Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[Nebby]

Okay, Sherman J. Clark, you're getting on my nerves now.

[Easy-E]

Ugh, I hate you contracts. Like this PQ (coquelicot t-shirts)

[+] Spoiler

A manufacturer of t-shirts contracted with a new clothing store to sell the store 1,000 t-shirts per month for a period of two years. The clothing store’s signature color for their clothing was an orange-tinted red color, called coquelicot, which is very difficult to replicate on a consistent basis. The contract specified that any t-shirts that were not coquelicot could be returned, but it was silent with regard to the return of any t-shirts for other reasons. One year into the contract, the store decided to switch to coquelicot-colored baseball hats instead of t-shirts. The store returned the most recent shipment of t-shirts to the manufacturer and demanded a refund. The manufacturer refused to grant the refund, and the store sued the manufacturer for damages. At trial, the manufacturer introduced the contract, which clearly stated that t-shirts that were not coquelicot could be returned. The store then attempted to introduce evidence that it had returned t-shirts for other reasons to the manufacturer in the past and received a refund.

Is this evidence admissible?


So the answer is that it's admissible as course-of-performance evidence. Not course-of-dealing. Why is there even a distinction between the two though? They function the exact same way, so why not just consider all conduct, whether under this contract or another, as admissible evidence? I understand why I was wrong, but that is just stupid.

Agreed. This last set was rough because there were tiny distinctions in almost every question. At least I now know what coquelicot means.

Yeah, some questions reeeeally ticked me off in that one. Got my ass kicked in mutual assent. It's always fun when an answer has some exception that is just complete news to me.

Do you guys do the PQ sets straight through, or review after each one? I've been doing the latter, I find I internalize the rule better if I've just seen how it applies. I guess that could happen with reviewing them all at the end, but I think I would kinda just nod through them that way. I usually finish the PQs with time to spare that way, so I don't know if I should be doing them straight through to work on endurance? In any case, I'll see how I do time-wise on the MBE milestone in a few.

[Easy-E]

Okay, Sherman J. Clark, you're getting on my nerves now.

Wait he comes back? I might actually read the outline and fill in the handout. Following him and his law school professor tangents was infuriating.

[Nebby]

Okay, Sherman J. Clark, you're getting on my nerves now.

Wait he comes back? I might actually read the outline and fill in the handout. Following him and his law school professor tangents was infuriating.

I've had him for 3 lectures: IL Equity, Torts, MBE/IL Evidence

[Vantwins]

I know the assessment questions don't matter, but it's pissing me off that 9 times out of 10 if I get one wrong it's because they keep switching back and forth between asking which is TRUE and which is FALSE.

MD has family law for the essay day. One of the few areas they test that interests me. Pretty sure we didn't get that topic for an essay when I took VA and I was bummed, would've taken that over the commercial paper essay I suffered through. But I passed, so c'est la vie.

Did anyone else get a phone call from Themis yesterday, checking in? Had a nice conversation with her and appreciated the reassurance that I'm on the right track with studying.

[Chardee_MacDennis]

Okay, Sherman J. Clark, you're getting on my nerves now.

Wait he comes back? I might actually read the outline and fill in the handout. Following him and his law school professor tangents was infuriating.

I've had him for 3 lectures: IL Equity, Torts, MBE/IL Evidence

He's the worst

[unidentifiable]

I don't really understand why, but Evidence is by far the most boring subject covered thus far. Even K's and Real Property/Personal Property was more engaging.

imo civpro is the most boring subject OF ALL TIME

Agree, idk why but i have the hardest time with civ pro. Got a 50% on my last PQ session =|.

Yep. I was feeling decent with Civ Pro.

47% on the first PQs. wat.

[ultimolugar]

Ugh, I hate you contracts. Like this PQ (coquelicot t-shirts)

[+] Spoiler

A manufacturer of t-shirts contracted with a new clothing store to sell the store 1,000 t-shirts per month for a period of two years. The clothing store’s signature color for their clothing was an orange-tinted red color, called coquelicot, which is very difficult to replicate on a consistent basis. The contract specified that any t-shirts that were not coquelicot could be returned, but it was silent with regard to the return of any t-shirts for other reasons. One year into the contract, the store decided to switch to coquelicot-colored baseball hats instead of t-shirts. The store returned the most recent shipment of t-shirts to the manufacturer and demanded a refund. The manufacturer refused to grant the refund, and the store sued the manufacturer for damages. At trial, the manufacturer introduced the contract, which clearly stated that t-shirts that were not coquelicot could be returned. The store then attempted to introduce evidence that it had returned t-shirts for other reasons to the manufacturer in the past and received a refund.

