BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 (UBE -NY) Forum

[KRose04]

I want my life back. Now the highlight of my days is doing well on an MPQ set lol

[KRose04]

Also, I decided not to watch the videos and just study on my own. I definitely prefer just reading the answers over. I can take my time and skip the ones I want, plus it makes taking notes easier

[Fiona91216]

had this question on Adaptibar today which said that D who sets out to kill A, thinks X is A but it's not an shoots and misses X, D is not liable for attempt to murder A. I think remember my crim law prof saying this is wrong. Factual impossibility is not a defense and it doesn't matter whether its John or Victor, murder is the killing of another. D is guilty of attempted murder of both A and X (transferred intent is not really necessary for X because A intended to kill another). But maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah but for attempt you need specific intent. I don't think you can use transferred intent for a specific intent crime. Also I think mistake is a defense for a specific intent crime. But my outline is all the way over there so who knows.

[mvp99]

had this question on Adaptibar today which said that D who sets out to kill A, thinks X is A but it's not an shoots and misses X, D is not liable for attempt to murder A. I think remember my crim law prof saying this is wrong. Factual impossibility is not a defense and it doesn't matter whether its John or Victor, murder is the killing of another. D is guilty of attempted murder of both A and X (transferred intent is not really necessary for X because A intended to kill another). But maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah but for attempt you need specific intent. I don't think you can use transferred intent for a specific intent crime. Also I think mistake is a defense for a specific intent crime. But my outline is all the way over there so who knows.

The adaptibar explanation said we can use transferred intent to find X guilty of attempted murder (although I think it's unnecessary). An unreasonable/reasonable mistake is only a defense if it negates the required mens rea. If he thought X was a scarecrow and not a human being then D can't be convicted of attempted murder. But D wanted to kill another person so the mistake as to the identity of the person is irrelevant because it doesn't negate the specific intent .

[Br3v]

Sim 41. Poorly worded question, but I think I am correct if the question is interpreted how I thought it was supposed to be

[+] Spoiler

Homeowner offered to pay roofer $500 to replace shingles, provided completed by Oct 1. Roofer told homeowner he would get back to him. The next day, roofer phone homeowner, and left a voicemail saying he could not do the roof for less than $650. The roofer then called homeowner again and left another voicemail, saying he would do it for $500 the next weekend (before Oct. 1). The homeowner replayed the second message just as he was leaving town and did not contact the roofer. The roofer, unbeknownst to the homeowner, then repaired the roof while the homeowner was out of town.


Under the mailbox rule, shouldn't this have been an acceptance? Because the acceptance (second voicemail) was received by the homeowner before the counter offer? I think the poor wording in the question is: I assumed when the question only mentioned listening to the second (acceptance) voicemail, and made no mention to listening to the first (counter offer) voicemail, that the homeowner did not listen to the first (counter offer) voicemail (or at least, listened to the first (counter offer) voicemail second, meaning that because he listened to the second (acceptance) voicemail first, a contract was formed under the mailbox rule. Looking at the model answer, I think the tentmakers expected us to assume that the first (counter offer) voicemail was listened to first, although the tentmakers made no mention of homeowner ever listening to it).

In other words:
How I read the question: (1) Roofer leaves counter offer message (2) Roofer leaves acceptance message (3) Homeowner listens to acceptance message (4) Homeowner, maybe, then listened to counter offer message, or didn't even listen to it at all

How tentmakers want us to read the question: (1) Roofer leaves counter offer message (2) Roofer leaves acceptance message (3) Homeowner listens to counter offer message (4) Homeowner listens to acceptance message

[Br3v]

Civ pro Q

In initial disclosures, does a party ever have to provide a "summary of expected testimony" or is it always just who the individual is and the SUBJECTS they will testify on?

[sublime]

Does the mailbox rule apply to oral communication?

[kcdc1]

Counter-offer == rejection. Whole thing is dead at that point.

[mvp99]

Does the mailbox rule apply to oral communication?

I don't think it does. It only applies to mail-like processes (email). Previous poster is right, because the message was an unequivocal different offer it's a rejection and counter offer. Note that had the roofer simply asked if it was possible for the homeowner to pay $650 the second message would have been an effective acceptance.

Civ pro Q

In initial disclosures, does a party ever have to provide a "summary of expected testimony" or is it always just who the individual is and the SUBJECTS they will testify on?

Only names and subjects of the information (not what the person will testify on) on initial disclosures.

[ellewoods123]

can anyone clarify - is the default rule that judgment credits ARE protected by recording statutes? I've gotten a handful of questions on Adaptibar that state that since judgment creditors are not purchasers for value they are not BFPs and therefore are not protected. But I thought I read in Barbri somewhere that they generally are protected. no?

[Br3v]

I don't remember learning that there was a distinction between voicemail and email for the mailbox rule.

Counter-offer == rejection. Whole thing is dead at that point.

And are you sure about this? I thought it was only effective upon arrival, and if the acceptance arrived first then you have a contract that you would not be able to reject at that point.

[lawstoodent]

can anyone clarify - is the default rule that judgment credits ARE protected by recording statutes? I've gotten a handful of questions on Adaptibar that state that since judgment creditors are not purchasers for value they are not BFPs and therefore are not protected. But I thought I read in Barbri somewhere that they generally are protected. no?

