Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[Pleasye]

Can someone explain to me the difference between satisfaction and accord and modifying a contract?

Off the top of my head (so feel free to add or correct):

1. Agreeing to an accord never requires consideration.
2. If the accord is delivered it satisfies the K.
3. If there is no satisfaction (by delivering/performing the accord) the non-breaching party can either sue for the accord OR for breach of the original pre-accord contract.

Thanks! So then my question is, how do you know when you are dealing with an accord or with a modification situation? Because if you think it is a modified contract, then it appears to not be valid with the lack of consideration.

If there's no exchange of new consideration on both sides it's not a modification. If you're unsure, just analyze both.

[zor]

Can someone explain to me the difference between satisfaction and accord and modifying a contract?

Off the top of my head (so feel free to add or correct):

1. Agreeing to an accord never requires consideration.
2. If the accord is delivered it satisfies the K.
3. If there is no satisfaction (by delivering/performing the accord) the non-breaching party can either sue for the accord OR for breach of the original pre-accord contract.

Thanks! So then my question is, how do you know when you are dealing with an accord or with a modification situation? Because if you think it is a modified contract, then it appears to not be valid with the lack of consideration.

Well the accord is conditional and usually involves a dispute about an existing contract. A modification changes the terms of the contract and isn't conditional and requires consideration (or good faith).

Don't forget that to be an accord, you have to offer a different kind of payment than originally intended--i.e. instead of money, here's my bike/house/star wars figurine collection.

[Raiden]

Thanks for the clarification team, that was pretty helpful

[ghandidr]

Holy hell NY evidence is essentially a whole separate subject from MBE evidence.

And she just drones on at a million miles an hour. I didn't understand a word

Gosh I thought I was the only one struggling with her. I barely have time to take notes on what she's saying before shes halfway down the page.

[MrBriggs360]

Just a quick warning to New Yorkers, even though I think this may have already been mentioned. I decided to go through the NY Family Law handout and large outline to compile an "elements spreadsheet" for me to run through and try to memorize and I now realized that Mangold has misstated the elements for a TON of stuff. It seems that she just sort of puts the elements in her own words.

EDIT: Just a quick example to illustrate my point:

In her handout, she says constructive abandonment as a grounds for divorce is where "one spouse forces the other spouse out of the house and that 1. must be willful, continued and unjustified, 2. must include refusal to engage in sexual relations, 3. must last at least one year."

In actuality, she conflated two potential grounds for constructive abandonment. One type of constructive abandonment involves one party forcing the other out of the house. The other type of constructive abandonment is refusal to engage in sexual relations for a period of one year or more. They are two totally different grounds that she conflated. Stuff like this could REALLY screw someone up in an essay.

References.. page 8 of her handout, page 12 of the large outline.

[VicariouslySuperior]

Can someone explain to me the difference between satisfaction and accord and modifying a contract?

Off the top of my head (so feel free to add or correct):

1. Agreeing to an accord never requires consideration.
2. If the accord is delivered it satisfies the K.
3. If there is no satisfaction (by delivering/performing the accord) the non-breaching party can either sue for the accord OR for breach of the original pre-accord contract.

Thanks! So then my question is, how do you know when you are dealing with an accord or with a modification situation? Because if you think it is a modified contract, then it appears to not be valid with the lack of consideration.

Well the accord is conditional and usually involves a dispute about an existing contract. A modification changes the terms of the contract and isn't conditional and requires consideration (or good faith).

Don't forget that to be an accord, you have to offer a different kind of payment than originally intended--i.e. instead of money, here's my bike/house/star wars figurine collection.

You can have an accord without having a different kind of payment. Here is a helpful link which really breaks down Accord and Satisfaction.
http://accordandsatisfaction.uslegal.com/consideration/

[habz]

I like how Jeffries is really tailoring his lectures to testable subjects and detailing how each subject is likely to be tested

[anon sequitur]

I'm at 15% if that makes any of you all feel better.

So I'm switching to flex study today, going to try to power through all the MBE subjects ASAP and leave the state specific and essay stuff for later. But I'm confused about what some of this stuff is, Federal Income Tax isn't on the MBE, right? But it's not marked as state specific, where does it fit in?

[Velours]

I'm at 15% if that makes any of you all feel better.

So I'm switching to flex study today, going to try to power through all the MBE subjects ASAP and leave the state specific and essay stuff for later. But I'm confused about what some of this stuff is, Federal Income Tax isn't on the MBE, right? But it's not marked as state specific, where does it fit in?