Is this evidence admissible?


So the answer is that it's admissible as course-of-performance evidence. Not course-of-dealing. Why is there even a distinction between the two though? They function the exact same way, so why not just consider all conduct, whether under this contract or another, as admissible evidence? I understand why I was wrong, but that is just stupid.

Agreed. This last set was rough because there were tiny distinctions in almost every question. At least I now know what coquelicot means.

Is it some sort of fruit?

[ultimolugar]

I don't really understand why, but Evidence is by far the most boring subject covered thus far. Even K's and Real Property/Personal Property was more engaging.

imo civpro is the most boring subject OF ALL TIME

+1

[Nebby]

It's a flower

[ultimolugar]

Does anyone have to do family law in your given jurisdiction? It only appears as an essay topic in Florida, and that's not even a guarantee. The reason I ask is because I totally did not give one iota of a fuck and bombed the Family Law MC (which is hilarious because its a REALLY subjective area of the law - at least to me).

It's only an essay topic in IL.

Does anyone have to do family law in your given jurisdiction? It only appears as an essay topic in Florida, and that's not even a guarantee. The reason I ask is because I totally did not give one iota of a fuck and bombed the Family Law MC (which is hilarious because its a REALLY subjective area of the law - at least to me).

Virginia has domestic relations as an essay topic.

Do you all have it as a multiple choice topic in Themis?

[ultimolugar]

It's a flower

Now I kinda wish it was a fruit.

[Easy-E]

Did anyone do the MBE milestone exam closed book?

[KD35]

Did anyone do the MBE milestone exam closed book?

Yea, why?

[Easy-E]

Did anyone do the MBE milestone exam closed book?

Yea, why?

Just deciding how to approach it. I've done everything else open, but on two 34 question PQs I tried not to open my notes if I was sure, and did fairly well.

[bigbossman]

Did anyone do the MBE milestone exam closed book?

Didn't everybody? If not I'll feel better about my 56%.

[Vantwins]

Did anyone do the MBE milestone exam closed book?

I don't know how you could possibly finish in the allotted time if you're flipping through notes. Definitely do it closed book!

[ndp1234]

Yeah, some questions reeeeally ticked me off in that one. Got my ass kicked in mutual assent. It's always fun when an answer has some exception that is just complete news to me.

Do you guys do the PQ sets straight through, or review after each one? I've been doing the latter, I find I internalize the rule better if I've just seen how it applies. I guess that could happen with reviewing them all at the end, but I think I would kinda just nod through them that way. I usually finish the PQs with time to spare that way, so I don't know if I should be doing them straight through to work on endurance? In any case, I'll see how I do time-wise on the MBE milestone in a few.

Same here, Mutual assent was my one of my best topics before, now all of a sudden it's my worst??? It has to be the questions. I also review as I go along. Helps me stay focused on the question, rather than trying to remember why I picked the apparently stupid answer.

[bsktbll28082]

Do you all have it as a multiple choice topic in Themis?

No, [Family Law] is not an MBE topic in VA with Themis. Just a possible essay topic.

Did anyone do the MBE milestone exam closed book?

Yep. Thought we were supposed to.

Did anyone else get a phone call from Themis yesterday, checking in? Had a nice conversation with her and appreciated the reassurance that I'm on the right track with studying.

Yes, but I didn't pick up and I won't be calling them back. I appreciated the gesture though. Themis seems very supportive.

[Easy-E]

Did it closed, ended up just under the average but over the target so that's...acceptable. Little confused about this one. I totally guessed, because I entirely missed the issue, but the explanation isn't helping.

[+] Spoiler

A buyer agreed in writing to purchase sports memorabilia related to a legendary sports figure, which was on display at a museum, from the owner for $500,000. The agreement called for the payment to be made and the memorabilia handed over at the end of the display period, 60 days after the agreement was signed by both parties. Forty-five days later, a record held by the sports legend was broken and the fair market value of the memorabilia dropped to $275,000. The buyer repudiated the contract. The following week, before the owner could locate another buyer, the memorabilia, on loan for public display, was destroyed by no fault of either the buyer or the owner. The owner had only insured the memorabilia for $100,000. How much is the owner likely to recover from the buyer?

Answer Choices:
$500,000.
$400,000. CORRECT
$275,000.
$225,000.

