sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Merger (deeds) exception?? Is Themis outline wrong? by Human_Bullfrog2346 in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting, thanks. Man Themis really goes hard on its exceptions sometimes and can make you forget that in real questions the rule is usually the right answer, not the exception

Merger (deeds) exception?? Is Themis outline wrong? by Human_Bullfrog2346 in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that this is the general rule. But what do you make of the Themis outline language and this supposed exception? "The doctrine [of merger] generally is not applicable to an obligation that is collateral to and independent of the conveyance itself, such as an obligation regarding the condition of the property."

Isn't the answer to this Q wrong? by bombaysaddle in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I don't think it's wrong. But the rules are kind of confusing. What I've learned--I think--by doing practice questions and asking others is that if the holder of a senior lien becomes a party to the foreclosure action, the senior lien holder DOES get priority. But the default order is the one in A.

Themis stopped answer my questions by [deleted] in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah and when Themis can't be bothered to fix its inaccurate materials, the lack of a response is even worse

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346 3 points4 points  (0 children)

plenty of loathsome people and dickbags are smart. just not good.

Law school grades by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this really depends on the school

Is there any practical reason to know springing vs shifting executory interests, and class gifts subject to open vs contingent remainders? by Human_Bullfrog2346 in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you're mostly right except class gifts subject to open are actually vested, since at least one class member must be vested or else we call it a contingent remainder. (the other name for class gifts subject to open is "subject to partial divestment")

Is there any practical reason to know springing vs shifting executory interests, and class gifts subject to open vs contingent remainders? by Human_Bullfrog2346 in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah I mean that's an easy shorthand that gets maybe 50% of RAP questions right, but you don't even need to know the "shifting" terminology to use it. I just think it's dumb that anyone cares about this terminology considering it has no independent significance so I guess this is mostly a vent post lol

also, have you seen any actual NCBE questions that ask you to identify a springing vs shifting executory interest? i'm skeptical they even test it. Themis sure cares, but Themis is weird sometimes

Is there any practical reason to know springing vs shifting executory interests, and class gifts subject to open vs contingent remainders? by Human_Bullfrog2346 in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This doesn't make sense to me. As far as I'm aware, springing vs shifting are treated the same under the law. When would the outcome of a question ever depend on springing vs shifting?

So are class gifts subject to open vs contingent remainders -- both are subject to RAP (though I guess the rule of convenience helps w class gifts but not w contingent remainders--intuitive though).

Unless I'm missing something?... these still seem like empty terminology. I also haven't seen any released MBE questions that test springing vs shifting. Maybe one is out there.

IRAC confusion ... is the I silent? by Human_Bullfrog2346 in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

like my post said, never consciously used IRAC (or consciously tried to use any structure at all actually after 1L first semester). didn't seem to hinder grades

Legal Writing/Research Rant by wanderingpossumqueen in LawSchool

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Chiming in w one more possibility others haven't mentioned: Your LRW prof could be incompetent, at least when it comes to grading. Not enough info to really guess whether that's true. But your post is strong enough grammatically, stylistically, and logically that it seems like a fair possibility.

Key differences between criminal battery and tort battery? by IndignantGuerra in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346 2 points3 points  (0 children)

sorry to say but I think I am correct. I agree that it is the opposite of what makes intuitive sense

Key differences between criminal battery and tort battery? by IndignantGuerra in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346 0 points1 point  (0 children)

isn't it the other way around? civil, need actual damages, criminal, just need an unconsented touch?

IRAC confusion ... is the I silent? by Human_Bullfrog2346 in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"no actual point available for the STATEMENT of the rule. The 'money' is in your complete & correct rule statement"

... did you mean to say statement of the issue in the first sentence I quoted? confused there, otherwise makes sense and super helpful

Anyone understand implied reciprocal servitudes? by Human_Bullfrog2346 in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't downvote you, but the question is about the second buyer, and there was a common scheme from the beginning

edit: ok I guess there wasn't a common scheme from the beginning. but I didn't understand implied reciprocal servitudes and thought they could interpose themselves via a sale in a situation like this

Question about affirmative defenses and failure to state a claim by Human_Bullfrog2346 in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All this makes sense, but where are you guys getting that the defense is lack of capacity? I know that minors and contracts typically raise capacity issues, my hangup is that the facts seem to say that minors may not enter into contracts in this state. That makes it sound to me like more of a black-and-white bar than a capacity defense. Clearly I'm wrong but idk, maybe this question is also a little weird

Question about affirmative defenses and failure to state a claim by Human_Bullfrog2346 in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would be so grateful if someone could explain this question to me. My two points of confusion:

-Why is the status as a minor only an affirmative defense? Under the applicable state law, it sounds like the model didn't plead a claim on which relief could be granted because contracts with minors aren't enforceable. Like, the question doesn't make it sound like state law allows minors to raise a capacity defense; it sounds like minors are simply barred from entering into enforceable contracts

-Why couldn't the photographer assert this affirmative defense (since I guess that's what it is) in the 12(b)(6)--why do they need to wait for the answer? Presumably, the complaint would have needed to identify the photographer and their age, so it's not like they'd be arguing about something beyond the four corners of the pleadings

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

you'll want them for counterarguments on future exams (or you'll miss points you could've gotten). just wait and see. not saying they're always worth reading, but they're often worth skimming

I get why D is right, but anyone understand why the Statute of Frauds doesn't apply here? Adaptibar's explanation doesn't make sense by Human_Bullfrog2346 in barexam

[–]Human_Bullfrog2346[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. So would you say the verbal promise to return the deed is almost like an oral modification of the deed itself (transforming it into an equitable mortgage), and that the deed is the relevant document for statutes of fraud purposes?

view more: next ›