made it an open question which made me think I was missing something.

I thought it had to do with accession vs conmingling.

I don't think so because there are specific rules about real estate and fixtures and not readily removable fixtures.. this was not tires on a car.

Yeah I don't remember those rules so I just BSed it. But I assumed having an interest in the fixture doesn't give you an interest in the real property. What more to it was there?

The last ST was an issue about proceeds. Given that the equipment was leased and PTT wasn't paid yet, there would be be accounts receivable for what they were owed.

Um I think you can only attach an account receivable that comes from the sale of the asset if it is readily identifiable or the proceeds on the account are perfected within 20 days. Can you do it for leases?

I thought it was readily identifiable, and I don't see why it wouldn't apply to a lease.

[whitecollar23]

Also, 3 parts to the paint Q right? I can't remember a part 4

Yeah.

[mvp99]

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Assignment of contracts is on like, page 200 of Barbri's outline.

[MCFC]

Also, 3 parts to the paint Q right? I can't remember a part 4

The third q asked about liability to two parties, but yeah I'd call it 3.

[ellewoods123]

Assignment of contracts is on like, page 200 of Barbri's outline.

Literally wtf was the answer to that

[Cellar-door]

I feel bad for whoever grades my essays.
Whenever I couldn't remember the real rules I made up a large number of rules that don't exist, possibly anywhere, ever and applied them to the facts.

[ryantw]

Well, if it makes any of you feel better, my laptop decided to not work this morning so I got to handwrite the MPT

[whitecollar23]

It makes sense they would test on it but I didn't think about it. That issue was hidden near the doors of hell, wow, was it obvious to you?

I'm searching right now whether one can reposses income producing assets and get the money

Well, I mean the issue itself was very hidden, but once I saw it, I just quickly wrote down the law. At first, I was writing the answer thinking they were testing on whether we realized that only the building gets an interest in fixtures and not that fixtures get an interest in the building. But then I kept looking, figuring there had to be something there, and was like, well why would they have spoken about the lease if it wasn't relevant, and then it hit me...

[whitecollar23]

Assignment of contracts is on like, page 200 of Barbri's outline.

Literally wtf was the answer to that

Assignment was good since the work was the same; incidental beneficiary has no claim; claims against both homeowner and neighbor are good (no novation and neighbor was assigned the contract).

[whitecollar23]

I'm surprised no one's talking about that Torts question. MARKET SHARE LIABILITY? C'mon. That's barely covered. That liability is only several and not joint and several, right?

[Rahviveh]

It makes sense they would test on it but I didn't think about it. That issue was hidden near the doors of hell, wow, was it obvious to you?

I'm searching right now whether one can reposses income producing assets and get the money

Well, I mean the issue itself was very hidden, but once I saw it, I just quickly wrote down the law. At first, I was writing the answer thinking they were testing on whether we realized that only the building gets an interest in fixtures and not that fixtures get an interest in the building. But then I kept looking, figuring there had to be something there, and was like, well why would they have spoken about the lease if it wasn't relevant, and then it hit me...

Bravo dude. That's definitely a top 5% thing to see. Doubt many people got that.

[whitecollar23]

It makes sense they would test on it but I didn't think about it. That issue was hidden near the doors of hell, wow, was it obvious to you?

I'm searching right now whether one can reposses income producing assets and get the money

Well, I mean the issue itself was very hidden, but once I saw it, I just quickly wrote down the law. At first, I was writing the answer thinking they were testing on whether we realized that only the building gets an interest in fixtures and not that fixtures get an interest in the building. But then I kept looking, figuring there had to be something there, and was like, well why would they have spoken about the lease if it wasn't relevant, and then it hit me...

Bravo dude. That's definitely a top 5% thing to see. Doubt many people got that.

Thanks, bro. I got both excited and freaked out when I found it because I had already written half of the other answer, lol. There were wayyyyy too many questions in the MEE. Thankfully, the contracts question didn't require a lot of writing.

[ellewoods123]

Assignment of contracts is on like, page 200 of Barbri's outline.

Literally wtf was the answer to that

Assignment was good since the work was the same; incidental beneficiary has no claim; claims against both homeowner and neighbor are good (no novation and neighbor was assigned the contract).

Omg I actually said that!! God bless u

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Assignment of contracts is on like, page 200 of Barbri's outline.

Literally wtf was the answer to that

Assignment was good since the work was the same; incidental beneficiary has no claim; claims against both homeowner and neighbor are good (no novation and neighbor was assigned the contract).

Wait, you can assign a personal services contract?

[Rahviveh]

I'm surprised no one's talking about that Torts question. MARKET SHARE LIABILITY? C'mon. That's barely covered. That liability is only several and not joint and several, right?

market share liability isn't even in the Themis outline.

[whitecollar23]

It makes sense they would test on it but I didn't think about it. That issue was hidden near the doors of hell, wow, was it obvious to you?

I'm searching right now whether one can reposses income producing assets and get the money

Well, I mean the issue itself was very hidden, but once I saw it, I just quickly wrote down the law. At first, I was writing the answer thinking they were testing on whether we realized that only the building gets an interest in fixtures and not that fixtures get an interest in the building. But then I kept looking, figuring there had to be something there, and was like, well why would they have spoken about the lease if it wasn't relevant, and then it hit me...

Bravo dude. That's definitely a top 5% thing to see. Doubt many people got that.

Thanks, bro. I got both excited and freaked out when I found it because I had already written half of the other answer, lol. There were wayyyyy too many questions in the MEE. Thankfully, the contracts question didn't require a lot of writing.

Also, I hope that I was right that the interest attaches automatically because it's easily traceable back. Not looking that up until tomorrow night, even though I'm getting tempted to, lol.

Shit, just looked it up. They wouldn't have an interest in the proceeds because the original financing statement wouldn't cover it, as it didn't cover receivables. Though, not sure, as maybe it still covered it because it was filed with the Secretary of State. Not sure. Ehhhhh!

[Br3v]

Hope everyone did well!

[MCFC]

هه

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I'm surprised no one's talking about that Torts question. MARKET SHARE LIABILITY? C'mon. That's barely covered. That liability is only several and not joint and several, right?

I thought all cases with multiple defendants who each could've caused the full injury by themselves had joint and several liability? Is that not right?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Btw, could cousin and bro do that?

Edit

[Rahviveh]

I'm surprised no one's talking about that Torts question. MARKET SHARE LIABILITY? C'mon. That's barely covered. That liability is only several and not joint and several, right?

I thought all cases with multiple defendants who each could've caused the full injury by themselves had joint and several liability? Is that not right?

But the facts said none of the companies were negligent.

[dntota]

Assignment of contracts is on like, page 200 of Barbri's outline.

Literally wtf was the answer to that

Assignment was good since the work was the same; incidental beneficiary has no claim; claims against both homeowner and neighbor are good (no novation and neighbor was assigned the contract).

Wait, you can assign a personal services contract?

That was my reaction. I knew no law, but just bloviated for a while about how it would be absurd to make the painter do something he had never contracted to do. What happened to FREEDOM?