Barbri paced program question? Forum

[alicrimson]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though. --LinkRemoved--

[At the Drive-In]

so anyone else still feel like they don't know this state law enough?

just need one person to say yes please

I just looked at the Feb 2013 essays for my state, and I don't even know the SUBJECT of some of them.

[The Egyptian]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though. --LinkRemoved--

Get familiar with those mbe qs. There are right on the money

[Sandro]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though. --LinkRemoved--

I thought it was easier compared to barbri in terms of ease of reading the question and letting you know what they were testing for. I did a LOT better on these than my Barbri MPQs and finished a lot faster because it didn't have the super complex fact patterns like barbri.

[mvpforme]

so anyone else still feel like they don't know this state law enough?

just need one person to say yes please

I just looked at the Feb 2013 essays for my state, and I don't even know the SUBJECT of some of them.

My god. I'm in the same boat. I just take comfort knowing the state-tests are scaled. Whatever that means.

[Law-So-Hard]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though. --LinkRemoved--

THANK YOU. The Barbri questions esp the ones from the Half Day and Full Day have been making me panic and seem designed to test random obscurities and also I found a mistake in one of the sample answers it stated that unfair surprise could be a basis for denying otherwise probative evidence from being admitted, I thought unfair surprise was NEVER the right answer because that's what discovery is for.

[Flips88]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though. --LinkRemoved--

THANK YOU. The Barbri questions esp the ones from the Half Day and Full Day have been making me panic and seem designed to test random obscurities and also I found a mistake in one of the sample answers it stated that unfair surprise could be a basis for denying otherwise probative evidence from being admitted, I thought unfair surprise was NEVER the right answer because that's what discovery is for.

That's weird. our evidence lecture explicitly said "unfair surprise" is always a red herring reason for denying admissibility.

[Law-So-Hard]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though. --LinkRemoved--

THANK YOU. The Barbri questions esp the ones from the Half Day and Full Day have been making me panic and seem designed to test random obscurities and also I found a mistake in one of the sample answers it stated that unfair surprise could be a basis for denying otherwise probative evidence from being admitted, I thought unfair surprise was NEVER the right answer because that's what discovery is for.

That's weird. our evidence lecture explicitly said "unfair surprise" is always a red herring reason for denying admissibility.

I looked up FRE 403 and this was in the comments:
The rule does not enumerate surprise as a ground for exclusion, in this respect following Wigmore's view of the common law. 6 Wigmore §1849. Cf. McCormick §152, p. 320, n. 29, listing unfair surprise as a ground for exclusion but stating that it is usually “coupled with the danger of prejudice and confusion of issues.”

[Flips88]

Related bitching about barbri answers.

One MBE question asked about the ability of a witness to testify that a witness who had already testified had been convicted of perpetrating a hoax. The 2 answers I narrowed it to involved (a) no impeachment by extrinsic evidence for prior bad acts or (b) admissible because he was convicted for an act of dishonesty.

i picked (b) and it was wrong. The explanation about why it was wrong was (1) convictions are only admissible if they are less than 10 years old and the facts don't say how old it was so it might be too old and (2) a judge would be "unlikely" to allow a witness testify about a conviction because it would take too long.

Basically read a bunch of logical leaps and facts into the question to make it an incorrect answer.

[ceereeus420]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though. --LinkRemoved--

Is there anyone that did this that can explain how the grand jury testimony in #16 is admissible as substantive evidence? I thought the whole policy behind admitting prior testimony is that opposing counsel had a similar motive and an opportunity to cross, which does not happen at grand jury proceedings.

[Flips88]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though. --LinkRemoved--

Is there anyone that did this that can explain how the grand jury testimony in #16 is admissible as substantive evidence? I thought the whole policy behind admitting prior testimony is that opposing counsel had a similar motive and an opportunity to cross, which does not happen at grand jury proceedings.

