BarBri Bar Review Hangout - February 2016 Exam Forum

[THE_U]

Can anyone else not stand this blonde lady who does the MBE refresher review? She just rambles and rambles. And her test-taking techniques aren't that groundbreaking

I literally came into this thread right now to write a post the exact same thing.

I'm 20 min into the first lecture and she's only gotten to the 2nd question. I'm about to just quit and read the answer explanations on my own.

[mtyler19]

Too lazy to go up and find who wanted notes from the simulated exam review lectures.
Anyway, I only took these notes from Guzman's constitutional law lecture but hopefully you'll find them helpful:

Professor Guzman’s “Almost Always Wrong” Answer Choices
1. Congress may not delegate its power to an administrative agency.
2. The federal statute is unconstitutional since the subject matter is reserved to the states (under the Tenth Amendment).
3. Congress has the power to legislate for the general welfare.
4. Congress has the power to act under its police power.
5. The federal statute is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
6. Any pick that refers to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
7. When there is a claim following an alleged violation of an individual right by the government:
. i. Any pick that states the plaintiff prevails because the plaintiff has a right and not a privilege.
. ii. Any pick that states the government prevails because the government has a privilege and not a right.
8. Any pick that applies the ex post facto to non-criminal legislation.
9. Any pick that claims the state statute is unconstitutional because it places a burden on commerce.
10. Any pick that invalidates legislation under the Contracts Clause.
11. Any pick that claims the president has violated his duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
12. Any pick that dismisses a lawsuit because it is a political question.

Me! Thank you so much!!

[z0rk]

Can anyone else not stand this blonde lady who does the MBE refresher review? She just rambles and rambles. And her test-taking techniques aren't that groundbreaking

I literally came into this thread right now to write a post the exact same thing.

I'm 20 min into the first lecture and she's only gotten to the 2nd question. I'm about to just quit and read the answer explanations on my own.

Yes, I did that! Save your time.

The new lecturer and Chuck Shonnholtz are the worst. They literally just regurgitate the written explanations. Professor Guzman from the exam review was much better, he at least had test taking tips and reviewed the mechanics of a subject instead of just saying "C is right, all the rest are wrong because they don't make sense." <-- not helpful, explain HOW they do not make sense (especially when BarBri writes some vague and poorly worded questions).

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

Can anyone else not stand this blonde lady who does the MBE refresher review? She just rambles and rambles. And her test-taking techniques aren't that groundbreaking

I literally came into this thread right now to write a post the exact same thing.

I'm 20 min into the first lecture and she's only gotten to the 2nd question. I'm about to just quit and read the answer explanations on my own.

Yes, I did that! Save your time.

The new lecturer and Chuck Shonnholtz are the worst. They literally just regurgitate the written explanations. Professor Guzman from the exam review was much better, he at least had test taking tips and reviewed the mechanics of a subject instead of just saying "C is right, all the rest are wrong because they don't make sense." <-- not helpful, explain HOW they do not make sense (especially when BarBri writes some vague and poorly worded questions).

Oh I can't stand Chuck. He just rambles and rambles and rambles. For one torts question about defamation toward public figures, he listed off like 40 celebrities just to get across the point of what a "public figure" is. Tedious.

And I agree with his poor explanation of why answer choices are incorrect. He's like "D is a stupid choice, don't pick D." Well, I did pick D. Explain why it's a stupid answer, please.

Guzman is the man though. Great at explaining things.

[THE_U]

I wish Guzman lectured for every subject. He's awesome.

[MTBike]

Thanks Barbri

Exam Tip
The Necessary and Proper Clause standing alone cannot support federal law. It must work in conjunction with another federal power. Thus, an answer choice that states that a law is supported by the Necessary and Proper Clause (or is valid under Congress's power to enact legislation necessary and proper) will be incorrect unless another federal power is linked to it in the question.

Actual MBE Question:

The federal government has complete jurisdiction over certain park land located within the state. To conserve the wildlife that inhabits that land, the federal government enacts a statute forbidding all hunting of animals in the federal park. That statute also forbids the hunting of animals that have left the federal park and have entered the state.

A hunter has a hunting license from the state authorizing him to hunt deer anywhere in the state. On land within the state located adjacent to the federal park, the hunter shoots a deer he knows has recently left the federal land.