Rationale:
Answer choice B is correct. Generally, where the seller of goods is a merchant, the risk of loss remains with the seller until the goods are delivered to the buyer. However, when goods have been identified at the time that the contract is entered into and the buyer subsequently repudiates the contract, the seller may treat the risk of loss as resting on the buyer to the extent of any deficiency in the seller’s insurance coverage with respect to the goods for a commercially reasonable time. With regard to a nonperishable item, such as sport memorabilia, a commercially reasonable time would likely extend well beyond a week. The owner would thus be entitled to recover the contract price of $500,000 minus the insurance coverage of $100,000, or $400,000. Consequently, answer choices B, C and D are incorrect.


What indicates the seller of goods is a merchant here? It just says he owns them, and lent them to a museum. That's enough? Also, I guess I need to cover that UCC specific remedies section again, this all sounds foreign to me.

And yeah, got a call from Themis today. Just saying I'm on schedule and everything looks good, answered a few questions. Nice guy.

[KD35]

Did anyone do the MBE milestone exam closed book?

Yea, why?

Just deciding how to approach it. I've done everything else open, but on two 34 question PQs I tried not to open my notes if I was sure, and did fairly well.

Yea I don't see a reason not to do all of the MBE closed book. I get if someone wants to do an essay (at least early on) open note because you're trying to figure out how to structure everything, but I don't see a reason to do any MBE open note.

[Easy-E]

So, for the first MBE Milestone

[+] Spoiler

Anyone else figured having an electrified river on a mini-golf course qualified as abnormally dangerous?

This explanation doesn't really do it for me: Answer choice C is incorrect because the creek is not abnormally dangerous. Abnormally dangerous activities are those that create a risk of foreseeable harm even when reasonable care is exercised. Here, the creek, even with a live wire that could have been discovered with reasonable care, does not meet that definition.

So there is a fence, which an adult can open. I don't really understand how maintaining an electrified river doesn't meet the definition. I guess I just need to get my definition in line with the examiners'.

[Vantwins]

So, for the first MBE Milestone

[+] Spoiler

Anyone else figured having an electrified river on a mini-golf course qualified as abnormally dangerous?

This explanation doesn't really do it for me: Answer choice C is incorrect because the creek is not abnormally dangerous. Abnormally dangerous activities are those that create a risk of foreseeable harm even when reasonable care is exercised. Here, the creek, even with a live wire that could have been discovered with reasonable care, does not meet that definition.

So there is a fence, which an adult can open. I don't really understand how maintaining an electrified river doesn't meet the definition. I guess I just need to get my definition in line with the examiners'.

Yes, I got that wrong as well for the same reasoning.

[bsktbll28082]

So, for the first MBE Milestone

[+] Spoiler

Anyone else figured having an electrified river on a mini-golf course qualified as abnormally dangerous?

This explanation doesn't really do it for me: Answer choice C is incorrect because the creek is not abnormally dangerous. Abnormally dangerous activities are those that create a risk of foreseeable harm even when reasonable care is exercised. Here, the creek, even with a live wire that could have been discovered with reasonable care, does not meet that definition.

So there is a fence, which an adult can open. I don't really understand how maintaining an electrified river doesn't meet the definition. I guess I just need to get my definition in line with the examiners'.

I understood that question as: the creek itself is not abnormally dangerous because it was not supposed to be an electrified creek. There just happened to be a live wire. So it was not strict liability. The golf-course met their burden by having a gate up. Lady exceeded the scope of their consent to enter the property.

[Easy-E]

So, for the first MBE Milestone

[+] Spoiler

Anyone else figured having an electrified river on a mini-golf course qualified as abnormally dangerous?

This explanation doesn't really do it for me: Answer choice C is incorrect because the creek is not abnormally dangerous. Abnormally dangerous activities are those that create a risk of foreseeable harm even when reasonable care is exercised. Here, the creek, even with a live wire that could have been discovered with reasonable care, does not meet that definition.

So there is a fence, which an adult can open. I don't really understand how maintaining an electrified river doesn't meet the definition. I guess I just need to get my definition in line with the examiners'.

I understood that question as: the creek itself is not abnormally dangerous because it was not supposed to be an electrified creek. There just happened to be a live wire. So it was not strict liability. The golf-course met their burden by having a gate up. Lady exceed the scope of her consent to enter the property.

I see what you're saying, and I think I accidentally thought that they knew about the condition. Leaving strict liability aside, I understand why that's the answer.

It would cool if Themis had a message board function. My LSAT prep course had that, and I found it very helpful.

Also, where did I get the idea that the last clear chance doctrine was no longer relevant? It's not in the handout, but if that's some editorializing by Torts guy, I'm going to be very pissed.