It's for an inconsistent statement, not for prior testimony. Prior testimony requires unavailability of the witness + party or party in interest + opportunity to develop on cross examination. Prior inconsistent statement is just to show inconsistency between the witness' testimony at trial and previous testimony. And if that previous testimony was given under oath in a legal proceeding, even a grand jury, it is admissible for the truth.

[lmr]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though. --LinkRemoved--

Is there anyone that did this that can explain how the grand jury testimony in #16 is admissible as substantive evidence? I thought the whole policy behind admitting prior testimony is that opposing counsel had a similar motive and an opportunity to cross, which does not happen at grand jury proceedings.

You are confusing issues...it's admissible as substantive law bc it was under oath and W is currently testifying. Under FRE whenever you have a prior inconsistent statement under oath then it is admissible for impeachment + substantive evidence.

You are thinking about the former testimony exception-that's a hearsay exception that requires the declarant to be unavailable. In question #16 the witness is right there testifying so the issue of fairness and cross-examination isn't an issue @ all. Former testimony exception the declarant isn't in front of the attorney so they never get a chance to impeach them-that's the fairness issue.

[mvpforme]

So what happens when you don't know the law on an essay? Seriously? If the jx essays are scled and curved, it cannot be that bad, right?

My jx asks about the most mundane, nuanced, esoteric stuff on some portions of the essays. For instance, one of the questions was about the annual certificate of a limited liability company (-what is it? how to file? how many days? notice? form of notice (which, btw was email), etc.). How am I supposed to be prepared for that? The state's passage rate is around 85%, fwiw.

[pizzasodafries]

So what happens when you don't know the law on an essay? Seriously? If the jx essays are scled and curved, it cannot be that bad, right?

My jx asks about the most mundane, nuanced, esoteric stuff on some portions of the essays. For instance, one of the questions was about the annual certificate of a limited liability company (-what is it? how to file? how many days? notice? form of notice (which, btw was email), etc.). How am I supposed to be prepared for that? The state's passage rate is around 85%, fwiw.

My understanding was that as long as you make up a rule of law which is somewhat comparable to the actual rule of law, (say you said you needed to file it with the State Clerk every 12 months, and the real answer was the State Secretary every 13 months) as long as your analysis and conclusion incorporate the fact pattern and they tie in your erroneous rule of law, I was under the impression you would get points for it. So even if you fuck up the rule of law, as long as you still spot the issues, analyses, make a competent conclusion you will still do fine.

[northwood]

so anyone else still feel like they don't know this state law enough?

just need one person to say yes please

yes... unless you are a lecturer with one of the test prep companies ( and your lecture subject rotates by day and location) and you have been there for many a year the vast majority of people feel similar to you.


I am definitely not one of such bar prep company lecturers and know I feel the same way as you.

so yes please

[turquoiseturtle]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though.

So a page ago there was a pretty long discussion about domestic/wild animals and dog bites and strict liability. Someone please please explain question 4 here to me! I got it wrong obviously, but was between B and D. (spoiler alert: neither of those is right) Chose D because I wanted strict liability. Whyyyy is it A?? Didn't Barbri tell us to always assume pure comparative negligence? How would the guys knowledge have anything to do with it?


Explanation for 15 too. I feel like I've answered 20 identical Barbri questions about modification of building contracts where the answer is no modification because theres no consideration. What is this "fair and equitable?"

[MoneyMay]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though.

So a page ago there was a pretty long discussion about domestic/wild animals and dog bites and strict liability. Someone please please explain question 4 here to me! I got it wrong obviously, but was between B and D. (spoiler alert: neither of those is right) Chose D because I wanted strict liability. Whyyyy is it A?? Didn't Barbri tell us to always assume pure comparative negligence? How would the guys knowledge have anything to do with it?


Explanation for 15 too. I feel like I've answered 20 identical Barbri questions about modification of building contracts where the answer is no modification because theres no consideration. What is this "fair and equitable?"

DISCLAIMER: I got these questions rights and this is the thought process I went through but of course I'm not positive this is the correct way to think about these questions since there are no official explanations.