The hunter is prosecuted for violating the federal hunting law. The strongest ground supporting the constitutionality of the federal law forbidding the hunting of wild animals that wander off federal property is that

A. this law is a necessary and proper means of protecting United States property.
B. the animals are moving in the stream of interstate commerce.
C. the police powers of the federal government encompass protection of wild animals.
D. shooting wild animals is a privilege, not a right.

A is the correct answer. Article IV, §3 gives Congress the power to make regulations regarding territory or property belonging to the United States. Therefore, Congress can protect wildlife that crosses onto federal land. See Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976). Answer B is incorrect because there is no indication that the animals are involved in interstate commerce in any meaningful way. Answer C is incorrect because any federal police-type power is only exercisable pursuant to the property power, and thus only applies to wild animals that cross into federally owned lands. Answer D is incorrect because it does not explain the constitutional basis of the power under which Congress may enact this law, which is the inquiry.

[Fenixdown]

First scenario: P sues D. They're from different jurisdictions. D impleads D2. D and D2 are from the same JD. Is that OK?

Second scenario: P sues D. They're from different jurisdictions. D impleads D2. P and D2 are from the same JD. Is that OK?

Now, expanding upon that. Are the Plaintiff and TPD only allowed to sue each other for things that happened out of the same transaction or occurrence, or can they bring in different claims?

First and second scenarios: assess each claim separately for SMJ. Federal question? Diversity of citizenship? Supplemental jurisdiction (probably yes, because the same transaction/occurrence)?

Third scenario: Plaintiff and TPD are only allowed to bring claims that arise under the same transaction/occurrence as the underlying claim, but the original defendant (third-party plaintiff) may join any other claim against TPD (must have SMJ though).

Edit:

After looking at my notes, I think scenario 1 and 2 are both ok as long as common nucleus. as for P's claims, P can only bring it against D2 in scenario 1, but not scenario 2 (that destroys complete diversity)

Ok, so let's get this straight. P(A) sues D(B), and D(B) impleads D2(B).

They all clear out for subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. Now, P has a claim against D2, and D2 has a claim against P. Does it HAVE to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence for either of them to pursue that claim?

Second Scenario: P(A) sues D(B) and D(B) impleads D2(A).

Here, P cannot sue D2 because it would destroy SMJ, correct? And D2 can't sue P for the same reason?

[swtlilsoni]

First scenario: P sues D. They're from different jurisdictions. D impleads D2. D and D2 are from the same JD. Is that OK?

Second scenario: P sues D. They're from different jurisdictions. D impleads D2. P and D2 are from the same JD. Is that OK?

Now, expanding upon that. Are the Plaintiff and TPD only allowed to sue each other for things that happened out of the same transaction or occurrence, or can they bring in different claims?

First and second scenarios: assess each claim separately for SMJ. Federal question? Diversity of citizenship? Supplemental jurisdiction (probably yes, because the same transaction/occurrence)?

Third scenario: Plaintiff and TPD are only allowed to bring claims that arise under the same transaction/occurrence as the underlying claim, but the original defendant (third-party plaintiff) may join any other claim against TPD (must have SMJ though).

Edit:

After looking at my notes, I think scenario 1 and 2 are both ok as long as common nucleus. as for P's claims, P can only bring it against D2 in scenario 1, but not scenario 2 (that destroys complete diversity)

Ok, so let's get this straight. P(A) sues D(B), and D(B) impleads D2(B).

They all clear out for subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. Now, P has a claim against D2, and D2 has a claim against P. Does it HAVE to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence for either of them to pursue that claim?

Second Scenario: P(A) sues D(B) and D(B) impleads D2(A).

Here, P cannot sue D2 because it would destroy SMJ, correct? And D2 can't sue P for the same reason?

Have a look at my last post here:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 8#p9148848

If I am correct in that post, that means in both of your scenarios, P can't pursue that claim period, whether it is from the same transaction or not. But D2 can have a claim against P in both situations, as long as it is the same occurrence.

I wonder if I am correct in that post though.

