BarBri Bar Review Hangout - February 2016 Exam Forum

[THE_U]

Just wanna say fuck these ridiculously long fact patterns in Property MPQ Set 6...

I am there with you. Was happy with my 55% after getting bored of reading them and guessing 80% of them.

I did pretty well on it, but was still not happy reading the fact patterns lol

Did you do Mixed Set 5 by any chance? If you did, I was wondering what you thought of some of the fact patterns and answer explanations.

Did we get assigned that? I'm in NY, but I don't think it got assigned to us. I did up to set 4.

Nah it wasn't assigned for anyone. I just decided to do it today, and while I did just fine on it, I found some of the questions (and answer explanations) to be kind of weird. Wanted to see if you felt the same.

[BrokenMouse]

.

[MrMustache]

Done with the MBE refresher.

71/100

Good job Mustache!! I was around there... Missed a few gimmes that pissed me off, but I think anything above 10 points over what they wanted is pretty good.

Thank you! I'm happy that the effort put into the prep seems to be paying off!

[gtg]

Has anybody done the 200 question set from Emanuel MBE? What did you think?

I did the first 100 today, will do the second 100 tomorrow or Saturday. Got 70/100, which I'm not sure how to feel about. The questions are much shorter, that's for sure, and some of them seem really easy, compared to Barbri's questions.

[THE_U]

Done with the MBE refresher.

71/100

Good job Mustache!! I was around there... Missed a few gimmes that pissed me off, but I think anything above 10 points over what they wanted is pretty good.

Thank you! I'm happy that the effort put into the prep seems to be paying off!

Yeah you killed that thing, and are gonna kill the real thing. Good stuff bro

[BrokenMouse]

.

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

Geez how are people doing so well on the refresher

[jackbauer10]

Geez how are people doing so well on the refresher

What do you consider "well" to be? I got 66/100 and was borderline pleased --> Above the Barbri goal of 57% but not much higher than the 61% I scored on the simulated several weeks ago.

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

Geez how are people doing so well on the refresher

What do you consider "well" to be? I got 66/100 and was borderline pleased --> Above the Barbri goal of 57% but not much higher than the 61% I scored on the simulated several weeks ago.

66 is great. I got 58. Barbri designed it to be hard as fuck so that you get only like 50-60% right. I'm trying not to be too discouraged because I got 67.5% on the simulated. Cant let this latest one psych me out

[marylandlawyer1]

I did Barbri for NY in July 2012, and never thought I'd have to take another bar exam again, after passing. Well, turns out, I am taking the Maryland Bar next week.

I am reviewing some of the BarBri MBE questions, and many of them are obviously difficult. However, there is one that I simply cannot wrap my head around, no matter how much I try. It's number 82 in the MBE Refresher section, regarding the servitude and abandonment. I cannot for the life of me understand why the correct answer isn't A, and the BarBri explanation does little to convince me. Can anyone here take a stab at it?

In other difficult questions, has anyone tried the MBE questions on NCBE's own website? Those questions are TOUGH. One that I want to burn with the fire of a thousand...fires... is #18, here (wait a couple seconds for the page to load): http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=ht ... ument%2F17.
Why is the answer not B?

Thanks in advance, and best of luck to all.

[BVest]

In other difficult questions, has anyone tried the MBE questions on NCBE's own website? Those questions are TOUGH. One that I want to burn with the fire of a thousand...fires... is #18, here (wait a couple seconds for the page to load): http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=ht ... ument%2F17.
Why is the answer not B?

Acts of God (or war) affecting materials availability or pricing are typically considered to be outside the normal price fluctuations (for which the contractor has assumed the risk).

[marylandlawyer1]

In other difficult questions, has anyone tried the MBE questions on NCBE's own website? Those questions are TOUGH. One that I want to burn with the fire of a thousand...fires... is #18, here (wait a couple seconds for the page to load): http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=ht ... ument%2F17.
Why is the answer not B?

