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

[mvp99]

Fob modifies the general rule

what's the default rule for risk?

[MCFC]

Really minor question about today's agency essay

[+] Spoiler

In addition to the exception to the general rule for independent contractor liability by estoppel that they talk about, the agency lecture also mentioned an exception if the independent contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities. I wouldn't have necessarily thought surgery qualified, but in the hypo the lecturer gave, the example was a car mechanic fixing brakes. Surgery seems at least as dangerous?

[LionelHutzJD]

Really minor question about today's agency essay

[+] Spoiler

In addition to the exception to the general rule for independent contractor liability by estoppel that they talk about, the agency lecture also mentioned an exception if the independent contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities. I wouldn't have necessarily thought surgery qualified, but in the hypo the lecturer gave, the example was a car mechanic fixing brakes. Surgery seems at least as dangerous?

I brought it up. Gave it two sentences.

[ellewoods123]

Really minor question about today's agency essay

[+] Spoiler

In addition to the exception to the general rule for independent contractor liability by estoppel that they talk about, the agency lecture also mentioned an exception if the independent contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities. I wouldn't have necessarily thought surgery qualified, but in the hypo the lecturer gave, the example was a car mechanic fixing brakes. Surgery seems at least as dangerous?

I had the exact same thought process/analysis based solely on the hypo in the lecturer haha I don't really have any insight except for the fact that hopefully as long as you articulate the rule clearly and use enough facts to support your analysis it'll be fine no matter which way you end up

[LionelHutzJD]

Another question re todays Agency essay

[+] Spoiler

I came out finding that there was apparent authority for the contract. You need cloaking + reliance. I said that Best Care cloaked the agent by allowing him to enter into contracts and then the TP relied on this appearance. Did anyone else come out this way?

[mvp99]

Really minor question about today's agency essay

[+] Spoiler

In addition to the exception to the general rule for independent contractor liability by estoppel that they talk about, the agency lecture also mentioned an exception if the independent contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities. I wouldn't have necessarily thought surgery qualified, but in the hypo the lecturer gave, the example was a car mechanic fixing brakes. Surgery seems at least as dangerous?

[+] Spoiler

I thought about inherently dangerous as well but the facts were pointing so hard to estoppel (there is an HMO case on point) so I used that. I haven't found a definition of inherently dangerous activities that's useful. I think, like many things in law, that it's an exception based on hindsight. There is no need to conclude this is a inherently dangerous activity because doctors have their own insurance so there's no problem with involuntary creditors.

Plus there is something different here.. to say that it's an inherently dangerous activity means that an entity like an HMO that does background stuff (payments, ads, etc.) for doctors cannot exists without incurring in liability for what the doctors do. Contrast that to a service company like autozone, there its easier to say that fixing breaks its an inherently dangerous activity but really what we're saying is that autozone, that it what you do, fix cars, so you should own up to it and be liable. Idk just thinking out loud here...

[mvp99]

Another question re todays Agency essay

[+] Spoiler

I came out finding that there was apparent authority for the contract. You need cloaking + reliance. I said that Best Care cloaked the agent by allowing him to enter into contracts and then the TP relied on this appearance. Did anyone else come out this way?

[+] Spoiler

I didn't because there is no way Vision knew about the agent's authority to enter into contracts based on Best Care's conduct (no previous dealings). I did concede that MAYBE best care could have inferred Owen was authorized because of the ads BUT in any case, the transaction is so extraordinary (it's not supplies, it a 25k X-ray machine) that there's no way Vision could have reasonably relied on any cloaking based on Best Care ads or conduct.

[SLS_AMG]

Anyone else annoyed by the sloppy writing in today's evidence set?

[+] Spoiler

In #5, I chose B because the prosecutor is using leading questions during a re-direct examination. Isn't this forbidden? Of course, you can use leading questions on cross, so I thought that B seemed like a good answer considering it would have been acceptable if the wife was the D. This is why I hate how BarBri intentionally throws in superfluous facts just to try and lead you down all these wrong paths, when sometimes their own sloppiness results in bad questions.

[KRose04]

i got my seat ticket today. nerves hit me pretty hard when i got that email

[KRose04]

bet $20 that todays webinar's purpose is to sell us the $129 mini-review

lmfao probably

[jj252525]

i got my seat ticket today. nerves hit me pretty hard when i got that email

I was under the impression we need a photo as well (similar to the MPRE)? I don't see any mention of it.

[mvp99]

In my lean sheets corporations outline I have something I don't recognize. It says that for a fundamental change there must be a vote by a majority of adversely affected shares in addition to the required approval by the majority of shares entitle to vote. I don't remember that this is a requirement.... except that MAYBE a vote by a majority of adversely affected shares gets a controlling S/H off the hook for some duty to not to abuse of the minority.. but I'm not sure. Anyone?

[KRose04]

i got my seat ticket today. nerves hit me pretty hard when i got that email

I was under the impression we need a photo as well (similar to the MPRE)? I don't see any mention of it.

We do, but idk why it doesn't say it. I mean think about it, then we could send someone else to take it for us. Which BELIEVE ME, I would lmao

[sublime]

i got my seat ticket today. nerves hit me pretty hard when i got that email

I was under the impression we need a photo as well (similar to the MPRE)? I don't see any mention of it.

We do, but idk why it doesn't say it. I mean think about it, then we could send someone else to take it for us. Which BELIEVE ME, I would lmao

I briefly looked awhile ago, and I didn't see anything.

ETA: Just a photo ID, right: http://www.nybarexam.org/security/security.htm#photo

[jj252525]

i got my seat ticket today. nerves hit me pretty hard when i got that email

I was under the impression we need a photo as well (similar to the MPRE)? I don't see any mention of it.