[Sue]

Thanks Barbri

Exam Tip
The Necessary and Proper Clause standing alone cannot support federal law. It must work in conjunction with another federal power. Thus, an answer choice that states that a law is supported by the Necessary and Proper Clause (or is valid under Congress's power to enact legislation necessary and proper) will be incorrect unless another federal power is linked to it in the question.

Actual MBE Question:

The federal government has complete jurisdiction over certain park land located within the state. To conserve the wildlife that inhabits that land, the federal government enacts a statute forbidding all hunting of animals in the federal park. That statute also forbids the hunting of animals that have left the federal park and have entered the state.

A hunter has a hunting license from the state authorizing him to hunt deer anywhere in the state. On land within the state located adjacent to the federal park, the hunter shoots a deer he knows has recently left the federal land.

The hunter is prosecuted for violating the federal hunting law. The strongest ground supporting the constitutionality of the federal law forbidding the hunting of wild animals that wander off federal property is that

A. this law is a necessary and proper means of protecting United States property.
B. the animals are moving in the stream of interstate commerce.
C. the police powers of the federal government encompass protection of wild animals.
D. shooting wild animals is a privilege, not a right.

A is the correct answer. Article IV, §3 gives Congress the power to make regulations regarding territory or property belonging to the United States. Therefore, Congress can protect wildlife that crosses onto federal land. See Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976). Answer B is incorrect because there is no indication that the animals are involved in interstate commerce in any meaningful way. Answer C is incorrect because any federal police-type power is only exercisable pursuant to the property power, and thus only applies to wild animals that cross into federally owned lands. Answer D is incorrect because it does not explain the constitutional basis of the power under which Congress may enact this law, which is the inquiry.

Nothing wrong. Art Iv, S3 is a property power, Art I S8 is Necessary and Proper Clause. Here, answer A says "this law is a necessary and proper means of protecting United States property", meaning N&P Clause works with the property power, another federal power. Nothing in the answer A explanation mentions N&P Clause, so it's right.

[doubltall]

Can someone help me reconcile my confusion with an example of what the CMR is saying here? It's on Page 49 of the Real Prop in the CMR.

"Deeds - Where Grantor Gives Deed to Third Party - Transfer to Third Party with No Conditions: If given with instructions....valid delivery ....... BUT if the grantor fails to give instructions, the validity of delivery depends on whether the third party could be considered the grantor's agent. If so, there is no delivery."

Would an example of this be... An aged business owner on deathbed gives secretary a deed, with no instructions? What is this limitation getting at?

[MrMustache]

Can someone help me reconcile my confusion with an example of what the CMR is saying here? It's on Page 49 of the Real Prop in the CMR.

"Deeds - Where Grantor Gives Deed to Third Party - Transfer to Third Party with No Conditions: If given with instructions....valid delivery ....... BUT if the grantor fails to give instructions, the validity of delivery depends on whether the third party could be considered the grantor's agent. If so, there is no delivery."

Would an example of this be... An aged business owner on deathbed gives secretary a deed, with no instructions? What is this limitation getting at?

I was confused about this exact thing yesterday. Your example works. Let's say you execute the the deed and then give it to your agent and tell him to give it to X, it's delivered. If you give it to your agent and tell him "hold on to this," while thinking about giving it to X, but you then get hit by a car and die, it's not delivered. The assumption in the second case is that,you may have been thinking about it and you could have changed your mind at anytime and gotten the deed back from he agent.

Edit: Look close to the bottom on page 22, my question was answered there. You might find the answers helpful.

[doubltall]

Thanks heaps, MrMustache!

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

Ok I need to clear up some confusion on deeds in property. It seems like the examiners love testing over estoppel by deed, and what does and doesn't constitute that. Let me give some hypos:

Hypo 1:
Landowner owns Blackacre. In January, Landowner drafts a will and devises Blackacre to Son. In February, Son was desperate for money and sold Blackacre by quitclaim deed to Buyer. In May, Landowner died. In June, Son was still desperate for money and sold Blackacre to Purchaser. Purchaser had no notice of the sale to Buyer. Purchaser later discovered Buyer on the property, and filed suit to have Buyer ejected. Buyer wins.

