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

[Itwasluck]

Let me know what you guys think about question 33 from today's set.

[+] Spoiler

It seems a bit odd that a party would have a right to cure in this instance. I was under the opinion that if an installment contract was so seriously deficient and constituted a material breach that the entire contract could be cancelled? I got the question right by process of elimination, but would the plaintiff not be able to cancel the entire contract here for a breach of this sort?

Edit: Also, for that matter, does anyone know the average of today's set? - edit 2: nvm, it's right on the online assignment page.

[+] Spoiler

I think this is a tough question, but I have been treating installment contracts as curable within a reasonable time. Since the question states that the manufacturer offered to send a replacement I think this gives them the right to cure. When the parties invasion a long-term relationship, it seems like courts give a preference to letting the relationship continue. I think the essential question is whether the defect (in this case 60% spoilage of product) so materially impacts the entirety of the agreement such that a court would treat it as material breach. Here the breach materially impacted this installment, not the entire deal. Just my thought, please anyone correct if I am wrong)

[mvp99]

From Adaptibar: Therefore, the building owner's conveyance of the apartment and the purchaser's tender of the farm are concurrent conditions, and in effect each is a condition "precedent" to the other

WHHHHHAT?

Concurrent conditions means both must tender at the same time and cannot suspend performance based on the failure of the other to perform. A condition precedent allows a party to suspend performance when the other fails to perform. Am I missing something here?

[jj252525]

Let me know what you guys think about question 33 from today's set.

[+] Spoiler

It seems a bit odd that a party would have a right to cure in this instance. I was under the opinion that if an installment contract was so seriously deficient and constituted a material breach that the entire contract could be cancelled? I got the question right by process of elimination, but would the plaintiff not be able to cancel the entire contract here for a breach of this sort?

Edit: Also, for that matter, does anyone know the average of today's set? - edit 2: nvm, it's right on the online assignment page.

[+] Spoiler

I think that's a good explanation.. (more below)

[+] Spoiler

It does certainly seem like there's a preference to letting the contract continue, especially in the questions - I'm yet to see a question where the relationship properly ends as a correct answers. I'm definitely overthinking it at this point, but I had just assumed that a breach of this manner, that goes to the safety, reliability and quality of the product would be material. Again, probably too much to assume on this exam haha

[Br3v]

For third party standing, I have that in addition to the 3rd party having to have valid standing, the plaintiff himself also does too. Is that correct?

[Itwasluck]

Let me know what you guys think about question 33 from today's set.

[+] Spoiler

It seems a bit odd that a party would have a right to cure in this instance. I was under the opinion that if an installment contract was so seriously deficient and constituted a material breach that the entire contract could be cancelled? I got the question right by process of elimination, but would the plaintiff not be able to cancel the entire contract here for a breach of this sort?

Edit: Also, for that matter, does anyone know the average of today's set? - edit 2: nvm, it's right on the online assignment page.

[+] Spoiler

I think that's a good explanation.. (more below)

[+] Spoiler

It does certainly seem like there's a preference to letting the contract continue, especially in the questions - I'm yet to see a question where the relationship properly ends as a correct answers. I'm definitely overthinking it at this point, but I had just assumed that a breach of this manner, that goes to the safety, reliability and quality of the product would be material. Again, probably too much to assume on this exam haha

[+] Spoiler

I think you're exactly right about over thinking. That line of reasoning is probably something you would argue if representing the buyer, but for the exam I think its too deep. I wouldn't worry about getting that one wrong on the practice because you won't miss it after thinking about it.

[mvp99]

For third party standing, I have that in addition to the 3rd party having to have valid standing, the plaintiff himself also does too. Is that correct?

nvm got confused myself

[sublime]

Were we assigned the first 50 problem set? What day? I don't see it.

[LionelHutzJD]

Were we assigned the first 50 problem set? What day? I don't see it.

Today is Mixed Set 2

[LionelHutzJD]

Let me know what you guys think about question 33 from today's set.

[+] Spoiler

It seems a bit odd that a party would have a right to cure in this instance. I was under the opinion that if an installment contract was so seriously deficient and constituted a material breach that the entire contract could be cancelled? I got the question right by process of elimination, but would the plaintiff not be able to cancel the entire contract here for a breach of this sort?

Edit: Also, for that matter, does anyone know the average of today's set? - edit 2: nvm, it's right on the online assignment page.

