NY July 2016 Thread Forum

[mvp99]

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.

What if it's the opposite?

[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?"

Well isn't apparent authority and all that for partnerships?

My Barbri outline says "Where the agent is in a position that customarily carries with it certain responsibilities, the principal is liable for the agent's acts that come within these customary responsibilities." I decided that a business manager selling an asset of the business was "customary."

If I had known the standard was "ordinary course of business," my answer probably would've been different.

[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.

What if it's the opposite?

It's definitely not. Remembering the rule tests your ability to engage in rote memorization--which, in most cases, is indicative of how much time you put into studying. Offering intelligent analysis is, in many ways, more valuable. They don't just throw it away because you couldn't remember some bumblefuck Article 9 rule. They've made this clear throughout the years--and a lot of people can attest to this (e.g. getting the rules wrong but still passing).

[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.

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

Edit: NVM, I'm dumb.

[cuse2016]

.

[Br3v]

I am sure we all did fine

[Confusedgraduate456]

Oh, and for those wondering, the split was 5 MBE to 2 MEE. One of the MBE essays contained two topics.

I knew it, Evi/ Crim Pro right? Please tell me I didn't fk up.

Correct. Evidence/Crim Pro. Was weird.

how was it crim pro?

Miranda stuff

[Confusedgraduate456]

Also did anyone else just organize the first MPT by each claim she had, then a section for remedies? We were supposed to organize it in another way?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

My Barbri outline says "Where the agent is in a position that customarily carries with it certain responsibilities, the principal is liable for the agent's acts that come within these customary responsibilities." I decided that a business manager selling an asset of the business was "customary."

If I had known the standard was "ordinary course of business," my answer probably would've been different.

Is ordinary course the correct standard though?

I have no idea. That phrase is not anywhere in my outline.

If I were the buyer, I'd think it was kinda weird that a bike shop company was selling farmland, but I wouldn't doubt that one of its members had the right to sell any of its assets (especially for a good price) if he said he did.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Also did anyone else just organize the first MPT by each claim she had, then a section for remedies? We were supposed to organize it in another way?

I did a big rule thing on all the remedies someone could have and then just went down the defects. "A falls within X because blah blah blah and therefore she is entitled to apples. B falls within Y because blah blah blah and therefore she is entitled to either oranges or bananas."

[mvp99]

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.

What if it's the opposite?

It's definitely not. Remembering the rule tests your ability to engage in rote memorization--which, in most cases, is indicative of how much time you put into studying. Offering intelligent analysis is, in many ways, more valuable. They don't just throw it away because you couldn't remember some bumblefuck Article 9 rule. They've made this clear throughout the years--and a lot of people can attest to this (e.g. getting the rules wrong but still passing).

Awesome, thanks.

[WahooLaw24]

Also did anyone else just organize the first MPT by each claim she had, then a section for remedies? We were supposed to organize it in another way?

I did a big rule thing on all the remedies someone could have and then just went down the defects. "A falls within X because blah blah blah and therefore she is entitled to apples. B falls within Y because blah blah blah and therefore she is entitled to either oranges or bananas."

Prob works.

[ellewoods123]

Also did anyone else just organize the first MPT by each claim she had, then a section for remedies? We were supposed to organize it in another way?

I did a big rule thing on all the remedies someone could have and then just went down the defects. "A falls within X because blah blah blah and therefore she is entitled to apples. B falls within Y because blah blah blah and therefore she is entitled to either oranges or bananas."

Thought this flowed more logically as well. Multiple ways to do it I think.

I did applicable law at the top then separated each condition and remedy. Am I screwed. Also - def did not use as many facts as I should have

[Mr. Peanutbutter]

Calm the fuck down, you're looking for min competency not an A+ Jesus

[teachmehowtoraji]

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?"

Well isn't apparent authority and all that for partnerships?

My Barbri outline says "Where the agent is in a position that customarily carries with it certain responsibilities, the principal is liable for the agent's acts that come within these customary responsibilities." I decided that a business manager selling an asset of the business was "customary."

If I had known the standard was "ordinary course of business," my answer probably would've been different.

Is ordinary course the correct standard though?

Not sure if you did Barbri or another prep course, but one of the early practice MEEs was almost identical to this (with respect to partnerships, albeit).

[bwh8813]

Also did anyone else just organize the first MPT by each claim she had, then a section for remedies? We were supposed to organize it in another way?

I did a big rule thing on all the remedies someone could have and then just went down the defects. "A falls within X because blah blah blah and therefore she is entitled to apples. B falls within Y because blah blah blah and therefore she is entitled to either oranges or bananas."

Thought this flowed more logically as well. Multiple ways to do it I think.

.

[SLS_AMG]

I separated it into the issues and discussed each individually. I'm sure there were multiple ways to do it.

[Mr. Peanutbutter]

Wow look at all these legal scholars discussing a confidential exam administered by a body that could literally f u all up

[bwh8813]

Anyone else annoyed as hell at this stupid wristband? I'm not used to being stone cold sober with these things on. Security better be a breeze tomorrow morning.

[sublime]

Anyone else annoyed as hell at this stupid wristband? I'm not used to being stone cold sober with these things on. Security better be a breeze tomorrow morning.

Be less sober?

[sublime]

Seriously though, stop discussing specifics of questions.

[bwh8813]

Anyone else annoyed as hell at this stupid wristband? I'm not used to being stone cold sober with these things on. Security better be a breeze tomorrow morning.

Be less sober?

Fair. It'll be tough to refrain from joining the post-WWE crowd downstairs at my hotel, but I can hold off one more day just so I can drink alone in my Biglaw office one day and be judged by those in that thread.

[J9ofDiamonds]

Calm the fuck down, you're looking for min competency not an A+ Jesus

Seriously, there were people in there who can't speak English and who went to unaccredited schools with 35% passage rates. Plus, if we all thought it was hard, shit will be scaled. Chill, we only need to be better than like bottom quarter. Plus just MBE auto pass that shit tomorrow

[Just]

This is collateral but people who don't speak English are totally capable of writing perfect English. Just how English education works in some Asian countries

[whitecollar23]

Wait, so how does writing out an issue statement go? I would normally just write out what the question asked but in issue form. Am I supposed to have a more intuitive issue statement?