I think the general rule is that I've seen in the CMR that judgment creditors are not protected by recording statutes. CMR P.55

[sublime]

I don't remember learning that there was a distinction between voicemail and email for the mailbox rule.

Counter-offer == rejection. Whole thing is dead at that point.

And are you sure about this? I thought it was only effective upon arrival, and if the acceptance arrived first then you have a contract that you would not be able to reject at that point.

I analyzed as counteroffer too.

Arrival is arrival on the voicemail, whether or not they listened to it. Same as recieving a letter that sits on a desk or in a mailbox.

[Br3v]

I don't remember learning that there was a distinction between voicemail and email for the mailbox rule.

Counter-offer == rejection. Whole thing is dead at that point.

And are you sure about this? I thought it was only effective upon arrival, and if the acceptance arrived first then you have a contract that you would not be able to reject at that point.

I analyzed as counteroffer too.

Arrival is arrival on the voicemail, whether or not they listened to it. Same as recieving a letter that sits on a desk or in a mailbox.

This has to be it! Good point. Can't believe I overlooked that.

[kcdc1]

I don't remember learning that there was a distinction between voicemail and email for the mailbox rule.

Counter-offer == rejection. Whole thing is dead at that point.

And are you sure about this? I thought it was only effective upon arrival, and if the acceptance arrived first then you have a contract that you would not be able to reject at that point.

Don't have to read mail / listen to voicemail for rejection to be effective. Just has to arrive.

[mvp99]

can anyone clarify - is the default rule that judgment credits ARE protected by recording statutes? I've gotten a handful of questions on Adaptibar that state that since judgment creditors are not purchasers for value they are not BFPs and therefore are not protected. But I thought I read in Barbri somewhere that they generally are protected. no?

I think the general rule is that I've seen in the CMR that judgment creditors are not protected by recording statutes. CMR P.55

Because judgment creditors are not for value? so they must record to be protected.

[mvp99]

I don't remember learning that there was a distinction between voicemail and email for the mailbox rule.

Counter-offer == rejection. Whole thing is dead at that point.

And are you sure about this? I thought it was only effective upon arrival, and if the acceptance arrived first then you have a contract that you would not be able to reject at that point.

Don't have to read mail / listen to voicemail for rejection to be effective. Just has to arrive.

Could someone provide a citation to support its applicability to voicemail? I still think it only applies to mail, email or fax machines.

[Br3v]

I don't remember learning that there was a distinction between voicemail and email for the mailbox rule.

Counter-offer == rejection. Whole thing is dead at that point.

And are you sure about this? I thought it was only effective upon arrival, and if the acceptance arrived first then you have a contract that you would not be able to reject at that point.

Don't have to read mail / listen to voicemail for rejection to be effective. Just has to arrive.

Could someone provide a citation to support its applicability to voicemail? I still think it only applies to mail, email or fax machines.

That might be true, too, but why do you think that?

[sublime]

I just assumed that it was just email, letter, fax, etc. But I don't think I ever had a basis for that.

[mvp99]

I don't remember learning that there was a distinction between voicemail and email for the mailbox rule.

Counter-offer == rejection. Whole thing is dead at that point.

And are you sure about this? I thought it was only effective upon arrival, and if the acceptance arrived first then you have a contract that you would not be able to reject at that point.

Don't have to read mail / listen to voicemail for rejection to be effective. Just has to arrive.

Could someone provide a citation to support its applicability to voicemail? I still think it only applies to mail, email or fax machines.

That might be true, too, but why do you think that?

I'm not sure but I did a quick search online and only mail email and fax came up.

[ArtistOfManliness]

I don't remember learning that there was a distinction between voicemail and email for the mailbox rule.

Counter-offer == rejection. Whole thing is dead at that point.

And are you sure about this? I thought it was only effective upon arrival, and if the acceptance arrived first then you have a contract that you would not be able to reject at that point.

Don't have to read mail / listen to voicemail for rejection to be effective. Just has to arrive.

Could someone provide a citation to support its applicability to voicemail? I still think it only applies to mail, email or fax machines.

That might be true, too, but why do you think that?

I'm not sure but I did a quick search online and only mail email and fax came up.

Can we all agree that Barbri just wrote a sloppy question? It wouldn't be the first time... or second, or thirtieth.

[Br3v]

I can get on board with that

[sublime]

lol. Just did the Torts MPQ 5 - fuck that set so hard. And fuck having the target score be the same as most of the other ones. How many people legitimately got 56% on that? I can't imagine too many.

[kcdc1]

IMO, whether mailbox rule applies to electronic communications does not matter because for all practical purposes, they are delivered instantly. I think of the arrival of the message as constructive receipt.

[KRose04]

lol. Just did the Torts MPQ 5 - fuck that set so hard. And fuck having the target score be the same as most of the other ones. How many people legitimately got 56% on that? I can't imagine too many.

i was going to do it until i saw everyone here saying it was bullshit. im mostly just doing sets 1-4 and then questions from my strategies and tactics books. I also have the 4 released exams from the NCBE website that i'm going to do later on this week and next