NY July 2016 Thread Forum

[mvp99]

[whitecollar23]

Yeah, fixture filings need to be in the Office of the County Clerk. Though, the fixture filing was also filed in the Secretary of State, so maybe that would mean that the proceeds are covered? Still not fully sure, lol.

[WheatThins]

Btw, could cousin and bro do that?

Bro has actual authority, cousin has apparent authority...I think.

Was the land sale in the ordinary course of business of the bike shop? Dont think cousin had any authority.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I'm just inescapably mad as fuck that this is a closed-book exam. It's 20% actual application and 80% rule memorization, which is a thing you will almost never need to do IRL (except I guess at trials/depos).

I promise to quit law entirely the day a partner tells me "Do this assignment without consulting any authority at all."

[MCFC]

مِم

[whitecollar23]

Btw, could cousin and bro do that?

Bro has actual authority, cousin has apparent authority...I think.

Was the land sale in the ordinary course of business of the bike shop? Dont think cousin had any authority.

Exactly. None at all. No prior business of it. The tires part, though, was implied and apparent authority.

It was members-owned LLC, right?

[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).

Wait, you can assign a personal services contract?

Yes. You just won't get specific enforcement.

[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).

Wait, you can assign a personal services contract?

Yes. You just won't get specific enforcement.

You can't delegate the personal services if you're the one doing it and the person cares about your expertise or what-not.

[WheatThins]

Btw, could cousin and bro do that?

Bro has actual authority, cousin has apparent authority...I think.

Was the land sale in the ordinary course of business of the bike shop? Dont think cousin had any authority.

Exactly. None at all. No prior business of it. The tires part, though, was implied and apparent authority.

It was members-owned LLC, right?

Yea definitely.

[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?

But the facts said none of the companies were negligent.

It's just a damages rule. Wouldn't it be applicable regardless of the tort?

[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?

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.

Exactly. This is a strict products liability situation where the issue is finding causation.

[mvp99]

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?

Assumed painting of the house wasn't "personal." Compared it to how personal satisfaction clauses for house painting isn't considered "personal" but rather judged under mechanical fitness, utility so just assume this wasn't either. Who knows.

how many points would I get if I based my answer based on the opposite

[mvp99]

[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?

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.

Exactly. This is a strict products liability situation where the issue is finding causation.

The products were not fungible though so the theory can't be applied.

"the products must be fungible (i.e. interchangeable—they must be of the same composition). For example, in Skipworth v. Lead Industries Association, the court found the lead paint sold by the defendants to not be fungible because the paints had lead pigments containing different chemical formulations, different amounts of lead, and differed in potential toxicity."

Not that I said anything about market share liability and it was definitely the main issue.

Right, don't recall full details on that, since I knew this from 1L torts. But I think it was all the same herbal tea. Just some were contaminated. So it seemingly would be fungible. Here, all their teas were fungible since they were the same, no?

[whitecollar23]

Any else disappointed to not see any Trusts, Family Law, or pure Corporations? hahahaha, spent so much time this past week studying those topics.

[mvp99]

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Btw, could cousin and bro do that?

Bro has actual authority, cousin has apparent authority...I think.

Was the land sale in the ordinary course of business of the bike shop? Dont think cousin had any authority.

Am I missing something or does the Barbri outline not say dick about the "ordinary course of business?"

[Br3v]

Nobody sweat the small stuff

[Br3v]

MBE tomorrow!

[mvp99]

Is there a minimum amount of points we can get on the essays? I'm trying to figure out whether I should aim for a 180 or 150 tomorrow.

[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?

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.

Exactly. This is a strict products liability situation where the issue is finding causation.

The products were not fungible though so the theory can't be applied.

"the products must be fungible (i.e. interchangeable—they must be of the same composition). For example, in Skipworth v. Lead Industries Association, the court found the lead paint sold by the defendants to not be fungible because the paints had lead pigments containing different chemical formulations, different amounts of lead, and differed in potential toxicity."

Not that I said anything about market share liability and it was definitely the main issue.

Right, don't recall full details on that, since I knew this from 1L torts. But I think it was all the same herbal tea. Just some were contaminated. So it seemingly would be fungible. Here, all their teas were fungible since they were the same, no?

I don't want to go into details but the answer included a sentence about different levels + some had none. But I bet you got more points on that question than 90% of the people out there anyway.

That was in regard to the toxicity I think, though. Idk. Don't remember. At this point, I just gotta get to sleep and be prepped for tomorrow!

[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?

Yes. You just won't get specific enforcement.

Wait, what? Please explain. This is the opposite of what's written in Barbri and every outline I've ever seen.

[WahooLaw24]

.

[Br3v]

Different: person doing the service (like a magician for a casino) tried to assign his service to his side kick, not whether the casino could assign his services to a rival casino down the street

[RecoveringJD]

Just wanted to pop in here and remind everyone that you still get a shit ton of points for just doing intelligent analysis--even if you get the rule wrong or half right.