Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[Vantwins]

I scored pretty high on the first 2 evidence sets (17 questions). I took the first set of 34 yesterday and bombed it. I passed the 50% goal but not by much. My focus was definitely off but I felt the questions were a lot harder - did anyone else take it yet? (I took it 1 week early accidentally gah)

I haven't done the 3rd set yet. I did well on the first 2 as well - better than I did on Ks, prop or torts! And then themis has me doing K PQs again today and I am BOMBING them. This is the most stressful part of studying - trying to remember what you studied two weeks ago when you've learned other stuff in the meantime. Too much info.

[ndp1234]

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY RUN ON SENTENCES IN THE CIV PRO HANDOUT???

[Nebby]

Just completed Real Property PQ 4 and did 14% better compared to PQ 3, which I took about a week ago. It felt so good finally feeling progress. There were a few questions that I specifically knew the answer to because it was on a similar issue I had previously missed, but was able to recall with specificity the nuance to the rule I originally got wrong so I wouldn't get wrong again!

[Vantwins]

Anyone else taking MD Bar?

I'm reviewing torts distinctions. MD separates licensees into "bare licensees" who are on the land with permission but for their own purpose and are only owed the same duties as trespassers (I'm thinking this might be a worker reading a meter or something similar) and "licensees by invitation" who they refer to as social guests owed a reasonable duty of care for safer premises, etc. So...if you have a friend over to your home are they invitees or licensees by invitation??

[not guilty]

I'm in Orlando, so safe to say I do not feel like studying today.

there is 1 thing the bar exam does not care about and that's your personal life.

[Vantwins]

I'm in Orlando, so safe to say I do not feel like studying today.

there is 1 thing the bar exam does not care about and that's your personal life.

So sorry, I hope all your friends are safe. So tragic and unnecessary.

[bobbypin]

I completed a practice set of MBE questions on ncbex.org website (http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2 ... ument%2F17) and do not understand how the correct answer choice can be right. Any takers?

Question and answer choices:

[+] Spoiler

A company contracted with a builder to construct a new corporate headquarters for a fixed price of $100 million. At the time of the contract, structural steel was widely available and was included in the contract as a $6 million item. Before work began on the project, tornado damage shut down the production facility of the biggest structural steel supplier in the country, and the price of structural steel increased by 20% as a result. The builder informed the company of the steel price increase, and the parties then orally agreed to increase the project price to $101 million. The builder proceeded with construction and delivered the project on time. The company paid the builder $100 million but refused to pay the additional $1 million. If the builder sues the company for $1 million, is the builder likely to prevail?
(A) No, because the modification was never reduced to a writing signed by the party to be charged.
(B) No, because there was no consideration for the modification of the contract.
(C) Yes, because the company’s promise was supported by consideration.
(D) Yes, because the modification was fair and equitable in view of the unanticipated increase in the price of structural steel.

Correct answer is

[+] Spoiler

D. Isn't this a contract for services that is governed by the common law? Doesn't common law require contract modifications to have consideration?

HELP!

[luxxe]

I completed a practice set of MBE questions on ncbex.org website (http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2 ... ument%2F17) and do not understand how the correct answer choice can be right. Any takers?

Question and answer choices:

[+] Spoiler

A company contracted with a builder to construct a new corporate headquarters for a fixed price of $100 million. At the time of the contract, structural steel was widely available and was included in the contract as a $6 million item. Before work began on the project, tornado damage shut down the production facility of the biggest structural steel supplier in the country, and the price of structural steel increased by 20% as a result. The builder informed the company of the steel price increase, and the parties then orally agreed to increase the project price to $101 million. The builder proceeded with construction and delivered the project on time. The company paid the builder $100 million but refused to pay the additional $1 million. If the builder sues the company for $1 million, is the builder likely to prevail?
(A) No, because the modification was never reduced to a writing signed by the party to be charged.
(B) No, because there was no consideration for the modification of the contract.
(C) Yes, because the company’s promise was supported by consideration.
(D) Yes, because the modification was fair and equitable in view of the unanticipated increase in the price of structural steel.

Correct answer is

[+] Spoiler

D. Isn't this a contract for services that is governed by the common law? Doesn't common law require contract modifications to have consideration?

HELP!

[+] Spoiler

Normally yes, but there are exceptions, including impracticability/unforeseen difficulties. Briefly explained in Ks outline modification section. Here the K price was increased proportionally to the increase in steel price, which is why I think that $6 million K item/20% price increase/$1 million K increase information is included and identified as "fair and equitable."

[bobbypin]

[+] Spoiler

Normally yes, but there are exceptions, including impracticability/unforeseen difficulties. Briefly explained in Ks outline modification section. Here the K price was increased proportionally to the increase in steel price, which is why I think that $6 million K item/20% price increase/$1 million K increase information is included and identified as "fair and equitable."

Thank you for your reply.
How much of a cost increase is required for impracticability? The assumption of the risk section of the long outline says that the cost increase must be extreme.

