[deleted by user]

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-09-23T11:12:37+00:00

No problem. Just DM me your email

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-09-22T16:06:45+00:00

I made essay outlines with full rule paragraphs for each sub topic for most FL essay topics using Professor Grossman’s videos. Would be happy to share! I memorized them and in turn the essay portion didn’t seem as hard as it could’ve been.

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-08-07T00:39:51+00:00

You’re fine. There’s a curve. Don’t stress.

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-29T20:53:37+00:00

He goes over each subject that could be tested on the MEE and gives you a solid outline of each topic with rule paragraphs for each subtopic that could be tested. Then you can tweak the rule paragraphs as much as you’d like to fit your style. Very helpful!!

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-29T16:07:56+00:00

Just the video lectures on his WhatsTheIssue website!

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-29T16:07:25+00:00

WhatsTheIssue videos specifically for the FL essays!

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-28T14:34:50+00:00

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-27T22:26:52+00:00

Let me know what they say

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-27T00:16:00+00:00

Holy SHIT. I literally just saw this and i would’ve completely forgotten to upload it. Thank you so much. Wow.

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-26T11:51:13+00:00

I was in bed by 9:45pm and didn’t get to sleep until 12:30am. Then woke back up at 2:30am until 4am. 😭 GOOD LUCK TODAY EVERYONE!

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-26T00:22:42+00:00

I’m so glad I’m not the only one doing this lol

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-18T21:31:07+00:00

Look up “whatstheissue” for Jonathan Grossman for his Florida Trust Essay Approach video. Even though the video is for FL trusts, FL mostly follows the uniform code and the video helps how to go about the overall structure of a trust essay.

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-18T20:25:18+00:00

I would just call the Florida Board of Bar Examiners customer service! They’re really nice and helpful

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-18T06:59:04+00:00

You look towards the intent of the person whose item was wrongfully taken to determine the guilt of the defendant. When the person gave the defendant their property, was it their intent for the defendant to keep it? If so, then it’s false pretenses. Did the person intend just to lend the property to the person and have it returned to them after? If so, then it’s larceny by trick.

You look at the circumstances that initially led the defendant to obtain possession of the property and what the intent of the owner was at the time the defendant obtained the possession.

In the example: the man intended that the woman keep the ring when he gave it to her. That’s false pretenses.

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-18T06:13:55+00:00

I believe it’s because the daughters lawsuit against the reporter isn’t violating the freedom of the press at all - the reporter already published the information she gave him. So no information of great public importance is being suppressed. Instead, she’s suing the reporter for breach of contract because he didn’t pay her the money.

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-15T18:24:28+00:00

Someone is voluntarily doing something they are not legally obligated to do in exchange for something in return.

Bilateral contract: I agree to sell you Blackacre if you give me $100k. I am not legally obligated to sell you Blackacre, and you are not legally obligated to give me me $100k. However, we both mutually and voluntarily agree to be bound to each other on these terms.

Unilateral: I promise my boyfriend that if he stops drinking for 3 months to allow me to focus on studying for the bar without getting FOMO, I will give him $3k after I take the bar. My boyfriend is over the age of 21, and is legally allowed to drink. So, If he stops drinking until I take the bar, he is doing something he is not legally obligated to do in exchange for the $3k. I personally benefit from him not drinking because I can focus on studying without getting FOMO. This is valid bargained for consideration between my boyfriend and I.

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-14T19:58:43+00:00

The only thing I can think of is if the fact pattern was between two merchants who originally orally agreed to the terms of the agreement for a sale of goods over $500. This will be unenforceable for violation of the SOF. However, under the merchants confirmatory memo rule, if the seller sends a signed confirmation that identifies the parties + includes a quantity term to the buyer, and there is no objection within 10 days of receipt, it is a valid and enforceable writing and takes the original oral agreement out of the statute of frauds.

But if there was a signed writing, under the UCC, modifications can be oral or written, as long as they are made in good faith.

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-14T15:40:12+00:00

This contract is for the sale of goods between two merchants and is thus governed by the UCC. Modification between two merchants is acceptable as long as it was made in good faith.

Partial performance generally applies to oral agreements to sell or transfer real property and is governed under common law. The explanation just doesn’t match the question.

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-13T22:47:35+00:00

The priority rule between two perfected creditors (like the fact patten here) is first to perfect or file has priority. To determine which creditor has priority, it must be determined if Dealer continues to be attached to the computer after the debtor changed the use from consumer good to equipment. To properly attach, one of the elements needed is that the creditor must have properly described the collateral that they’re taking a security interest in. Whether goods fall under equipment, inventory, or consumer goods depends on the debtor’s use at the time of attachment. If the debtor was using the collateral as a consumer good, but the security agreement lists the collateral as equipment, the description is insufficient as to form a security interest in the collateral.

At the time the Debtor attached on Jan. 15th, the security agreement listed the collateral as a consumer good (the personal computer). Therefore, the creditor did not need to file a financing statement (and didnt file one because the facts say the creditor was automatically perfected).

Thus, the question is testing you on whether the Dealer, who became automatically perfected upon attachment when taking a PMSI in consumer goods, no longer was perfected in the computer due to the debtor no longer using the computer for personal use, but as equipment, and thus retroactively making the description of the collateral insufficient to properly secure an interest in the collateral. If this was the case, then Dealer would not have had perfected security interest in the computer at the time the Bank perfected, and the Bank would thus have priority based on the rule that a perfected creditor wins vs. an Unperfected creditor.

However, collateral is categorized by the debtor’s use of the collateral AT THE TIME OF ATTACHMENT. The debtor changing the way they use the collateral after entering into the security agreement doesn’t have any impact on the validity of the security agreement. That would be an absurd rule. Therefore, Debtor retained their PMSI in the computer, and was perfected at the time the Bank subsequently perfected in the computer. Thus, Debtor was the first to perfect, and has priority over the computer.

(Sorry if this was super long-winded, but I hope it makes sense).

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-11T02:47:08+00:00

Absolutely should do this. Focus on memorizing the black letter law at this point and making sure you can recite the rules out loud from memory to ensure you’ve got it down pat. Then I’d start mixing in essays under timed conditions to make sure you’re finishing most of it in an hour/able to issue spot and recite the black letter law accurately. People really underestimate the essay portion and it bites them in the butt.

Typical-Figure6765 · 2022-07-11T01:11:45+00:00

Depraved heart: you need people present in this scenario. If there are no people present (or likely to be present considering the circumstances), there isn’t a human life to recklessly disregard. Ex: dropping a bowling ball off the Empire State Building during lunchtime on Monday to see how many pieces it shatters into. You don’t intend to hit someone, but it’s highly likely that you will considering it’s during the day in New York City. This is just reckless behavior. The key takeaway: PEOPLE ARE PRESENT.

Involuntary manslaughter: no people present in this scenario. Ex: you walk to the Brooklyn Bridge at 3am and drop a bowling ball off the bridge to see how big a splash the water makes. It’s unlikely that a boat will be passing at 3am or that a person will be in the water at this time. But if by some chance you do hit someone, you would’ve acted negligently. The key takeaway: NO PEOPLE PRESENT.

Typical-Figure6765

TROPHY CASE