Hypo 2:
Landowner owns Blackacre. In January, Landowner told Son "You are such a great son. I want to express my gratitude by giving you Blackacre. I will have my lawyer draft a deed soon." In February, Landowner still had not drafted a deed. Son was desperate for money and sold Blackacre to Buyer by quitclaim deed. In March, Landowner finally drafted a deed and delivered it to Son. In April, Son was desperate for money again and sold Blackacre to Purchaser. Purchaser had no notice of the sale to Buyer. Purchaser discovered Buyer on the property and filed suit to have Buyer ejected. Purchaser wins.

Hypo 3:
Same facts as #2, but in March, after Son had sold the land to Buyer, Landowner discovered Son had a terrible drug problem and decided not to grant Blackacre to him after all. Landowner sues to have Buyer ejected. Landowner wins.

Ignore recording statutes for these, by the way.

So, if I am correct on the law, in #1, Buyer wins because of estoppel by deed. In #2, Purchaser wins because Son had no title to convey to Buyer when he sold the property. In #3, Landowner wins for the same reason as #2.

Am I correct in all this? As in, estoppel by deed only really applies when you have an ACTUAL future interest in the land? And NOT when the landowner simply says "i'm going to grant this land to you."

[longhornlaw]

Ok I need to clear up some confusion on deeds in property. It seems like the examiners love testing over estoppel by deed, and what does and doesn't constitute that. Let me give some hypos:

Hypo 1:
Landowner owns Blackacre. In January, Landowner drafts a will and devises Blackacre to Son. In February, Son was desperate for money and sold Blackacre by quitclaim deed to Buyer. In May, Landowner died. In June, Son was still desperate for money and sold Blackacre to Purchaser. Purchaser had no notice of the sale to Buyer. Purchaser later discovered Buyer on the property, and filed suit to have Buyer ejected. Buyer wins.

Hypo 2:
Landowner owns Blackacre. In January, Landowner told Son "You are such a great son. I want to express my gratitude by giving you Blackacre. I will have my lawyer draft a deed soon." In February, Landowner still had not drafted a deed. Son was desperate for money and sold Blackacre to Buyer by quitclaim deed. In March, Landowner finally drafted a deed and delivered it to Son. In April, Son was desperate for money again and sold Blackacre to Purchaser. Purchaser had no notice of the sale to Buyer. Purchaser discovered Buyer on the property and filed suit to have Buyer ejected. Purchaser wins.

Hypo 3:
Same facts as #2, but in March, after Son had sold the land to Buyer, Landowner discovered Son had a terrible drug problem and decided not to grant Blackacre to him after all. Landowner sues to have Buyer ejected. Landowner wins.

Ignore recording statutes for these, by the way.

So, if I am correct on the law, in #1, Buyer wins because of estoppel by deed. In #2, Purchaser wins because Son had no title to convey to Buyer when he sold the property. In #3, Landowner wins for the same reason as #2.

Am I correct in all this? As in, estoppel by deed only really applies when you have an ACTUAL future interest in the land? And NOT when the landowner simply says "i'm going to grant this land to you."

Dunno if this helps, but Wikipedia has some good examples:

1. If O conveys property she doesn't own to A by warranty deed, but O later acquires title to that land, then title immediately passes to A.

2. However, if, as above, O conveys property she doesn't own to A by warranty deed, but O later acquires title to that land, A may elect to treat O's lack of title at the time of the conveyance as a breach of the covenants of seisin and right to convey (two of the six traditional forms of Covenants for Title that are contained in a general warranty deed), and sue O for damages. A cannot be forced to accept O's after-acquired title if she wishes instead to receive damages.

3. If O conveys property she doesn't own to A by quitclaim deed, but O later acquires title to that land, then A owns nothing. This is because O passed her interest to A with a quitclaim deed; at the time of the conveyance, O's interest was nothing, so she passed nothing.

[MrMustache]

Dunno if this helps, but Wikipedia has some good examples:

1. If O conveys property she doesn't own to A by warranty deed, but O later acquires title to that land, then title immediately passes to A.

2. However, if, as above, O conveys property she doesn't own to A by warranty deed, but O later acquires title to that land, A may elect to treat O's lack of title at the time of the conveyance as a breach of the covenants of seisin and right to convey (two of the six traditional forms of Covenants for Title that are contained in a general warranty deed), and sue O for damages. A cannot be forced to accept O's after-acquired title if she wishes instead to receive damages.