You know what? Nevermind. I bet the reason that it is correct is due to divisibility. When you divide the contracts into a services contract that requires consideration for modification and a goods contract which only requires good faith, the goods portion may be modified. Stupid questions drafters.

[AlanShore]

I scored pretty high on the first 2 evidence sets (17 questions). I took the first set of 34 yesterday and bombed it. I passed the 50% goal but not by much. My focus was definitely off but I felt the questions were a lot harder - did anyone else take it yet? (I took it 1 week early accidentally gah)

I haven't done the 3rd set yet. I did well on the first 2 as well - better than I did on Ks, prop or torts! And then themis has me doing K PQs again today and I am BOMBING them. This is the most stressful part of studying - trying to remember what you studied two weeks ago when you've learned other stuff in the meantime. Too much info.

I bombed that k mbe too. but actually i felt they tested even more nuances. I often knew the law but didnt know or forgot some random exception sigh

[Nebby]

[+] Spoiler

Normally yes, but there are exceptions, including impracticability/unforeseen difficulties. Briefly explained in Ks outline modification section. Here the K price was increased proportionally to the increase in steel price, which is why I think that $6 million K item/20% price increase/$1 million K increase information is included and identified as "fair and equitable."

Thank you for your reply.
How much of a cost increase is required for impracticability? The assumption of the risk section of the long outline says that the cost increase must be extreme.

You know what? Nevermind. I bet the reason that it is correct is due to divisibility. When you divide the contracts into a services contract that requires consideration for modification and a goods contract which only requires good faith, the goods portion may be modified. Stupid questions drafters.

What does divisibility have to do with it? This is a services contract.

By the way, it isn't so much that the cost increase must be extreme, but rather what caused the cost increase. If the cost increased because demand suddenly increased in the steel market, then this is an assumed risk. But since the cost increased due to a natural disaster, this was not an assumed risk. Natural disasters are almost never an assumed risk. I think the test takers use natural disasters a lot when the goal is to test you on impracticality. For impracticality, think of the types of events as those similar to act of God clauses requirements. Hope this helps!

[mu13ski]

Started secured transactions today. Woof. This sucks.

[salix]

So. I started a week after the recommended schedule. Between finals, graduation (that weekend) and other family stuff (good and bad), I guess I needed that week off. In the three weeks since, I've made up that extra week, such that I end today where I should be (according to the recommended schedule).

But I'm burnt out already. And we have another month and a half to go. And I start a new job tomorrow. I'm a little concerned.

Who else is out there working part or full time during bar prep?

[mu13ski]

So. I started a week after the recommended schedule. Between finals, graduation (that weekend) and other family stuff (good and bad), I guess I needed that week off. In the three weeks since, I've made up that extra week, such that I end today where I should be (according to the recommended schedule).

But I'm burnt out already. And we have another month and a half to go. And I start a new job tomorrow. I'm a little concerned.

Who else is out there working part or full time during bar prep?

Working part time here. Wake up early. Watch a lecture or two if I can. Get home around 1:30ish. Lunch. Then just grind through the daily assignments. Use weekends to catch up or get ahead if possible.

[KD35]

I scored pretty high on the first 2 evidence sets (17 questions). I took the first set of 34 yesterday and bombed it. I passed the 50% goal but not by much. My focus was definitely off but I felt the questions were a lot harder - did anyone else take it yet? (I took it 1 week early accidentally gah)

First, I don't think everyone has the same questions for each MBE set. So I might have a question in PQ 1 that you have in PQ 4. But I noticed that PQ 3 was relatively better than PQ 2 for me and about the same as PQ 1, all of which were above the recommended goal they set (not intending that to brag, just giving information).

[salix]

So. I started a week after the recommended schedule. Between finals, graduation (that weekend) and other family stuff (good and bad), I guess I needed that week off. In the three weeks since, I've made up that extra week, such that I end today where I should be (according to the recommended schedule).

But I'm burnt out already. And we have another month and a half to go. And I start a new job tomorrow. I'm a little concerned.

Who else is out there working part or full time during bar prep?

Working part time here. Wake up early. Watch a lecture or two if I can. Get home around 1:30ish. Lunch. Then just grind through the daily assignments. Use weekends to catch up or get ahead if possible.

I've been hoping that being a morning person generally will help me during this time. Waking early and having lectures on in the background as I get ready is part of the plan. Also, much grinding.

[a_bowler_hat]

long time lurker checking in for CA.

anyone else finding that the better you do on earlier MC question sets, the more they try to absolutely destroy on later MC question sets? or is it just me?

[NaeDeen]

Anyone else taking MD Bar?

I'm reviewing torts distinctions. MD separates licensees into "bare licensees" who are on the land with permission but for their own purpose and are only owed the same duties as trespassers (I'm thinking this might be a worker reading a meter or something similar) and "licensees by invitation" who they refer to as social guests owed a reasonable duty of care for safer premises, etc. So...if you have a friend over to your home are they invitees or licensees by invitation??

Hi Vantwins!