For #4: This is a premises liability question but they did a pretty good job hiding that fact and realizing that is the key to this question. For premises liability, even if you're an invitee, if you KNOW about the dangerous condition on the land then there is no duty to warn (which he's not an invitee, but just saying there's no duty to warn for anybody, from an invitee on down to unanticipated trespasser). This is different than the questions you're thinking about because those dealt with protecting your property purposefully using deadly force, and it's not an abnormally dangerous activity because dogs are domestic animals. For it to be an abnormally dangerous activity it has to be a bear or something obviously crazy like that. I remember a question where a bee farm on property wasn't an abnormally dangerous activity.

For #15: This one is tricky, but the key detail is they tell you the price of steel increased 20% and went through the trouble of explaining the biggest steel company got hit by a tornado which is something really crazy/unusual that NO ONE ASSUMED THE RISK OF (that's the key here, no one can assume the risk of something crazy like a tornado hitting a building). Even under the common law, if something this drastic happens to change the circumstances and NO ONE ASSUMED THE RISK of those changed circumstances, then a modification in good faith will be upheld without further consideration. Usually when a modification like this isn't upheld is the situation like the foundation of where they were going to build had a sinkhole or something that made it more expensive for the building company. Well that happens all the time in construction and construction companies know about them, and the construction company is in a better position then the buyer to know whether there's a sinkhole, and so there the DID ASSUME THE RISK. Compare that to a building getting hit by a tornado. Wtf is that? Completely unexpected and so that's the difference.

Does that help?

[turquoiseturtle]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though.

So a page ago there was a pretty long discussion about domestic/wild animals and dog bites and strict liability. Someone please please explain question 4 here to me! I got it wrong obviously, but was between B and D. (spoiler alert: neither of those is right) Chose D because I wanted strict liability. Whyyyy is it A?? Didn't Barbri tell us to always assume pure comparative negligence? How would the guys knowledge have anything to do with it?


Explanation for 15 too. I feel like I've answered 20 identical Barbri questions about modification of building contracts where the answer is no modification because theres no consideration. What is this "fair and equitable?"

DISCLAIMER: I got these questions rights and this is the thought process I went through but of course I'm not positive this is the correct way to think about these questions since there are no official explanations.

For #4: This is a premises liability question but they did a pretty good job hiding that fact and realizing that is the key to this question. For premises liability, even if you're an invitee, if you KNOW about the dangerous condition on the land then there is no duty to warn (which he's not an invitee, but just saying there's no duty to warn for anybody, from an invitee on down to unanticipated trespasser). This is different than the questions you're thinking about because those dealt with protecting your property purposefully using deadly force, and it's not an abnormally dangerous activity because dogs are domestic animals. For it to be an abnormally dangerous activity it has to be a bear or something obviously crazy like that. I remember a question where a bee farm on property wasn't an abnormally dangerous activity.

For #15: This one is tricky, but the key detail is they tell you the price of steel increased 20% and went through the trouble of explaining the biggest steel company got hit by a tornado which is something really crazy/unusual that NO ONE ASSUMED THE RISK OF (that's the key here, no one can assume the risk of something crazy like a tornado hitting a building). Even under the common law, if something this drastic happens to change the circumstances and NO ONE ASSUMED THE RISK of those changed circumstances, then a modification in good faith will be upheld without further consideration. Usually when a modification like this isn't upheld is the situation like the foundation of where they were going to build had a sinkhole or something that made it more expensive for the building company. Well that happens all the time in construction and construction companies know about them, and the construction company is in a better position then the buyer to know whether there's a sinkhole, and so there the DID ASSUME THE RISK. Compare that to a building getting hit by a tornado. Wtf is that? Completely unexpected and so that's the difference.

Does that help?

Thank you so much! Definitely helps for #4.

