View Full Version : post in this thread and i'll assign you a bar exam question
multiple choice, 4 choices, one or more answers will be a correct answer, but only one will be the correct answer
also, once i give you your question, you must answer it. after you answer it, i'll tell you why you answered it wrong (even if you were right)
Freebasser
08-12-2009, 03:35 AM
Lawyer it to me, Bob!
i should preface this thread with two warnings:
1) each question will be prefaced (i really like that word, it's very lawyerly) with an invisible page number and a question number - ignore it, this is just so i can find the answer later
2) each question and answer will probably contain a bunch of spelling errors - ignore them, i'm transcribing them from a book and they're very long. can you consistently spell "raccoon" correctly without looking at the keyboard? no? didn't think so!
i realize this is very dorky but i need something to pass the time between now and the time i get a job/discover whether i'm licensed to have that job (whichever comes first) (i won't know until november, lawyering rules) so HEY
Lawyer it to me, Bob!
v2 p.628, question 19
The United States entered into a treaty with Mexico whereby both countries agreed to ban hunting of the red tailed raccoon, a species of raccoon indigenous to both the United States and Mexico. The red tailed raccoon had been placed on the endangered species list of the International Wildlife Federation and other conservation groups. The raccoons tend to roam in small family groups in the semidesert lands of the western United States and northern Mexico. The raccoons freely crossed state lines and the international boundary. Laws in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico permitted hunting of the red tailed raccoons.
After the treaty was fully ratified by the United States and Mexico, a federal court would most likely hold that the state laws permitting hunting of the raccoons are:
A) Unconstitutional, because a treaty is the supreme law of the land.
B) Unconstitutional, because free roaming wildlife is federal property.
C) Constitutional, because wild animals are natural inhabitants of the state, and the federal government may not take state property without consent of the state
D) Constitutional under the rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
peterclamp
08-12-2009, 03:55 AM
If I was an American lawmaker, I'd go for C!
OBJECTION!
v2 p. 362 Q. 5
Doctor, a licensed physician, resided in her own home. The street in front of the home had a gradual slope. Doctor's garage was on the street level, with a driveway entrance form the street.
At two in the morning, Doctor received an emergency call. She dressed and went to the garage to get her car and found a car parked in front of her driveway. That car was occupied by Parker, who, while intoxicated, had driven to that place and now was in a drunken stupor in the front seat. unable to rouse Parker, Doctor pushed him into the passenger's side of the front seat and got in on the driver's side. Doctor released the brake and coasted the car down the street, planning to pull into a parking space that was open. When Doctor attempted to stop the car, the brakes failed to work, and the car crashed into the wall of Owner's home, damaging Owner's home and Parker's car and injuring Doctor and Parker. Subsequent examination of the car disclosed that the brake linings were badly worn. A state statute prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle unless the brakes are capable of stopping the vehicle within specified distances at specified speeds. The brakes on Parker's car were incapable of stopping the vehicle within the limits required by the statute. Another state statute makes it a a criminal offense to be intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle. The state follows traditional contributory negligence rules.
If Parker asserts a claim against Doctor for his injuries, Parker will probably:
A) Recover, because Doctor was negligent as a matter of law
B) Recover, because Doctor had no right to move the car
C) Not recover, because his brakes were defective
D) Not recover, because he was in a drunken stupor when injured
If I was an American lawmaker, I'd go for C!
whoa whoa whoa! let's not answer questions that aren't assigned to us!
V2 p.321 Q 12
In a contract suit between Terrell and Ward, Ward testified that he recalls having his first conversation with Terrell on January 3. When asked how he remembers the date, he answers, "In the conversation, Terrell referred to a story in that day's newspaper announcing my daughter's engagement." Terrell's counsel moves to strike the reference to the newspaper story.
The judge should:
A) Grant the motion on the ground that the best evidence rule requires production of the newspaper itself.
B) Grant the motion, because the reference to the newspaper story does not fit within any established exception to the hearsay rule.
C) Deny the motion on the ground that the court may take judicial notice of local newspapers and their contents.
