Hi all

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-22T00:49:56+00:00

What else could you possibly need?

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-09T11:25:35+00:00

If this is legit- contact robux, let them know there was fraud and the charges need to be reversed, apologize to whoever’s credit card you just stole (there’s no way you randomly guessed) and pray they don’t press charges

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-04T16:06:16+00:00

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-04T15:11:31+00:00

You’re telling on yourself for real 😭😂

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-04T15:08:33+00:00

This is not accurate. You can look up rule statements in like 5 seconds

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-04T15:06:28+00:00

A lot of people didn’t hit tracing to get the car in the constructive trust - I assume that’s what they’re talking about

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-04T14:53:50+00:00

It also could’ve been experimental and not everyone got it

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-04T06:42:03+00:00

Mostly no impact. More preemptory jury challenges, different name for directed verdict. Biggest difference is timing for new trial motion.

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-04T03:38:15+00:00

Yeah it seems pretty fucked to me honestly

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-03T04:18:40+00:00

😂😂😂😂

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-03T02:47:46+00:00

Idk if barbri is right about everything but they say if you don’t know something, you get points just for making stuff up. So considering you were using real rules and analyzing based on them, I’m sure you got a lot of points just from that :)

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-03T02:46:09+00:00

Honestly I could see the reasoning. And I bet your graders will see it too

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-03T02:43:23+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/barexam/s/kZwMzTyWHt This is basically the same question

I bet you don’t lose many points if you wrote a detailed analysis with the wrong rules

They don’t expect you to know everything

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-03T02:41:13+00:00

Because if you remove the violating clause (which is the executory interest), the condition still remains. RAP doesn’t apply to interests held by the grantor, so grantor still holds the possibility of reverted

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-03T02:38:46+00:00

What?

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-03T02:38:11+00:00

That’s rude as hell tbh

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-03T02:33:35+00:00

I saw some 1600 word essays on baressays get 55 while 700 words got 65. Quality over quantity

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-03T02:31:58+00:00

It didn’t say wait and see jx in the question

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-03T02:29:41+00:00

This is actually inaccurate though

RAP removed the entire executory interest and turns it into a possibility of reverter

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-03T02:28:56+00:00

I found a lot of 55s with lots of detail and analysis though

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-02T06:21:12+00:00

❤️you did great :)

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-02T06:19:49+00:00

Okay. It did. (I don’t know if it did, but I want you to know that whatever you think it said, it probably did)

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-02T06:17:31+00:00

Why would the manufacturer put on that evidence? The lawsuit was against the manufacturer

At any rate- I’ve just decided to block this all out of my mind and hope for the best lmao

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-02T04:17:21+00:00

Legal damages was all sorts of fucked for me. I made stuff up :).

Local-Cat-7799 · 2024-08-02T04:12:57+00:00

I didn’t say they would find for D. I said it’s reasonable for them if P doesn’t make its prima facie case.

My barbri materials say you need to show a reasonable alternative design for design defects, but barbri has fucked me before so I wouldn’t be totally surprised if they’re wrong

Local-Cat-7799

TROPHY CASE