Explanation for #15 helps too, and I definitely see the logic (plus in my own head, that is what seems "fair" since the other party agreed to it.) But, and I'm not trying to be contrary since clearly I have to answer it the way MBE people want me to, then I compare to MPQ Set 4, question 1. The answer explanation says "while courts will sometimes find consideration where severe and unforeseen hardships will make full performance impracticable, increased construction costs are not within that category." So if this question had had something super crazy happen to the steel and the cost increased by 2000% I would definitely choose that answer. But 20% isn't that much and rising costs of the materials does seem like a risk they're assuming regardless of the fact the rising cost got hit by a crazy wtf tornado.

Also, totally separate point, but the reason why statute of frauds isn't a problem is because there was complete performance by one party?

[MoneyMay]

Idk if you've seen this, but...I took this NCBE bit. Some of the stuff seemed a little odd. Some looked like standard barbri stuff/10 was actually a case I read in sales. lol. 18 real MBE questions with an answer key. No explanations though.

So a page ago there was a pretty long discussion about domestic/wild animals and dog bites and strict liability. Someone please please explain question 4 here to me! I got it wrong obviously, but was between B and D. (spoiler alert: neither of those is right) Chose D because I wanted strict liability. Whyyyy is it A?? Didn't Barbri tell us to always assume pure comparative negligence? How would the guys knowledge have anything to do with it?


Explanation for 15 too. I feel like I've answered 20 identical Barbri questions about modification of building contracts where the answer is no modification because theres no consideration. What is this "fair and equitable?"

DISCLAIMER: I got these questions rights and this is the thought process I went through but of course I'm not positive this is the correct way to think about these questions since there are no official explanations.

For #4: This is a premises liability question but they did a pretty good job hiding that fact and realizing that is the key to this question. For premises liability, even if you're an invitee, if you KNOW about the dangerous condition on the land then there is no duty to warn (which he's not an invitee, but just saying there's no duty to warn for anybody, from an invitee on down to unanticipated trespasser). This is different than the questions you're thinking about because those dealt with protecting your property purposefully using deadly force, and it's not an abnormally dangerous activity because dogs are domestic animals. For it to be an abnormally dangerous activity it has to be a bear or something obviously crazy like that. I remember a question where a bee farm on property wasn't an abnormally dangerous activity.

For #15: This one is tricky, but the key detail is they tell you the price of steel increased 20% and went through the trouble of explaining the biggest steel company got hit by a tornado which is something really crazy/unusual that NO ONE ASSUMED THE RISK OF (that's the key here, no one can assume the risk of something crazy like a tornado hitting a building). Even under the common law, if something this drastic happens to change the circumstances and NO ONE ASSUMED THE RISK of those changed circumstances, then a modification in good faith will be upheld without further consideration. Usually when a modification like this isn't upheld is the situation like the foundation of where they were going to build had a sinkhole or something that made it more expensive for the building company. Well that happens all the time in construction and construction companies know about them, and the construction company is in a better position then the buyer to know whether there's a sinkhole, and so there the DID ASSUME THE RISK. Compare that to a building getting hit by a tornado. Wtf is that? Completely unexpected and so that's the difference.

Does that help?

Thank you so much! Definitely helps for #4.

Explanation for #15 helps too, and I definitely see the logic (plus in my own head, that is what seems "fair" since the other party agreed to it.) But, and I'm not trying to be contrary since clearly I have to answer it the way MBE people want me to, then I compare to MPQ Set 4, question 1. The answer explanation says "while courts will sometimes find consideration where severe and unforeseen hardships will make full performance impracticable, increased construction costs are not within that category." So if this question had had something super crazy happen to the steel and the cost increased by 2000% I would definitely choose that answer. But 20% isn't that much and rising costs of the materials does seem like a risk they're assuming regardless of the fact the rising cost got hit by a crazy wtf tornado.

Also, totally separate point, but the reason why statute of frauds isn't a problem is because there was complete performance by one party?

Well, I think MPQ Set 4 question 1 can be distinguished. In that question, the way I read it, the builder messed up and did a bad job calculating the construction costs, something that was totally and completely within his control. And there is definitely not consideration in either question, it's just that sometimes under even the common law, if something crazy happens then a good faith modification is okay. I think the key with the tornado is that it's something 100% unforeseeable, whereas in the MPQ question, the builder just messed up with the construction costs. I think when you see something completely unforeseeable it makes the modification okay. So you're right it's not the 20% increase, it's that the increase was caused by something the builder couldnt have predicted (again, compared to the MPQ question where the builder should have known).