D) Deny the motion on the ground that an witness may refer to collateral documents without providing the documents themselves.
oh! i should mention, you have three hours to answer 100 of these questions. then an hour break, then another three hours to answer 100 more. so if you take longer than 1.8 minutes to answer your question, you're behind schedule and you're going to have to either make up that time on another question or guess on a bunch at the end
and if you fuck it up and you fail, you aren't licensed to be a lawyer, even if you're already employed as a lawyer (which, ideally, you should be, if you want any hope of ever being and remaining a lawyer)
v2 p. 362 Q. 5
A) Recover, because Doctor was negligent as a matter of law
.
(A) .
(C). Parker will not prevail because at common law Parker's contributory negligence will completely bar his right to recover. Parker was contributorily negligent because he was operating a car with defective brakes in violation of the statute.
(A) is wrong because Parker was not in the class intended to be protected by the statute. It was Parker's obligation to ensure that the brakes complied with the statute.
(B) is incorrect because the existence of an emergency, presenting little time for reflection, may be considered as among the circumstances under which the defendeant acted (i.e., he must act as the reasonable person would act in the same emergency). Applying this criterion, Doctor was justified in moving the car.
(D) is incorrect because a person who is injured while intoxicated does not automatically lose a cause of action against the person causing the injury. In addition, the harm in this case was not the type of harm which the drunk driving statute was designed to prevent.
this answer hinged on a very specific point of law (many of them do). "contributory negligence" is a theory under which the victim of a tort cannot recover at all if they were in any way responsible for the tort, so the fact that the question used the phrase "contributory negligence" was meant to put you on notice of that. by comparison "comparative negligence" is a doctrine in which a victim who is, to some degree, responsible for a tort, has their recovery reduced by the degree to which they are responsible for its occurrence
anyway you're wrong and you get no credit for your answer
Guy Incognito
08-12-2009, 05:45 AM
can i settle out of court?
Freebasser
08-12-2009, 08:38 AM
v2 p.628, question 19
The United States entered into a treaty with Mexico whereby both countries agreed to ban hunting of the red tailed raccoon, a species of raccoon indigenous to both the United States and Mexico. The red tailed raccoon had been placed on the endangered species list of the International Wildlife Federation and other conservation groups. The raccoons tend to roam in small family groups in the semidesert lands of the western United States and northern Mexico. The raccoons freely crossed state lines and the international boundary. Laws in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico permitted hunting of the red tailed raccoons.
After the treaty was fully ratified by the United States and Mexico, a federal court would most likely hold that the state laws permitting hunting of the raccoons are:
A) Unconstitutional, because a treaty is the supreme law of the land.
B) Unconstitutional, because free roaming wildlife is federal property.
C) Constitutional, because wild animals are natural inhabitants of the state, and the federal government may not take state property without consent of the state
D) Constitutional under the rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
Hmmm... I know each state has its own rules and whatnot, but I'd think if this was an international treaty then it would be forced through regardless, if only for the sake of good relations between the two countries. I also doubt that the U.S. would give a crap about wildlife unless they were roaming around in a national park... so... I'm going with A. A is my final answer. *tense music*
skra75
08-12-2009, 08:52 AM
I'd make a slammin' lawyer
Documad
08-12-2009, 09:04 AM
Well, so far, I don't know the answer to any of them. And I'm feeling sick to my stomach.
ToucanSpam
08-12-2009, 09:54 AM
I'll try one.
Nuzzolese
08-12-2009, 10:11 AM
Are you still doing this?
hpdrifter
08-12-2009, 11:29 AM
I move that this is a good thread idea.
checkyourprez
08-12-2009, 12:09 PM
lemme get some.
mickill
08-12-2009, 12:13 PM
I suspect that Bob hasn't actually finished taken the bar exam yet and was just hoping to get the answers from us.
Nuzzolese
08-12-2009, 01:36 PM
I suspect that Bob hasn't actually finished taken the bar exam yet and was just hoping to get the answers from us.
Aww, not smart. That's like that time I tried cheating off of Joe France in 7th grade. Why? When did Joe France ever have the right answer? His was just the only paper I could see from my desk. Then he told on me and I was like "oh get over yourself! Like your paper is even worth cheating off of!" And he sang "liar, liar, butt on fire" at me.
hpdrifter
08-12-2009, 01:40 PM
I accidentally cheated once in high school.
I had been home sick and missed a quiz. When I came to class the next day my teacher gave it to me to complete and then proceeded to teach on that exact subject. I started to look through my book as I assumed it was an open-book quiz since everyone else had their books out and were discussing it. Then this horse-faced girl next to me raises her hand to tattle and I'm like oh shit. Luckily she never got our teacher's attention and gave up. Her attept to humiliate me in front of the whole class was thwarted. Bitch.
checkyourprez
08-12-2009, 01:51 PM
I accidentally cheated once in high school.