We do, but idk why it doesn't say it. I mean think about it, then we could send someone else to take it for us. Which BELIEVE ME, I would lmao

I briefly looked awhile ago, and I didn't see anything.

ETA: Just a photo ID, right: http://www.nybarexam.org/security/security.htm#photo

Thanks friend! Hard to believe the MPRE required one but not the bar.

[judgefudge]

Another question re todays Agency essay

[+] Spoiler

I came out finding that there was apparent authority for the contract. You need cloaking + reliance. I said that Best Care cloaked the agent by allowing him to enter into contracts and then the TP relied on this appearance. Did anyone else come out this way?

[+] Spoiler

I did the apparent authority analysis, saying that they couldn't have cloaked him, with respect to Vision, because Vision was in another town 758 miles away or something like that. Even if they did cloak him, there's no way Vision could have relied on it because they are too remotely located. I did do the analysis though.

[ellewoods123]

anyone else starting to freak out over memorizing... I'd like to believe I can recall more than I think from all these weeks of practicing but to actually rattle all of this off the top of my head...good lord

[hellojd]

Anyone else starting to feel kinda ready and lack of motivation for the next week and a half? I definitely have some ironing out to do and final memorization (especially on MEE), but given a good performance on the sample MBE that I finally took this week I'm finding myself slipping into a bit of a lull... and kinda prefer being calm to Barbri's constant insistence on freaking us out

[LionelHutzJD]

Another question re todays Agency essay

[+] Spoiler

I came out finding that there was apparent authority for the contract. You need cloaking + reliance. I said that Best Care cloaked the agent by allowing him to enter into contracts and then the TP relied on this appearance. Did anyone else come out this way?

[+] Spoiler

I did the apparent authority analysis, saying that they couldn't have cloaked him, with respect to Vision, because Vision was in another town 758 miles away or something like that. Even if they did cloak him, there's no way Vision could have relied on it because they are too remotely located. I did do the analysis though.

Then I am misunderstanding apparent authority. To the big outlines I go.

EDIT: I totally did not realize that the parties were acting remotely. Would the analysis here be different if Vision and the agent were contracting face to face? Probably, right?

[KRose04]

Anyone else starting to feel kinda ready and lack of motivation for the next week and a half? I definitely have some ironing out to do and final memorization (especially on MEE), but given a good performance on the sample MBE that I finally took this week I'm finding myself slipping into a bit of a lull... and kinda prefer being calm to Barbri's constant insistence on freaking us out

This is exactly what's been happening to me. I have been slacking since the MBE. I really am getting tired of all of this

[generaltoast]

Anyone else starting to feel kinda ready and lack of motivation for the next week and a half? I definitely have some ironing out to do and final memorization (especially on MEE), but given a good performance on the sample MBE that I finally took this week I'm finding myself slipping into a bit of a lull... and kinda prefer being calm to Barbri's constant insistence on freaking us out

Sames. I'm growing more and more confident towards the MBE, and feel that the MEE will be doable with some cramming of the lecture notes during the last few days. I need something to whip my ass back into fear.

[whitecollar23]

Anyone else starting to feel kinda ready and lack of motivation for the next week and a half? I definitely have some ironing out to do and final memorization (especially on MEE), but given a good performance on the sample MBE that I finally took this week I'm finding myself slipping into a bit of a lull... and kinda prefer being calm to Barbri's constant insistence on freaking us out

Sames. I'm growing more and more confident towards the MBE, and feel that the MEE will be doable with some cramming of the lecture notes during the last few days. I need something to whip my ass back into fear.

How'd you do on the practice MBE? I'm debating if I did well enough to have a similar attitude, haha.

[mrscooter1]

A couple rules I hope I'm not mistating:

1. A holdover tenant in a residential lease is subject to a month to month tenancy.

2. If a landlord notifies a tenant before the termination of the lease that occupancy after termination will be at an increased rent, the holdover tenant will be subject to the increased rent.

My question: is rule 2 applicable to residential tenants too? Will a holdover residential tenant who prior to holding over was informed of an increased rent be subject to the increased rent as well? If so, would the holdover tenant be subject to the rest of the terms of the new lease (e.g., does the holdover tenant acquiesce to a full year-to-year tenancy instead of the month-to-month holdover tenant default illustrated by rule 1.)

[LionelHutzJD]

A couple rules I hope I'm not mistating:

1. A holdover tenant in a residential lease is subject to a month to month tenancy.

2. If a landlord notifies a tenant before the termination of the lease that occupancy after termination will be at an increased rent, the holdover tenant will be subject to the increased rent.

My question: is rule 2 applicable to residential tenants too? Will a holdover residential tenant who prior to holding over was informed of an increased rent be subject to the increased rent as well? If so, would the holdover tenant be subject to the rest of the terms of the new lease (e.g., does the holdover tenant acquiesce to a full year-to-year tenancy instead of the month-to-month holdover tenant default illustrated by rule 1.)

Applies to residential tenant. Will be held to a month to month for the increased rent amount. Be aware of the distinction between a commercial tenant though. The commercial tenant who was previously in a year-to-year lease will be held to the new rent amount AND a year to year lease (not a month to month as with a residential tenant)

[WheatThins]

Anyone else starting to feel kinda ready and lack of motivation for the next week and a half? I definitely have some ironing out to do and final memorization (especially on MEE), but given a good performance on the sample MBE that I finally took this week I'm finding myself slipping into a bit of a lull... and kinda prefer being calm to Barbri's constant insistence on freaking us out

Yea I'm so bored with it. Wish we could take it next Tuesday so I'd be motivated to cram for the mee.