TX here, Fed Income Tax is considered a cross-over subject that might come into play for one of the essays, as far as I know. Other examples include Bankruptcy, Gift/Estate Tax and Corp Tax.

[kjartan]

It's funny how frequently the BER is a correct answer choice in the practice MBE sessions given Themis's warning that it's often an incorrect answer choice. It's like they're trying to fuck with us.

[californiabarprep]

Hi guys! Hope everyone's studying is going well.
Wanted to touch base and see how everyone is prepping these days.

Other than *trying* to keep up with the Themis schedule...here is what I do differently so far:

(1) I've set aside the practice essays for now since I don't have time. Once I'm more comfortable w/ the law and MBE, I'll start cracking the essays day and night ... repeatedly. I plan to follow this guy's advice here: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=248756.

(2) I try to do as many MBE question sets as I can on Themis. I do them open book and try to list the things I get wrong. I review afterwards.

(3) I skip the lectures and go directly to carefully studying the outlines. But since I have to do the "assessment" questions to keep going up the "Status %" for Themis, I'll try to do the assessment questions.

I'm currently on Evidence and hope to start Con Law tomorrow.

Anyone else want to contribute, or give some advice as to what I can do?

[zot1]

Started the Crim Law lectures really liking Karlan, but after so many editor notes correcting her, I'm losing confidence in her

[always_raining]

Hi guys! Hope everyone's studying is going well.
Wanted to touch base and see how everyone is prepping these days.

Other than *trying* to keep up with the Themis schedule...here is what I do differently so far:

(1) I've set aside the practice essays for now since I don't have time. Once I'm more comfortable w/ the law and MBE, I'll start cracking the essays day and night ... repeatedly. I plan to follow this guy's advice here: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=248756.

(2) I try to do as many MBE question sets as I can on Themis. I do them open book and try to list the things I get wrong. I review afterwards.

(3) I skip the lectures and go directly to carefully studying the outlines. But since I have to do the "assessment" questions to keep going up the "Status %" for Themis, I'll try to do the assessment questions.

I'm currently on Evidence and hope to start Con Law tomorrow.

Anyone else want to contribute, or give some advice as to what I can do?

Are you far behind? If not, I suggest doing some of the essays.

I find that the essays are very helpful in learning the law. The essays are really short (20-30 minutes) and go by super fast, and I always feel like I have a better understanding of the law after I write it out and struggle with it a little. I cannot tell you how many times I have written a question out on this forum only to find that I understand it after writing it out. I don't always do the essays in the order I am told (often my schedule wants me to do an essay right after the first 17 q MBE set, which I feel like I dont know the law well enough by then.) I normally wait until at least after the second MBE set. Also, my friend last year only outlined the essays and never actually practiced writing them, and he was not able to even start the last essay on the bar exam because he never had the timing down (he still passed though). He meant to fully write the essays out closer to the bar exam but did not feel as though he had enough time.

I personally worry about running out of MBE questions. I have been told that you can run out with Themis, so perhaps doing as many as possible right now isn't great because you won't be able to practice when it gets closer to the bar exam. I could be wrong about this.

I'm not sure how helpful the lectures are. I speed them up 2X while watching, but honestly I'm not sure if it's that useful. I find that doing the lectures and then reading the outline after is helpful in pointing out specific areas that the lectures dont go over (rather than reading the outline and then doing the lectures).

The lectures for the MBE workshops are completely useless. I stopped watching them.

[zor]

Can someone explain to me the difference between satisfaction and accord and modifying a contract?

Off the top of my head (so feel free to add or correct):

1. Agreeing to an accord never requires consideration.
2. If the accord is delivered it satisfies the K.
3. If there is no satisfaction (by delivering/performing the accord) the non-breaching party can either sue for the accord OR for breach of the original pre-accord contract.

Thanks! So then my question is, how do you know when you are dealing with an accord or with a modification situation? Because if you think it is a modified contract, then it appears to not be valid with the lack of consideration.

Well the accord is conditional and usually involves a dispute about an existing contract. A modification changes the terms of the contract and isn't conditional and requires consideration (or good faith).

Don't forget that to be an accord, you have to offer a different kind of payment than originally intended--i.e. instead of money, here's my bike/house/star wars figurine collection.

You can have an accord without having a different kind of payment. Here is a helpful link which really breaks down Accord and Satisfaction.
http://accordandsatisfaction.uslegal.com/consideration/

??? Your own link agrees with me. It says, "In accord contracts that require an amount of consideration that is less than the original, the consideration must be of a different type, i.e. instead of money, debtor offers something in kind."

