question about mee Forum

[perfunctory]

i am really concerned about the MEE for the bar. while i have a general grasp of the law, i wonder if my MEE score will tank because i don't remember the exact phrases/wording, i.e., "reasonable this" or "prudent that." of course it's important to be accurate but what happens if i just say things in a general way? for example, for revocation of contracts, i would say "you can revoke if you see conduct/statement that indicates an unwillingness to contract." the law is "unambiguous conduct/statement" but is it okay to leave that out or would i get the whole rule statement wrong?

also, i find that although i have a general grasp of the issues in a practice essay, i get the conclusion wrong not infrequently. would i still get credit for having a conclusion or no because i got the wrong one?

[Moabit]

i am really concerned about the MEE for the bar. while i have a general grasp of the law, i wonder if my MEE score will tank because i don't remember the exact phrases/wording, i.e., "reasonable this" or "prudent that." of course it's important to be accurate but what happens if i just say things in a general way? for example, for revocation of contracts, i would say "you can revoke if you see conduct/statement that indicates an unwillingness to contract." the law is "unambiguous conduct/statement" but is it okay to leave that out or would i get the whole rule statement wrong?

One of the things you want to demonstrate to your MEE grader is that you "belong to the club" by being able to talk like a lawyer. Even if you don't remember the exact rule, try to sound lawyerly. In your example of "you can revoke if you see conduct/statement that indicates an unwillingness to contract," who is that first "you" who can revoke? Aren't we talking about a party to a contract? Then say so, "a party." Who is the second "you" who must "see" something? Since you recognize that it is important to be accurate, my point is that it is almost impossible to be accurate if you are using the language that is that loose. In fact, I am not even sure what you mean by "revocation of contracts." There is revocation of an offer, if that offer has not yet been accepted. But once a contract is formed, there is no revocation. There may be reformation, rescission, or one of the defenses to formation or enforcement (mistake, duress, unconscionability, etc.), but those should not be referred to as "revocation."

Accuracy is indeed important, but the way to be accurate is to actually write like a lawyer. I would suggest actually writing down the most important rules with your own hand at least a couple of times, and not simply passively reading those rules.

[Bingo_Bongo]

what happens if i just say things in a general way? for example, for revocation of contracts, i would say "you can revoke if you see conduct/statement that indicates an unwillingness to contract."

Not to rattle you too much before the exam, but that doesn't sound like a good rule statement to me, at all. For one, I don't think it's legally correct. The general rule is you can revoke an offer anytime before acceptance. The offeree doesn't need to see any conduct or statement that indicates an unwillingness to contract. He or she could just revoke. Period. Unless it's an option contract, merchant's firm offer, or probably some other exception that I've forgot.

I think the better statement in that situation would be, "A rejection is a manifestation from the offeree that he or she does not wish to accept the offer", or "A revocation of an offer can occur anytime before acceptance, and is effective when communicated to the offeree", or something along those lines.

In terms of memorizing good rule statements word-for-word, I personally think it's a good investment of time in bar prep (especially for the topics that tend to come up in essays a lot). It not only ensures you'll be getting the right rule down, but it also makes it much more likely that you'll also be doing the right analysis and coming to the right conclusions. If you put an incomplete or incorrect rule statement down, your analysis will be off, and you run the risk of concluding wrong which is a great way to really make the bar graders take a closer look at your work, since the conclusions generally only go one way according to clearly established law.

If you have the rule statement memorized, it also makes a lot of MBE questions easier. I remember ConLaw was notorious for having the correct answer be the one that pretty much just used whatever language was in the appropriate test. So it really behooved you to memorize the proper words that were in the test.

So, I think memorizing good rules is a good use of time. Will it be fatal if your words don't line up exactly to what your bar prep company says the rule is? Of course not. Just make sure you actually know the law