Acts of God (or war) affecting materials availability or pricing are typically considered to be outside the normal price fluctuations (for which the contractor has assumed the risk).

Ahh, thank you. Didn't have that in my notes, I don't think. Not to throw too big of a wrench into things, but what if the other party did not agree to the price increase? Would the builder be excused from performing?

Alternatively, what if the price increase was due to a union strike?

[BVest]

In other difficult questions, has anyone tried the MBE questions on NCBE's own website? Those questions are TOUGH. One that I want to burn with the fire of a thousand...fires... is #18, here (wait a couple seconds for the page to load): http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=ht ... ument%2F17.
Why is the answer not B?

Acts of God (or war) affecting materials availability or pricing are typically considered to be outside the normal price fluctuations (for which the contractor has assumed the risk).

Ahh, thank you. Didn't have that in my notes, I don't think. Not to throw too big of a wrench into things, but what if the other party did not agree to the price increase? Would the builder be excused from performing?

Alternatively, what if the price increase was due to a union strike?

See Restatement §89 and its illustrations.

[barprepblues]

Going to go cry in a corner later. Absolutely hate evidence essays. Is it possible that graders will accept an alternative conclusion if you argue your points that way?

[mtyler19]

Does anyone have any tips for MBE civ pro? Emanuels tips have really been helping me but all it has are practice questions for civ pro, without any of the helpful little tips. I guess it hasn't been long enough yet, but even tips that have helped you memorize something would be great, too!

[eleph015]

In other difficult questions, has anyone tried the MBE questions on NCBE's own website? Those questions are TOUGH. One that I want to burn with the fire of a thousand...fires... is #18, here (wait a couple seconds for the page to load): http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=ht ... ument%2F17.
Why is the answer not B?

Hi! It's one of the exceptions to the pre-existing duty rule - "unforeseen difficulty so severe as to excuse performance." On page 39 the K's outline in the CMR, it says that the modern view permits modification without consideration if: (i) the modification is due to circumstances that were unanticipated by the parties when the contract was made and (ii) it is fair and equitable."

[BrokenMouse]

.

[BrokenMouse]

.

[NY_Sea]

Has anybody done the 200 question set from Emanuel MBE? What did you think?

I did the first 100 today, will do the second 100 tomorrow or Saturday. Got 70/100, which I'm not sure how to feel about. The questions are much shorter, that's for sure, and some of them seem really easy, compared to Barbri's questions.

I got 68/100. That's 68% accuracy


F U CK. I am fucked if I do this shit on game day.

68% is like 130 raw... You're gonna be fine.

[THE_U]

I can't tell if I have bad allergies the last few days of if I'm getting sick. Feel like crap.

What a fantastic time for this all to happen.

[fadedsunrise]

I can't tell if I have bad allergies the last few days of if I'm getting sick. Feel like crap.

What a fantastic time for this all to happen.

Me too man- the Santa Ana winds have been crazy in LA and I keep waking up with a sore throat and swollen eyes. Fan freaking tastic.

Also, I'm confused by this question. I thought the idea was that Congress could tie federal funding to certain activity restrictions as long as it was rationally related?

QUESTION:

Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied all federal highway construction funding. One of the richest and most highway-oriented states in the country refuses to enact such a statute.

The federal statute relating to disbursement of highway funds conditioned on the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit is probably

A. unconstitutional.
B. constitutional only on the basis of the spending power.
C. constitutional only on the basis of the commerce power.
D. constitutional on the basis of both the spending power and the commerce power.

I picked A because I thought that denying states ALL highway construction funding for failing to prohibit speeds over 55 would be excessive. But it's D. Didn't the exact case on this say something like this was ok because they were only taking away ~10% of highway funding for failing to obey the condition?

This is the explanation:
D is the correct answer. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, which would include the federal highway system. Additionally, Congress may regulate through spending as long as there is a nexus between the general welfare, the imposed condition, and the purpose of the federal funds. A speed limit of 55 miles per hour is reasonably related to highway safety, and the funds are for highway repair. Therefore, the statute is constitutional under both powers.