And from Themis's long outline, p. 16:

"Under an accord agreement, one party to a contract agrees to accept different performance from the other party than what was promised in the existing contract. Generally, consideration is required for an accord to be valid ... When a creditor agrees to accept a lesser amount in full satisfaction of the debt, the original debt is discharged only when there is some dispute either as tot he validity of the debt or the amount of the debt, or when the payment is of a different type than called for under the original contract." (Emphasis original)

[californiabarprep]

Hi guys! Hope everyone's studying is going well.
Wanted to touch base and see how everyone is prepping these days.

Other than *trying* to keep up with the Themis schedule...here is what I do differently so far:

(1) I've set aside the practice essays for now since I don't have time. Once I'm more comfortable w/ the law and MBE, I'll start cracking the essays day and night ... repeatedly. I plan to follow this guy's advice here: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=248756.

(2) I try to do as many MBE question sets as I can on Themis. I do them open book and try to list the things I get wrong. I review afterwards.

(3) I skip the lectures and go directly to carefully studying the outlines. But since I have to do the "assessment" questions to keep going up the "Status %" for Themis, I'll try to do the assessment questions.

I'm currently on Evidence and hope to start Con Law tomorrow.

Anyone else want to contribute, or give some advice as to what I can do?

Are you far behind? If not, I suggest doing some of the essays.

I find that the essays are very helpful in learning the law. The essays are really short (20-30 minutes) and go by super fast, and I always feel like I have a better understanding of the law after I write it out and struggle with it a little. I cannot tell you how many times I have written a question out on this forum only to find that I understand it after writing it out. I don't always do the essays in the order I am told (often my schedule wants me to do an essay right after the first 17 q MBE set, which I feel like I dont know the law well enough by then.) I normally wait until at least after the second MBE set. Also, my friend last year only outlined the essays and never actually practiced writing them, and he was not able to even start the last essay on the bar exam because he never had the timing down (he still passed though). He meant to fully write the essays out closer to the bar exam but did not feel as though he had enough time.

I personally worry about running out of MBE questions. I have been told that you can run out with Themis, so perhaps doing as many as possible right now isn't great because you won't be able to practice when it gets closer to the bar exam. I could be wrong about this.

I'm not sure how helpful the lectures are. I speed them up 2X while watching, but honestly I'm not sure if it's that useful. I find that doing the lectures and then reading the outline after is helpful in pointing out specific areas that the lectures dont go over (rather than reading the outline and then doing the lectures).

The lectures for the MBE workshops are completely useless. I stopped watching them.

Wow! Thanks for this!

[Lubberlubber]

Taking NY Bar,

Kind of really stressed out that I've been getting ~60%'s (and sometimes less) on the MBE Problem Sets (except torts. Killing torts).

Are you guys all crushing it with 75%+ at this point?

[gr8scOtt!]

Taking NY Bar,

Kind of really stressed out that I've been getting ~60%'s (and sometimes less) on the MBE Problem Sets (except torts. Killing torts).

Are you guys all crushing it with 75%+ at this point?

LOL No.

[sd5289]

Re. the 75%+ comment above: no. And I'm only in the low 70s on a couple of subjects (Torts & Crim).

Question for all those who have done Evidence. I just hit a PQ that I cannot figure out. It's on subsequent remedial measures, specifically in product liability.

[+] Spoiler

Here's the question:

A boat owner initiated a products liability action against the manufacturer of the boat’s engine. The owner alleged that the engine manufacturer failed to warn the owner about the proper operation of a switch on the engine, and that improper operation of the switch caused the owner’s injuries. The boat owner offered evidence that the manufacturer had begun including a written warning for the switch for all boats manufactured beginning in the year after the owner’s boat was manufactured. The owner had owned his boat for five years prior to his injury.

The correct answer was: "Yes, because the manufacturer began providing the warning before the boat owner’s accident."

The incorrect answer that I chose was: "No, because evidence of the manufacturer’s warning is inadmissible as a remedial measure."

I guess I'm either just tired or am missing something. Which is it? Cause it really looks like evidence of a subsequent remedial measure to me.

[Tripl3Espresso]

Re. the 75%+ comment above: no. And I'm only in the low 70s on a couple of subjects (Torts & Crim).

Question for all those who have done Evidence. I just hit a PQ that I cannot figure out. It's on subsequent remedial measures, specifically in product liability.