[+] Spoiler

I think this is a tough question, but I have been treating installment contracts as curable within a reasonable time. Since the question states that the manufacturer offered to send a replacement I think this gives them the right to cure. When the parties invasion a long-term relationship, it seems like courts give a preference to letting the relationship continue. I think the essential question is whether the defect (in this case 60% spoilage of product) so materially impacts the entirety of the agreement such that a court would treat it as material breach. Here the breach materially impacted this installment, not the entire deal. Just my thought, please anyone correct if I am wrong)

[+] Spoiler

I was thinking that a 60% defect due to rat hairs would constitute a substantial impairment and allow a cancellation of the K. However, no answer choice gives that as an option for the bakery owner. This is why I went with D. A would be a close second but for the fact that the answer choice incorrectly states the rule of law.

[sublime]

Were we assigned the first 50 problem set? What day? I don't see it.

Today is Mixed Set 2

Yea, but were we assigned mix set 1 at some point?

[LionelHutzJD]

Were we assigned the first 50 problem set? What day? I don't see it.

Today is Mixed Set 2

Yea, but were we assigned mix set 1 at some point?

Oh, sorry. Yes we were assigned Mixed Set 1 the day before the Sim MBE.

[sublime]

Were we assigned the first 50 problem set? What day? I don't see it.

Today is Mixed Set 2

Yea, but were we assigned mix set 1 at some point?

Oh, sorry. Yes we were assigned Mixed Set 1 the day before the Sim MBE.

Oops. Missed that, I think.

Thanks!

[WheatThins]

How'd yall do on the 50 today? Thought it was pretty tough in parts.

Thoughts on a couple of these questions?

Question 22:

[+] Spoiler

Does showing someone a gun put them in reasonable apprehension of immediate injury? The gun wasn't pointed at them, there was no immediate injury that could have occurred. I don't get it.

Question 28:

[+] Spoiler

Does this rule even exist? How can not being able to afford to go back to a state to be sufficient grounds to defeat PJ? In the lecture, free said the "Relative wealth of the parties is not determinitive." He also said fairness would not be on the MBE. So there's that.

[JoeySkoko]

How'd yall do on the 50 today? Thought it was pretty tough in parts.

Thoughts on a couple of these questions?

Question 22:

[+] Spoiler

When its on a plane i think yes, I would say yes it would put immediate apprehension on me, but then again I'm not American and am not used to seeing guns everywhere

[millieanon]

Hi - silly question...

When Barbri MPQ real property questions (such as Question 7 on Set 5) say "a son executed and delivered to the creditor a warranty deed to Blackacre"...

Do they mean a general warranty deed (aka "Mother Theresa" with the 6 warranties) or the statutory special warranty deed (aka "Tina Fey" with the 2 warranties). Doesn't always affect the answer, but would be good just to get it straight in my head in case it does come up. Not sure if the actual exam questions would be phrased like this though, or whether this is just a Barbri quirk.

Thanks

[LionelHutzJD]

Hi - silly question...

When Barbri MPQ real property questions (such as Question 7 on Set 5) say "a son executed and delivered to the creditor a warranty deed to Blackacre"...

Do they mean a general warranty deed (aka "Mother Theresa" with the 6 warranties) or the statutory special warranty deed (aka "Tina Fey" with the 2 warranties). Doesn't always affect the answer, but would be good just to get it straight in my head in case it does come up. Not sure if the actual exam questions would be phrased like this though, or whether this is just a Barbri quirk.

Thanks

From all the questions i've seen, a warranty deed = general warranty deed.

[kcdc1]

Been getting 75%-80% on the practice MBE and mixed problem sets. Taking bar in a jurisdiction where essays are 60%. Do I need to worry at all about improving on MBE?

[mvp99]

Been getting 75%-80% on the practice MBE and mixed problem sets. Taking bar in a jurisdiction where essays are 60%. Do I need to worry at all about improving on MBE?

na you're better than alright

[AndroidLawyer]

Question 46 in today's mixed set:

[+] Spoiler

"A homeowner conveyed her home 'to my friend for life, and then to my brother’s heirs.' The brother had a young child at the time of the conveyance. Subsequently, the friend died. The brother and his minor child are still alive. The jurisdiction has abolished the common law rule of destructibility of contingent remainders."

I thought that the homeowner has a reversion because I thought the RAP applies here eliminating the brother's heirs' interest because it is possible that the friend could die tomorrow and the brother can die over 21 years from now, and his heirs' interest does not vest until he dies. But the explanation mentions nothing about RAP, and says that the homeowner has a springing executory interest until the brother's heirs interest vests. Could somebody explain why RAP does not apply here?