I had been home sick and missed a quiz. When I came to class the next day my teacher gave it to me to complete and then proceeded to teach on that exact subject. I started to look through my book as I assumed it was an open-book quiz since everyone else had their books out and were discussing it. Then this horse-faced girl next to me raises her hand to tattle and I'm like oh shit. Luckily she never got our teacher's attention and gave up. Her attept to humiliate me in front of the whole class was thwarted. Bitch.
you really should have taken her on a cruise.
then dumped her off the side of the ship.
i'm still goin just give me a few minutes
Well, so far, I don't know the answer to any of them. And I'm feeling sick to my stomach.
i take it that this means that you don't want a question
hpdrifter
08-12-2009, 04:22 PM
I hope mine has to do with criminal offenses! All of those episodes of CSI and Law and Order are about to pay off!
Hmmm... I know each state has its own rules and whatnot, but I'd think if this was an international treaty then it would be forced through regardless, if only for the sake of good relations between the two countries. I also doubt that the U.S. would give a crap about wildlife unless they were roaming around in a national park... so... I'm going with A. A is my final answer. *tense music*
correct! for...basically the reasons you said, actually. you should be the lawyer!
(A) A treaty is the supreme law of the land, and state statutes that conflict with ratified treaties are invalid.
(B) and (C) state incorrect rules of law. The federal government may exercise its property powers to acquire control of free roaming animals on public land. The federal government does not, however, have inherent authority over or ownership of all "free roaming wildlife." A state may, in turn, assert some rights over animals within its borders. That power must, nevertheless, give way in the face of a valid exercise of federal power.
(D) is wrong because a treaty, being the supreme law of the land, takes precedence over the rights reserved to the state under the Tenth Amendment
can i settle out of court?
v2 p. 283 Q 32
Ann leased commercial property to Brenda for a period of 10 years. The lease contained the following provision: "No subleasing or assignment will be permitted unless with the written consent of the lessor." One year later, Brenda assigned all interest in the lease to Carolyn, who assumed and agreed to perform the lessee's obligations under the terms of the lease. Ann learned of the assignment and wrote to Brenda that she had no objection to the assignment to Carolyn and agreed to accept rent from Carolyn instead of Brenda. Thereafter, Carolyn paid rent to Ann for a period of five years. Carolyn then defaulted and went into bankruptcy. In an appropriate action, Ann sued Brenda for rent due.
If Ann loses, it will be because there was:
(A) Laches
(B) An accord and satisfaction
(C) A novation
(D) An attornment
I'd make a slammin' lawyer
V2 p. 347 Q 26
Oaks, the owner of Blackacre, conveyed a right-of-way to United Utility "for the underground transportation of gas by pipeline, the location of right-of-way to be mutually agreed upon by Oaks and United Utility." Untied Utility then installed a six-inch pipeline at a location selected by it and not objected to by Oaks. Two years later, United Utility advised Oaks of its intention to install an additional six-inch pipeline parallel to and three feet laterally form the original pipeline. In an appropriate action, Oaks sought a declaration that United Utility has no right to install the second pipeline.
If Oaks prevails, it will be because:
(A) Any right implied to expand the original use of the right-of-way creates an interest that violates the Rule Against Perpetuities
(B) The original installation by United Utility defined the scope of the easement.
(C) Oaks did not expressly agree to the location of the right-of-way.
(D) The assertion of the right to install an additional pipeline constituted inverse condemnation.
Freebasser
08-12-2009, 04:41 PM
you should be the lawyer!
Who says I'm not? I'll see you in court - I'm suing you for libel!
I'll try one.
v2 p. 249 q 3
Assume for the purposes of this question that you are counsel to the state legislative committee that is responsible for real estate laws in your state. The committee wants you to draft legislation to make all restrictions on land use, imposed by deeds (now or hereafter recorded), unenforceable in the future so that public land-use planning through zoning will have exclusive control in matters of land use.
Which of the following ls least likely to be a consideration in the drafting of such legislation?