[+] Spoiler

Here's the question:

A boat owner initiated a products liability action against the manufacturer of the boat’s engine. The owner alleged that the engine manufacturer failed to warn the owner about the proper operation of a switch on the engine, and that improper operation of the switch caused the owner’s injuries. The boat owner offered evidence that the manufacturer had begun including a written warning for the switch for all boats manufactured beginning in the year after the owner’s boat was manufactured. The owner had owned his boat for five years prior to his injury.

The correct answer was: "Yes, because the manufacturer began providing the warning before the boat owner’s accident."

The incorrect answer that I chose was: "No, because evidence of the manufacturer’s warning is inadmissible as a remedial measure."

I guess I'm either just tired or am missing something. Which is it? Cause it really looks like evidence of a subsequent remedial measure to me.

I remember doing this question:

[+] Spoiler

I was stuck between both of those answers and guessed because of language of the correct response (that seems to be the trick with a lot of the practice MBE's). As i understand, the subsequent remedial measure would not be admissible if it is added after the injury. The correct answer says it was done "before" the owner's accident when they were all manufactured that year. Hope this clarifies the answer choice.

[zot1]

Taking NY Bar,

Kind of really stressed out that I've been getting ~60%'s (and sometimes less) on the MBE Problem Sets (except torts. Killing torts).

Are you guys all crushing it with 75%+ at this point?

LOL No.

Not even close.

[zot1]

Started the Crim Law lectures really liking Karlan, but after so many editor notes correcting her, I'm losing confidence in her

It is way too confusing when the lecturer makes errors over and over again. Is Themis really unable to edit out errors?

[Tripl3Espresso]

Taking NY Bar,

Kind of really stressed out that I've been getting ~60%'s (and sometimes less) on the MBE Problem Sets (except torts. Killing torts).

Are you guys all crushing it with 75%+ at this point?

LOL No.

Not even close.

If the goal still says 50% then I wouldn't stress about being around 60%. If you're doing 60% on your mbe's in june you should be fine. I have heard some people don't even reach 60% by the time they are about to take the bar.

[always_raining]

Taking NY Bar,

Kind of really stressed out that I've been getting ~60%'s (and sometimes less) on the MBE Problem Sets (except torts. Killing torts).

Are you guys all crushing it with 75%+ at this point?

I'm not taking NY, but I'm not getting 75+. I was at 62% for my last contracts one (which was my 4th MBE set), and consistently score between 59-69% in torts. But I've been doing very well in other subjects, so I hope it will even out. Sometimes I will get 85+ on one set in a subject and then get a 65 in the next set.

[habz]

It's funny how frequently the BER is a correct answer choice in the practice MBE sessions given Themis's warning that it's often an incorrect answer choice. It's like they're trying to fuck with us.

Yeah I just did the third MBE set for evidence and there were 6 best evidence questions. ridiculous

[always_raining]

Re. the 75%+ comment above: no. And I'm only in the low 70s on a couple of subjects (Torts & Crim).

Question for all those who have done Evidence. I just hit a PQ that I cannot figure out. It's on subsequent remedial measures, specifically in product liability.

[+] Spoiler

Here's the question:

A boat owner initiated a products liability action against the manufacturer of the boat’s engine. The owner alleged that the engine manufacturer failed to warn the owner about the proper operation of a switch on the engine, and that improper operation of the switch caused the owner’s injuries. The boat owner offered evidence that the manufacturer had begun including a written warning for the switch for all boats manufactured beginning in the year after the owner’s boat was manufactured. The owner had owned his boat for five years prior to his injury.

The correct answer was: "Yes, because the manufacturer began providing the warning before the boat owner’s accident."

The incorrect answer that I chose was: "No, because evidence of the manufacturer’s warning is inadmissible as a remedial measure."

I guess I'm either just tired or am missing something. Which is it? Cause it really looks like evidence of a subsequent remedial measure to me.

I remember doing this question:

[+] Spoiler

I was stuck between both of those answers and guessed because of language of the correct response (that seems to be the trick with a lot of the practice MBE's). As i understand, the subsequent remedial measure would not be admissible if it is added after the injury. The correct answer says it was done "before" the owner's accident when they were all manufactured that year. Hope this clarifies the answer choice.

To add on to that

[+] Spoiler

It is because of the public policy behind the rule. The measure was not subsequent of the accident, i.e., the company did not have reason to know based on the accident that it should be changed, and so the public policy is not violated. The public policy is that the state/courts dont want to discourage companies from fixing problems to avoid liability in litigation. If a company is afraid that fixing an issue will show they are liable/at fault, then they wouldnt fix it and more people could get hurt. But if it's before an accident, then it doesnt violate the public policy because there is no deterrent.