[Itwasluck]

Question 46 in today's mixed set:

[+] Spoiler

"A homeowner conveyed her home 'to my friend for life, and then to my brother’s heirs.' The brother had a young child at the time of the conveyance. Subsequently, the friend died. The brother and his minor child are still alive. The jurisdiction has abolished the common law rule of destructibility of contingent remainders."

I thought that the homeowner has a reversion because I thought the RAP applies here eliminating the brother's heirs' interest because it is possible that the friend could die tomorrow and the brother can die over 21 years from now, and his heirs' interest does not vest until he dies. But the explanation mentions nothing about RAP, and says that the homeowner has a springing executory interest until the brother's heirs interest vests. Could somebody explain why RAP does not apply here?

[+] Spoiler

I'll give it a shot. I believe the brother's life is the measuring life for RAP purposes because he is alive at the time of the conveyance. RAP requires that an interest vest within 21 years of the death of a life in being at the time of conveyance. In this case, the brother. When the brother dies, his heirs will be immediately identifiable and thus the RAP is not violated.

[Br3v]

Plane question (#22) was stretching it I think

Regarding #27, Barbri just completely let out a vital fact that they expected us to assume.

[+] Spoiler

Q:A developer owned a 100-acre tract of land, which he subdivided into 200 single-family residences. All deeds contained a covenant that the property would be used only for residential purposes. Two years after the last lot was sold, the developer purchased the 50-acre tract of land adjoining the subdivision. The developer constructed another group of 100 single-family residences on this land. To ensure their market- ability, the developer desired to sell them like homes in the original development, and, to that extent, intended that the deeds to the new homes contain the same restrictions as those in the original development and be enforceable in the same manner by owners in both developments.
Will the developer be successful in this plan?

Uh, well, I guess they wanted us to assume that the restriction was NOT placed into the new homes, but why would we assume that? I assumed the restriction was placed in the new homes and therefore selected (C) "Yes, the restrictions will be equally enforceable for this new project as they were for the original development."

[mvp99]

Civ pro Set 5 question 2. Read the answer and the CMR. It does not make sense.

[+] Spoiler

How can the tort claim be of the same T/O as the main action? Tort claim is trespass to chattels and the other breach of K. Temporal connection is enough to conclude it's the same transaction?

[Itwasluck]

Plane question (#22) was stretching it I think

Regarding #27, Barbri just completely let out a vital fact that they expected us to assume.

[+] Spoiler

Q:A developer owned a 100-acre tract of land, which he subdivided into 200 single-family residences. All deeds contained a covenant that the property would be used only for residential purposes. Two years after the last lot was sold, the developer purchased the 50-acre tract of land adjoining the subdivision. The developer constructed another group of 100 single-family residences on this land. To ensure their market- ability, the developer desired to sell them like homes in the original development, and, to that extent, intended that the deeds to the new homes contain the same restrictions as those in the original development and be enforceable in the same manner by owners in both developments.
Will the developer be successful in this plan?

Uh, well, I guess they wanted us to assume that the restriction was NOT placed into the new homes, but why would we assume that? I assumed the restriction was placed in the new homes and therefore selected (C) "Yes, the restrictions will be equally enforceable for this new project as they were for the original development."

Yup, I got 27 wrong and chose same answer as you. Thanks, Barbri

[Br3v]

Also I'm pretty sure # 50 is wrong

[+] Spoiler

I think you have to establish first that the witness is hostile. Just living with the plaintiff doesn't mean that the witness is hostile to the defendant. Even if we assume it does, the defense would have to establish this hostility before having the court declare the witness hostile and allow leading questions

[generaltoast]

Plane question (#22) was stretching it I think

Regarding #27, Barbri just completely let out a vital fact that they expected us to assume.

[+] Spoiler

Q:A developer owned a 100-acre tract of land, which he subdivided into 200 single-family residences. All deeds contained a covenant that the property would be used only for residential purposes. Two years after the last lot was sold, the developer purchased the 50-acre tract of land adjoining the subdivision. The developer constructed another group of 100 single-family residences on this land. To ensure their market- ability, the developer desired to sell them like homes in the original development, and, to that extent, intended that the deeds to the new homes contain the same restrictions as those in the original development and be enforceable in the same manner by owners in both developments.
Will the developer be successful in this plan?

Uh, well, I guess they wanted us to assume that the restriction was NOT placed into the new homes, but why would we assume that? I assumed the restriction was placed in the new homes and therefore selected (C) "Yes, the restrictions will be equally enforceable for this new project as they were for the original development."

Yup, I got 27 wrong and chose same answer as you. Thanks, Barbri

Same here.

[+] Spoiler

I figured, if he just puts the covenant into the deeds of the new development, what the hell is the issue?