(A) Compensation for property rights taken by public authority
(B) Impairment of contract
(C) Sovereign Immunity
(D) Police Power
Are you still doing this?
v2 p. 363 q 7
Philip was a 10-year old boy. Macco was a company that sold new and used machinery. Macco stored discarded machinery, pending sale for scrap, on a large vacant area it owned. This area was unfenced and was one-quarter mile from the housing development where Philip lived. Macco knew that children frequently played in this area and on the machinery. Philip's parents had directed him not to play on the machinery because it was dangerous.
One day Philip was playing on a press in Macco's storage area. The press had several wheels, each geared to the other. Philip climbed on the largest wheel, which was about five feet in diameter. Philip's weight caused the wheel to rotate, his foot was caught between two wheels that were set into motion, and he was severely injured.
A claim for relief was asserted by Philip through a duly appointed guardian. Macco denied liability and pleaded Philip's contributory fault as a defense.
In determining whether Macco breached a duty to Philip, which of the following is the most significant?
(A) Whether the press on which Philip was injured was visible from a public way.
(B) Whether the maintenance of the area for the storage of discarded machinery was a private nuisance.
(C) Whether the maintenance of the area of the storage of discarded machinery was a public nuisance.
(D) Whether Macco could have eliminated the risk of harm without unduly interfering with Macco's normal operations.
I move that this is a good thread idea.
v 2 p. 297 q 3
Jack and Paul planned to hold up a bank. They drove to the bank in Jack's car. Jack entered while Paul remained as lookout in the car. After a few moments, Paul panicked and drove off.
Jack looked over the various tellers, approached one and whispered nervously, "Just hand over the cash. Don't look around, don't make a false move -- or it's your life." The teller looked at the fidgeting Jack, laughed, flipped him a dollar bill, and said, "Go on, beat it." Flustered, Jack grabbed the dollar and left.
Paul's best defense to a charge of robbery would be that:
(A) Jack alone entered the bank.
(B) Paul withdrew, before commission of the crime, when he fled the scene.
(C) Paul had no knowledge of what Jack whipsered to the teller.
(D) The teller was not placed in fear by Jack.
lemme get some.
v2 p. 323 q 19
Alex and Sam were arrested for holding up a gas station. They were taken to police headquarters and placed in a room for interrogation. As a police officer addressing both started to give them Miranda warnings prior to the questioning, Alex said, "Look, Sam planned the damned thing and I was dumb enough to go along with it. We robbed the place - what else is there to say?" Sam said nothing. Sam was escorted into another room an a full written confession was then obtained from Alex.
If Sam is brought to trial on an indictment charging him with robbery, the fact that Sam failed to object to Alex's statement and remained silent after Alex had implicated him the crime should be ruled:
(A) Admissible, because his silence was an implied admission by Sam that he had participated in the crime.
(B) Admissible, because a statement of a participant in a crime is admissible against another participant.
(C) Inadmissible because under the circumstances there was no duty or responsibility on Sam's part to respond.
(D) Inadmissible because whatever Alex may have said has no provative value in a trial against Sam.
Nuzzolese
08-12-2009, 05:04 PM
(C) Whether the maintenance of the area of the storage of discarded machinery was a public nuisance?
I suspect that Bob hasn't actually finished taken the bar exam yet and was just hoping to get the answers from us.
v2 p 348 q 30
Metterly, the owner in fee simple of Brownacre, by quitclaim deed conveyed Brownacre to her daughter, Doris, who paid no consideration for the conveyance. The deed was never recorded. About a year after the delivery of the deed, Metterly decided that this gift had been ill-advised. She requested that Doris destroy the deed, which Doris dutifully and voluntarily did. Within the month following the destruction fo the deed, Metterly and Doris were killed in a common disaster. Each of the successors in interest claimed title to Brownacre.
In an appropriate action to determine the title to Brownacre, the probable outcome will be that:
(A) Metterly was the owner of Brownacre, because Doris was a donee and therefore could not acquire title by quitclaim deed.
(B) Metterly was the owner of Brownacre, because title to Brownacre reverted to her upon the voluntary destruction of the deed by Doris.
(C) Doris was the owner of Brownacre, because her destruction of the deed to Brownacre was under the undue influence of Metterly.
(D) Doris was the owner of Brownacre, because the deed was merely evidence of her title, and its destruction was insufficient to cause title to pass back to Metterly.