3. If O conveys property she doesn't own to A by quitclaim deed, but O later acquires title to that land, then A owns nothing. This is because O passed her interest to A with a quitclaim deed; at the time of the conveyance, O's interest was nothing, so she passed nothing.

Thank you! These examples are great.

[crumpetsandtea]

So I'm doing things a little out of order and I was planning on doing the written exam today. Where do I find it?

[rocket32]

I just realized that I don't really understand the difference between a tenancy at will and a periodic tenancy. Both appear to go on indefinitely until one party decides to terminate the lease, but I understand that for a periodic tenancy you have to give a specific amount of notice depending on the lease interval, whereas for a periodic tenancy (in Florida) it just has to be "reasonable notice." The other difference I see is that to be a tenancy at will, this must be express in the lease. Other than that... am I missing something? It seems like they're pretty much the same thing.

[rocket32]

I just realized that I don't really understand the difference between a tenancy at will and a periodic tenancy. Both appear to go on indefinitely until one party decides to terminate the lease, but I understand that for a periodic tenancy you have to give a specific amount of notice depending on the lease interval, whereas for a periodic tenancy (in Florida) it just has to be "reasonable notice." The other difference I see is that to be a tenancy at will, this must be express in the lease. Other than that... am I missing something? It seems like they're pretty much the same thing.

Actually now that I think about it... a tenancy for years also seems to be the same thing, paying rent at regular intervals, but the lease ends on the date previously agreed on by the parties, with no notice required. So is what governs whether a lease is tenancy for years, periodic tenancy, or tenancy at will the way you terminate?

[MrMustache]

Actually now that I think about it... a tenancy for years also seems to be the same thing, paying rent at regular intervals, but the lease ends on the date previously agreed on by the parties, with no notice required. So is what governs whether a lease is tenancy for years, periodic tenancy, or tenancy at will the way you terminate?

That's exactly it. With periodic tenancy that's month-to-month you have to give/get notice 1 month ahead of termination. With Tenancy at Will there just needs to be reasonable time to vacate. If your buddy is crashing at your place with a backpack, it's reasonable for him to take his backpack and get out within a couple of hours. With Tenancy at Will there's also a possible termination by operation of law, that doesn't apply to other tenancies:

1. Death of either party
2. waste by tenant
3. assignment by tenant
4. transfer of title by landlord
5. lease by landlord to third party.

[rocket32]

Actually now that I think about it... a tenancy for years also seems to be the same thing, paying rent at regular intervals, but the lease ends on the date previously agreed on by the parties, with no notice required. So is what governs whether a lease is tenancy for years, periodic tenancy, or tenancy at will the way you terminate?

That's exactly it. With periodic tenancy that's month-to-month you have to give/get notice 1 month ahead of termination. With Tenancy at Will there just needs to be reasonable time to vacate. If your buddy is crashing at your place with a backpack, it's reasonable for him to take his backpack and get out within a couple of hours. With Tenancy at Will there's also a possible termination by operation of law, that doesn't apply to other tenancies:

1. Death of either party
2. waste by tenant
3. assignment by tenant
4. transfer of title by landlord
5. lease by landlord to third party.

Excellent - thank you! This is the kind of thing that makes me very nervous though - a week out from the bar and realizing that I actually don't understand something that seems pretty basic and that I thought I understood...

[NY_Sea]

I just realized that I don't really understand the difference between a tenancy at will and a periodic tenancy. Both appear to go on indefinitely until one party decides to terminate the lease, but I understand that for a periodic tenancy you have to give a specific amount of notice depending on the lease interval, whereas for a periodic tenancy (in Florida) it just has to be "reasonable notice." The other difference I see is that to be a tenancy at will, this must be express in the lease. Other than that... am I missing something? It seems like they're pretty much the same thing.

Actually now that I think about it... a tenancy for years also seems to be the same thing, paying rent at regular intervals, but the lease ends on the date previously agreed on by the parties, with no notice required. So is what governs whether a lease is tenancy for years, periodic tenancy, or tenancy at will the way you terminate?

Tenancies for years have a definite end date... While you could pay monthly rent, there's always going to be a concrete end date. On the other hand, a periodic tenancy (month-to-month, lets say) can potentially go on indefinitely if either the landlord or tenant doesn't terminate by notice equal to one of the periods.They're not really the same thing since like you said, one needs notice, one doesn't.

