PA Essays Forum

[caveman2]

I'm praying the corporations question was worth the most on that last essay

Since the corporations and UCC questions didn't involve a whole lot of analysis, I'm guessing that they were each worth about 5 points respectively, and the conflicts question was 10 points. I hope not, but I think that might be the case.

[Acdc54]

Omg you made my night!

[Acdc54]

Did you talk about relevance for the interrogatories question? And did you say that the offer the pay for medical expenses was inadmissible as well as the offer to make a compromise?

[Gamecubesupreme]

I'm curious about what everyone thought of the Performance Test.

The prompt was so straightforward, I wasn't sure if I misread something.

[caveman2]

I went back through the questions and wrote what my answers were (to the best of my recollection). Pretty sure I got several wrong, but I think most were semi on-point. Would be interested in hearing what you guys put for everything.


Question #1
1. I said no because I thought there was not a successful ademption advancement.
2. Jane gets $30k + 1/2 remainder of estate. Michael and his two unnamed siblings split the remaining 1/2.
3. Larry violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. It was improper for him to make a bequest for himself in Angela’s will.
4. This was a mess. I talked about the rule that applies when your principal residence appreciates in value and then you sell it for a profit, but it has to be your principal residence for 2 of the past 5 years. I concluded that it wasn’t deductible. (Pretty sure I got this wrong)

Question #2
1. Carol has to establish Amy had a duty of care, that she breached that duty, and the breach of duty caused Carol’s injury. Carol will be successful because Amy failed to warn of the hidden danger.
2. Amy should include in her answer either a motion for impleader or a motion to join a necessary party. (I was thrown by the fact that it stressed Amy’s answer was not yet due….so not entirely sure about this one. Can you file those motions separately, before the answer?)
3. (a) I said this would be admissible because offers to pay medical expenses are admissible (I’m pretty sure that is wrong)
(b) Offer to fully settle a claim is not admissible
4. The court should overrule the objection because the interrogatories are relevant since Carol had previously injured the same shoulder

Question #3
1. Yes, a robbery charge is supported
2. District attorney should argue the statement was voluntary. The court should rule the statement was voluntary.
3. District attorney should argue the statement falls within prior testimony hearsay exception. The court should rule the prior testimony hearsay exception applies and the statement is admissible.
4. Bonnie should file a Special Action/injunction (*It’s actually called “Special Relief” but I couldn’t remember the right name)

Question #4
1. Don’t remember the rule I stated, but I concluded the restriction was unconstitutional.
2. The evidence would have no effect on the discrimination claim, but will probably limit Amber’s remedies
3. The court will look at which venues are proper and would be best for the parties. Will probably conclude State Y is best.

Question #5
1. (a) Created a fee simple determinable
(b) Closing the trade school will have no effect—the language will be struck because it violates the Rule Against Perpetuities
2. Ralph should use the theory of Frustration of Purpose as a defense. I said it wouldn’t be successful because the cancelling of a concert is a foreseeable event.
3. I said yes for constructive eviction and no for implied warranty of habitability.
4. Prior to divorce, Homestead was conveyed as a tenancy by the entirety. Subsequent to divorce, I said they became tenants in common.

Question #6
1. (a) Should argue Karen breached her duty of loyalty by usurping a corporate opportunity.
(b) Farm can seek to have all the profits Karen reaps from the usurped opportunity conveyed to the corporation
2. Implied warranty of merchantability and implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. I thought they wouldn’t be successful because the disclaimer appeared to be sufficient.
3. Ran out of time. Threw out the hybrid approach rule and hoped that would earn me a point.

[centrumvitamin]

RAP was abolished in PA in 2007.

[caveman2]

Well sh*t

[Lawgirl8888]

Pretty sure question 1a is about advancements for wills.

[caveman2]

Pretty sure question 1a is about advancements for wills.

I meant advancement, not ademption. My bad.

[Lawgirl8888]

I put no for eviction and yes for implied warranty of habitability. The guy didn't leave so there's no constructive eviction. Leaving and vacating the premises is an element of eviction.

[caveman2]

I put no for eviction and yes for implied warranty of habitability. The guy didn't leave so there's no constructive eviction. Leaving and vacating the premises is an element of eviction.

Yeah I got those mixed up. I knew for one you had to vacate, but not the other. I took a gamble and chose wrong.

[caveman2]

I was uncertain about what happens to a tenancy by the entirety if the couple gets divorced. I just guessed. I thought that since a joint tenancy becomes a tenancy in common if one of the unities are broken, it made sense that that would happen for a tenancy in the entirety in the case of a divorce.

[fbigirl2015]

For the offer to settle, I put it was not admissible, but I am second guessing myself on that one. I think I may have been wrong because there was no litigation yet. For the tax one, I think the gain from the insurance is taxable.

[Lawgirl8888]

That's right about tenancy by the entireties because marriage element is severed from ttips ( time, title, interest, possession, survivorship and marriage)

[Acdc54]

Did anyone else feel like the afternoon MBE sesh was rough? The AM session was a lot easier for me, overall I think the mbe is gonna make or break my score. Ugh! I just want to know.

[caveman2]

There's a strong possibility that results will come out on April 8, based on past release dates. Less than 2 weeks, guys!