Documad
08-12-2009, 05:07 PM
i take it that this means that you don't want a question
You are correct! This is making my head hurt, though to be fair I was already ill. It's strangely reassuring that they still call them Blackacre and Brownacre.
Guy Incognito
08-12-2009, 05:21 PM
v2 p. 283 Q 32
Ann leased commercial property to Brenda for a period of 10 years. The lease contained the following provision: "No subleasing or assignment will be permitted unless with the written consent of the lessor." One year later, Brenda assigned all interest in the lease to Carolyn, who assumed and agreed to perform the lessee's obligations under the terms of the lease. Ann learned of the assignment and wrote to Brenda that she had no objection to the assignment to Carolyn and agreed to accept rent from Carolyn instead of Brenda. Thereafter, Carolyn paid rent to Ann for a period of five years. Carolyn then defaulted and went into bankruptcy. In an appropriate action, Ann sued Brenda for rent due.
If Ann loses, it will be because there was:
(A) Laches
(B) An accord and satisfaction
(C) A novation
(D) An attornment
not a fucking clue, have you spelt (A) wrong?
All i can tell you is that brenda didnt write to ann to ask her so she is going to lose.
i have no idea what any of the answers actually mean, i was just curious what the questions were like.
lets go for (B)
Who says I'm not? I'll see you in court - I'm suing you for libel!
v2 372 q 31
Dock had been the unsuccessful suitor Mary, who had recently announced her engagement to Paul. Angered by her engagement, Dock sent Mary the following letter: "I hope you know what you are doing. The man you think you love wears women's clothes when at home. A Friend."
The receipt of this letter caused Mary great emotional distress. She hysterically telephoned Paul, read him the letter, and told him that she was breaking their engagement. The contents of the letter were not revealed to others. Paul, who was a young attorney in the state attorney's office, suffered serious humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the broken engagement.
If Paul asserts a claim against Dock based on defamation and it is proved that Dock's statement was true, such proof will be:
(A) A defense by itself.
(B) A defense only if dock was not actuated by malice.
(C) A defense only if Dock reasonably believed it to be true.
(D) No defense by itself.
(C) Whether the maintenance of the area of the storage of discarded machinery was a public nuisance?
WRONG
(D) The most significant factor pertains to the burden on Macco to eliminate the danger. Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, most courts impose on a landowner the duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to children caused by artificial conditions on the property. To assess this special duty on the landowner the plaintiff must show, among other things, that the expense of remedying the situation is slight compared with the magnitude of the risk. Choice (D) most closely reflects that requirement.
(A) is incorrect because most jurisdictions no longer require that the child plaintiff be lured onto the property by the dangerous condition. Thus, whether the press was visible from a public way would only be relevant to show that the trespass was foreseeable, and here the facts indicate that the landowner was already aware that children played on the machinery.
(B) and (C) are incorrect because the doctrine of attractive nuisance is distinct from nuisance law. The landowner may be liable even if the danger is neither a public nor a private nuisance as to adjoining landowners
you clod
not a fucking clue, have you spelt (A) wrong?
All i can tell you is that brenda didnt write to ann to ask her so she is going to lose.
i have no idea what any of the answers actually mean, i was just curious what the questions were like.
lets go for (B)
i did not spell it incorrectly, sadly. you get to use words like "laches" and "privity" and "scintilla" and "posture of dishabille" and "prurient" when you're a lawyer. it's great. kind of.
the answer turned out to be (C), a novation, but i don't really feel like writing out the explanation because it's very long
Guy Incognito
08-12-2009, 05:37 PM
the answer turned out to be (C), a novation,
sounds like a synthesizer.
oh well never mind(y)
HEIRESS
08-12-2009, 05:48 PM
Did you say "yoots"?
Freebasser
08-12-2009, 06:22 PM
v2 372 q 31
Dock had been the unsuccessful suitor Mary, who had recently announced her engagement to Paul. Angered by her engagement, Dock sent Mary the following letter: "I hope you know what you are doing. The man you think you love wears women's clothes when at home. A Friend."
The receipt of this letter caused Mary great emotional distress. She hysterically telephoned Paul, read him the letter, and told him that she was breaking their engagement. The contents of the letter were not revealed to others. Paul, who was a young attorney in the state attorney's office, suffered serious humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the broken engagement.
If Paul asserts a claim against Dock based on defamation and it is proved that Dock's statement was true, such proof will be:
(A) A defense by itself.