I'm taking the MD bar also. Invitees are people you extend some kind of invitation to such as friends and family or other individuals--you owe these individuals the highest standard of care. Which makes sense because you invited them, and as a result, you have a duty to keep the place safe. Licensees are different--these are people who you give permission to for some kind of purpose. For example, the cable guy. He can be a licensee by invitation if you call up Comcast and they schedule an appointment for repair. You are allowing that person to come onto your premises to benefit you. If he steps out of line by grabbing a soda from your refrigerator and sits on your couch to watch tv, he's now a trespasser. However, a bare licensee, is different. From what I understand, these are individuals whom you allow to benefit for some use of your property, but it only benefits them. For example, a neighbor who needs sugar or who needs to use the bathroom.

Hope this helps!

P.S. If anyone cares to correct or weigh in, please do.

[NaeDeen]

long time lurker checking in for CA.

anyone else finding that the better you do on earlier MC question sets, the more they try to absolutely destroy on later MC question sets? or is it just me?

Also a long time lurker--this thread and several other threads have kept my head above water all throughout law school and during bar prep.

As far as the MC goes, YES!! My first set of Property PQs I scored 14/17 (82%). It's been downhill from there. The highest I've scored is 65% since. It's still above average but NOT where I want to be.

[a_bowler_hat]

long time lurker checking in for CA.

anyone else finding that the better you do on earlier MC question sets, the more they try to absolutely destroy on later MC question sets? or is it just me?

Also a long time lurker--this thread and several other threads have kept my head above water all throughout law school and during bar prep.

As far as the MC goes, YES!! My first set of Property PQs I scored 14/17 (82%). It's been downhill from there. The highest I've scored is 65% since. It's still above average but NOT where I want to be.

i'm glad it's not just me. first two con law sets were smooth sailing. third set was like "BOOM. HERE'S ALL THE HARD ONES." didn't come close to their target score. trying to chalk it up to bad luck but holy god.

[KD35]

long time lurker checking in for CA.

anyone else finding that the better you do on earlier MC question sets, the more they try to absolutely destroy on later MC question sets? or is it just me?

Also a long time lurker--this thread and several other threads have kept my head above water all throughout law school and during bar prep.

As far as the MC goes, YES!! My first set of Property PQs I scored 14/17 (82%). It's been downhill from there. The highest I've scored is 65% since. It's still above average but NOT where I want to be.

i'm glad it's not just me. first two con law sets were smooth sailing. third set was like "BOOM. HERE'S ALL THE HARD ONES." didn't come close to their target score. trying to chalk it up to bad luck but holy god.

I noticed that with some of the earlier topics, but not with some of the later ones. I always look at the difficulty of the questions and for the last few topics (Conlaw, Crim Pro/Law, Evidence), I haven't noticed a change in the difficulty in the latter sets, regardless of whether I did well or not in earlier sets.

[a_bowler_hat]

I noticed that with some of the earlier topics, but not with some of the later ones. I always look at the difficulty of the questions and for the last few topics (Conlaw, Crim Pro/Law, Evidence), I haven't noticed a change in the difficulty in the latter sets, regardless of whether I did well or not in earlier sets.

i check the difficulty, too. on that con law set from hell, almost all of the ones i missed were either red (around 18% got it correct) or REALLY red (less than 10% got it correct). i didn't even know the "really red" category was a thing. hopefully it was just a fluke because ugh.

[Fivedham]

Evidence MBE PQs Set #3 was noticeably harder than the first two. I went from scoring in the 80s on the first two to 65% on this one.

[+] Spoiler

I hate how Themis is all like, "Yo, best evidence rule is NEVER the right answer, except if it meets both of these conditions." And then we get an MBE question on best evidence where the correct answer depends on an obscure alternative reason for the best evidence rule to apply.

[NaeDeen]

long time lurker checking in for CA.

anyone else finding that the better you do on earlier MC question sets, the more they try to absolutely destroy on later MC question sets? or is it just me?

Also a long time lurker--this thread and several other threads have kept my head above water all throughout law school and during bar prep.

As far as the MC goes, YES!! My first set of Property PQs I scored 14/17 (82%). It's been downhill from there. The highest I've scored is 65% since. It's still above average but NOT where I want to be.

i'm glad it's not just me. first two con law sets were smooth sailing. third set was like "BOOM. HERE'S ALL THE HARD ONES." didn't come close to their target score. trying to chalk it up to bad luck but holy god.

Nope, definitely not just you. For me, K has been consistently bad, no matter how great my outline is. As far as con law, it's one of my stronger subjects but I haven't taken any PQs so we shall see. Hang in there!! Practice, practice, practice

[NaeDeen]

Evidence MBE PQs Set #3 was noticeably harder than the first two. I went from scoring in the 80s on the first two to 65% on this one.

[+] Spoiler

I hate how Themis is all like, "Yo, best evidence rule is NEVER the right answer, except if it meets both of these conditions." And then we get an MBE question on best evidence where the correct answer depends on an obscure alternative reason for the best evidence rule to apply.

Evidence is going to be a problem for me. The only thing I remember is hearsay...just hearsay. Should be fun.