Statute of Frauds isn't a problem because it can be completed within one year and it's not a transfer of land (it's building an improvement on land).

[turquoiseturtle]

Well, I think MPQ Set 4 question 1 can be distinguished. In that question, the way I read it, the builder messed up and did a bad job calculating the construction costs, something that was totally and completely within his control. And there is definitely not consideration in either question, it's just that sometimes under even the common law, if something crazy happens then a good faith modification is okay. I think the key with the tornado is that it's something 100% unforeseeable, whereas in the MPQ question, the builder just messed up with the construction costs. I think when you see something completely unforeseeable it makes the modification okay. So you're right it's not the 20% increase, it's that the increase was caused by something the builder couldnt have predicted (again, compared to the MPQ question where the builder should have known).

Statute of Frauds isn't a problem because it can be completed within one year and it's not a transfer of land (it's building an improvement on land).

Hmm, we must be looking at different questions. MPQ Set 4 #1 for me just says the builder agreed to build for $200k and "during the course of construction, building costs increased significantly. Builder informed the landowner of the increased costs, and the parties agreed in writing.." to modify. I do agree with builder's mistakes being distinguishable. Here maybe the distinguishing feature is that it doesn't say why the costs increased? Sorry for my intense confusion about this!

[Law-So-Hard]

From the NCBE set posted:

#10: Why would the covenant in the pharmacist's lease be fairly construed as to apply only to the original shopping center premises? Doesn't it touch and concern the land?
#15: is the answer "D" because the call of the question never asks for a contract remedy, just whether the builder could prevail in his suit (meaning it could be in equity)?
#17: I picked A because I didn't think it discriminated if it allowed families to rent buildings without balconies.

[At the Drive-In]

From the NCBE set posted:

#10: Why would the covenant in the pharmacist's lease be fairly construed as to apply only to the original shopping center premises? Doesn't it touch and concern the land?
#15: is the answer "D" because the call of the question never asks for a contract remedy, just whether the builder could prevail in his suit (meaning it could be in equity)?
#17: I picked A because I didn't think it discriminated if it allowed families to rent buildings without balconies.

#10: Yes, it does, as to that piece of land, but the issue is that the owner was buying an adjacent piece of land and combining it to create a single parcel. Since the original covenant was written with a description of the original shopping center by metes and bounds, it doesn't make a lot of sense that that covenant could apply to a piece of land or an expanded shopping center that wasn't even in contemplation when the covenant was originally formed.

#15: There is discussion about this above. What people seem to think is that a tornado is an unexpected, unforeseen risk, so a good faith modification of the contract will be upheld. That seems to be the only thing that makes sense to me. I don't know what other factors go into deciding that it is "fair and equitable". I also suck at contracts so I have no true idea.

#17: It still discriminates. Think about it like this: what if it said that they could only rent out balconied condos to people that were white? Civil Rights act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act) includes families with children as a protected class that you cannot discriminate against in terms of housing. Treat it like a segregation based on race.

(Some might argue: it's not the same, because there is a legitimate concern for the safety of minor children, that wouldn't be present in a race or gender-based discrimination. Doesn't matter. It came about because people were reluctant to rent out to families because they anticipated higher repair/upkeep costs with children messing things up)

[jaydizzle]

Just bombed the Barbri simulated final MBE. Ugh. Screwed.

[BullShitWithBravado]

Just bombed the Barbri simulated final MBE. Ugh. Screwed.

Staying confident is half the battle! Don't give up!

[jaydizzle]

Just bombed the Barbri simulated final MBE. Ugh. Screwed.

Staying confident is half the battle! Don't give up!

Granted, I did bomb the midterm. I bombed this exam too not as badly, but still pretty shitty.