(B) A defense only if dock was not actuated by malice.
(C) A defense only if Dock reasonably believed it to be true.
(D) No defense by itself.
Oh, another one, hmmm? I didn't see that coming. OK, let's tackle this one rationally.
Firstly, I'd hazard a guess that it's not a defense by itself. The evidence is purely circumstantial. The letter could have been forged by a third party to set Dock up (it doesn't even have Dock's name on it), or it could have been posted by somebody else after Dock threw it in the bin after having second thoughts. Dock could even have been joking. There's nothing there to guarantee that Dock set out to embarrass Paul. So, I don't think the answer is A.
If Dock did set out to cause Paul embarrassment, then the reasoning behind why he did it shouldn't matter. Malice is one motive, but so is envy, or greed. If anything, malice is a more worthy reason for prosecuting Dock for his 'crime'. Regardless - there is no evidence to support the motivation for Dock's letter - therefore, I don't think the answer is B.
If Dock believed it to be true, then who is to say that he wasn't trying to protect Mary from something he may have believed would have upset her, had she found out about it for herself later into her relationship? It could well have been a thoughtful if not particulary tactful attempt at protecting the feelings of somebody he still cares for. Therefore, I don't think the answer is C.
Unfortunately for Paul, I believe the answer is D. There is no hard evidence to suggest that Dock set out to embarrass Paul, nor that he even intended for the letter to be sent out. Unless Paul has video evidence of Dock stating his intention to humiliate him, then I don't believe there is enough evidence to bring a conviction. I suggest Paul 'mans up' and rises above any future accusations of being a cross-dressing weirdo (no offence, Paul!).
hpdrifter
08-12-2009, 06:22 PM
I guess C. Paul could claim that he didn't know what Jack planned to do in the bank. Or he could be like, ah man, I thought he was joking, I didn't think he'd actually go through with it.
But A and B sort of get at that too but I think C.
I mean the planning and stuff, does that really count as anything until the crime is actually committed? I mean to me it seems like there was no crime until Jack talked to the teller.
I spent like 10 minutes on that so I'm already way behind.
v 2 p. 297 q 3
Jack and Paul planned to hold up a bank. They drove to the bank in Jack's car. Jack entered while Paul remained as lookout in the car. After a few moments, Paul panicked and drove off.
Jack looked over the various tellers, approached one and whispered nervously, "Just hand over the cash. Don't look around, don't make a false move -- or it's your life." The teller looked at the fidgeting Jack, laughed, flipped him a dollar bill, and said, "Go on, beat it." Flustered, Jack grabbed the dollar and left.
Paul's best defense to a charge of robbery would be that:
(A) Jack alone entered the bank.
(B) Paul withdrew, before commission of the crime, when he fled the scene.
(C) Paul had no knowledge of what Jack whipsered to the teller.
(D) The teller was not placed in fear by Jack.
mickill
08-12-2009, 06:36 PM
v2 p 348 q 30
Metterly, the owner in fee simple of Brownacre, by quitclaim deed conveyed Brownacre to her daughter, Doris, who paid no consideration for the conveyance. The deed was never recorded. About a year after the delivery of the deed, Metterly decided that this gift had been ill-advised. She requested that Doris destroy the deed, which Doris dutifully and voluntarily did. Within the month following the destruction fo the deed, Metterly and Doris were killed in a common disaster. Each of the successors in interest claimed title to Brownacre.
In an appropriate action to determine the title to Brownacre, the probable outcome will be that:
(A) Metterly was the owner of Brownacre, because Doris was a donee and therefore could not acquire title by quitclaim deed.
(B) Metterly was the owner of Brownacre, because title to Brownacre reverted to her upon the voluntary destruction of the deed by Doris.
(C) Doris was the owner of Brownacre, because her destruction of the deed to Brownacre was under the undue influence of Metterly.
(D) Doris was the owner of Brownacre, because the deed was merely evidence of her title, and its destruction was insufficient to cause title to pass back to Metterly.
Too easy, BOB!
mikizee
08-12-2009, 11:00 PM
me please
Dorothy Wood
08-12-2009, 11:13 PM
put a question for me please okay bye.
Did you say "yoots"?