A is incorrect because the statute is constitutional. B is incorrect because the Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate federal highways, a means of interstate commerce. C is incorrect because the spending power gives Congress broad power to determine how federal funds are spent for the general welfare.

[MrMustache]

I picked A because I thought that denying states ALL highway construction funding for failing to prohibit speeds over 55 would be excessive. But it's D. Didn't the exact case on this say something like this was ok because they were only taking away ~10% of highway funding for failing to obey the condition?

After reading the question, I picked A also. In Chemerinsky's lecture notes, on page 7, it says that the conditions cannot be unduly coercive. Saying that they'll take ALL funding away seem like the definition of unduly coercive. I'd like to know if this is an official MBE question, because if it's not, BarBri can shove it.

Edit: Also, I hate "this answer is wrong because it is not right" explanations.

[Ineedhelpplease]

I picked A because I thought that denying states ALL highway construction funding for failing to prohibit speeds over 55 would be excessive. But it's D. Didn't the exact case on this say something like this was ok because they were only taking away ~10% of highway funding for failing to obey the condition?

After reading the question, I picked A also. In Chemerinsky's lecture notes, on page 7, it says that the conditions cannot be unduly coercive. Saying that they'll take ALL funding away seem like the definition of unduly coercive. I'd like to know if this is an official MBE question, because if it's not, BarBri can shove it.

Edit: Also, I hate "this answer is wrong because it is not right" explanations.

Hey, just butting in. I saw this question on Adaptibar.

I picked D, not so much bc of the Commerce power but because of the Spending power. And i remember reading in Emmanuels, that basically Congress has free reign with conditioning appropriations as long as it is related enough to the purpose of what the funds are being used for ($ for highways - 55 mph req). Also, the state has got to be allowed to decline the funds, in other words, Congress couldn't force the state to implement the law but they condition the money on it.

And i picked D instead of B bc Congress also has free reign with its Commerce Power, highways are channels of interstate commerce.

Sorry for the rambling response but my brain is all f*cked up.

[Sue]

I picked A because I thought that denying states ALL highway construction funding for failing to prohibit speeds over 55 would be excessive. But it's D. Didn't the exact case on this say something like this was ok because they were only taking away ~10% of highway funding for failing to obey the condition?

After reading the question, I picked A also. In Chemerinsky's lecture notes, on page 7, it says that the conditions cannot be unduly coercive. Saying that they'll take ALL funding away seem like the definition of unduly coercive. I'd like to know if this is an official MBE question, because if it's not, BarBri can shove it.

Edit: Also, I hate "this answer is wrong because it is not right" explanations.

Don't look at the question like Congress taking away something from the states, it is just Congress's regulating the states through spending power by grants with strings attached, which is constitutional as long as the conditions are clearly stated, reasonably relate to the federal purpose, and not unduly coercive. 55 mph is not unduly coercive. Answer D, because Congress has a power to attach reasonable conditions to any grant it gives through the spending power, and you choose commerce power whenever you see highways as a channel of interstate commerce.

[mtyler19]

I'm really confused - I know there is strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, products liability, and wild animals, but I have a note in my Torts outline that says strict liability isn't available to trespassers. The CMR says an owner is strictly liable to licensees and invitees for injuries caused by wild animals, then it says strict liability will generally not be imposed in favor of trespassers.

I'm doing the Emanuel's practice MBE and the question (#46) is about a man having problems with trespassers walking on his grass, so he gets a skunk to deter them. A trespasser suffers injuries from the skunk's smell, and it asks what the probable result of the trespasser's claim will be. The correct answer is "recover, because the skunk was not a domesticated animal," but I picked "not recover, because the walker was a trespasser" because I have it stuck in my head that trespassers can't recover under strict liability. Emanuel's explanation doesn't address trespassers at all, just about the skunk technically being a wild animal.

It would seem to me that strict liability means in all cases regardless of status, but is Barbri or Emanuels right??