Now the difference between a tenancy at will and a tenancy for years is the concrete end date as well. While neither needs notice, one of them will definitely end at some point (unless the tenant holds over, but that's a whole other thing).

[crumpetsandtea]

I just realized that I don't really understand the difference between a tenancy at will and a periodic tenancy. Both appear to go on indefinitely until one party decides to terminate the lease, but I understand that for a periodic tenancy you have to give a specific amount of notice depending on the lease interval, whereas for a periodic tenancy (in Florida) it just has to be "reasonable notice." The other difference I see is that to be a tenancy at will, this must be express in the lease. Other than that... am I missing something? It seems like they're pretty much the same thing.

Actually now that I think about it... a tenancy for years also seems to be the same thing, paying rent at regular intervals, but the lease ends on the date previously agreed on by the parties, with no notice required. So is what governs whether a lease is tenancy for years, periodic tenancy, or tenancy at will the way you terminate?

Tenancies for years have a definite end date... While you could pay monthly rent, there's always going to be a concrete end date. On the other hand, a periodic tenancy (month-to-month, lets say) can potentially go on indefinitely if either the landlord or tenant doesn't terminate by notice equal to one of the periods.They're not really the same thing since like you said, one needs notice, one doesn't.

Now the difference between a tenancy at will and a tenancy for years is the concrete end date as well. While neither needs notice, one of them will definitely end at some point (unless the tenant holds over, but that's a whole other thing).

Yeah, exactly. And BarBri says that in cases of tenancy at will vs. periodic tenancy, if a tenant pays in a periodic way the court will generally assume it is a periodic tenancy unless there's some specific agreement to the contrary. So I think it's safe to assume that on the exam, if they give you facts indicating T pays every month, you can assume it's a periodic tenancy unless the prompt states specifically that they're a tenancy at will (but maybe for essays talk about both just in case?)

[rocket32]

I just realized that I don't really understand the difference between a tenancy at will and a periodic tenancy. Both appear to go on indefinitely until one party decides to terminate the lease, but I understand that for a periodic tenancy you have to give a specific amount of notice depending on the lease interval, whereas for a periodic tenancy (in Florida) it just has to be "reasonable notice." The other difference I see is that to be a tenancy at will, this must be express in the lease. Other than that... am I missing something? It seems like they're pretty much the same thing.

Actually now that I think about it... a tenancy for years also seems to be the same thing, paying rent at regular intervals, but the lease ends on the date previously agreed on by the parties, with no notice required. So is what governs whether a lease is tenancy for years, periodic tenancy, or tenancy at will the way you terminate?

Tenancies for years have a definite end date... While you could pay monthly rent, there's always going to be a concrete end date. On the other hand, a periodic tenancy (month-to-month, lets say) can potentially go on indefinitely if either the landlord or tenant doesn't terminate by notice equal to one of the periods.They're not really the same thing since like you said, one needs notice, one doesn't.

Now the difference between a tenancy at will and a tenancy for years is the concrete end date as well. While neither needs notice, one of them will definitely end at some point (unless the tenant holds over, but that's a whole other thing).

Yeah, exactly. And BarBri says that in cases of tenancy at will vs. periodic tenancy, if a tenant pays in a periodic way the court will generally assume it is a periodic tenancy unless there's some specific agreement to the contrary. So I think it's safe to assume that on the exam, if they give you facts indicating T pays every month, you can assume it's a periodic tenancy unless the prompt states specifically that they're a tenancy at will (but maybe for essays talk about both just in case?)

I think that is right. A tenancy at will has to be express... so without actually giving us the answer, I don't know how they'd test it (although as mentioned above, there are certain ways that a tenancy at will would terminate by operation of law, so they could be a little sneaky about it and test something like that). In an essay, even if it's not an issue, it's an easy point to make in one sentence or even a parenthetical that might get you an extra point, who knows.

[NY_Sea]

Anything that seems relevant to the question, I'm throwing it in there... Get as many points as possible. I did alright on my essays, but I'd like to do a little better this time, since I think I could have definitely added in more of the "fluff" that gets you extra points.

[BrokenMouse]

.