V1 p 40 Q 4
Victor was desperately ill with a particularly virulent and painful form of cancer. He was permanently hospitalized and quite helpless as the killer disease tore at his vitals. Victor's daughter, Dana, was devoted to her dad. She visited him every evening in the hospital and spent many hours with him on the weekends. For over two months, Victor pleaded with Dana, "Please kill me and put me out of my misery. I'm in such terrible pain. The pangs of Hell couldn't be any worse than this!" Every day or evening that Dana visited, Victor would renew his plea to be killed. The staff doctors and nurses had often heard Victors plaint. One Saturday afternoon, Dana paid her usual visit to Victor. His pleading was as heartrending as ever. With a tender expression on her face, Dana pulled a small revolver from her purse. She fired a shot at Victor, killing him instantly. Dana immediately broke into tears and repeatedly kissed the face of her dead father. Hospital authorities called the police, and Dana was charged with Victor's death.
What is the most serious offense of which Dana can be convicted?
(A) First Degree murder, defined by the jurisdiction as premeditated and deliberate killing of another human being.
(B) Second degree murder, defined as any murder not classified as first degree murder.
(C) Voluntary Manslaughter
(D) No crime
Oh, another one, hmmm? I didn't see that coming. OK, let's tackle this one rationally.
Firstly, I'd hazard a guess that it's not a defense by itself. The evidence is purely circumstantial. The letter could have been forged by a third party to set Dock up (it doesn't even have Dock's name on it), or it could have been posted by somebody else after Dock threw it in the bin after having second thoughts. Dock could even have been joking. There's nothing there to guarantee that Dock set out to embarrass Paul. So, I don't think the answer is A.
If Dock did set out to cause Paul embarrassment, then the reasoning behind why he did it shouldn't matter. Malice is one motive, but so is envy, or greed. If anything, malice is a more worthy reason for prosecuting Dock for his 'crime'. Regardless - there is no evidence to support the motivation for Dock's letter - therefore, I don't think the answer is B.
If Dock believed it to be true, then who is to say that he wasn't trying to protect Mary from something he may have believed would have upset her, had she found out about it for herself later into her relationship? It could well have been a thoughtful if not particulary tactful attempt at protecting the feelings of somebody he still cares for. Therefore, I don't think the answer is C.
Unfortunately for Paul, I believe the answer is D. There is no hard evidence to suggest that Dock set out to embarrass Paul, nor that he even intended for the letter to be sent out. Unless Paul has video evidence of Dock stating his intention to humiliate him, then I don't believe there is enough evidence to bring a conviction. I suggest Paul 'mans up' and rises above any future accusations of being a cross-dressing weirdo (no offence, Paul!).
WRONG BITCH
(A) Truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation
(B) is wrong because it is irrelevant whether dock made the statement out of malice as long as the statement was in fact true.
(C) is wrong because it is equally irrelevant whether Dock reasonably believed the statement to be true. The fact that the statement is true is the only requirement for the defense to prevail.
(D) is wrong for the reason that (A) is correct. Note that Paul's claim is based on defamation. Even though Dock can defend the defamation action by showing that the statement is true, Paul might nonetheless be able to successfully assert a cause of action based on intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I guess C. Paul could claim that he didn't know what Jack planned to do in the bank. Or he could be like, ah man, I thought he was joking, I didn't think he'd actually go through with it.
But A and B sort of get at that too but I think C.
I mean the planning and stuff, does that really count as anything until the crime is actually committed? I mean to me it seems like there was no crime until Jack talked to the teller.
I spent like 10 minutes on that so I'm already way behind.
this is another long explanation and i don't really feel like typing it out but basically the answer is D because robbery is larceny via the use of force or fear - jack didn't actually use any force, and the teller clearly felt no fear at any point, so there's no robbery, and thus paul can't be an accomplice to that. jack did, however, commit attempted robbery (and paul would be an accomplice to that) but that's not what the question was about! lol! the bar exam is great
Too easy, BOB!
nope! (A) was the answer - a properly delivered deed is merely evidence of its own existence, so its destruction doesn't cause any change in title, so Doris continued to own the property.
but you did narrow it down to one of the two "the test writers are clearly trying to make me remember some obscure thing i apparently studied" answers so you too should be a lawyer
me please
put a question for me please okay bye.
The following two questions are based on the following fact pattern:
v2 p. 302 q 16-17
Linda was 15 years old, but she appeared and acted older. When asked, she always said she was 22, and she carried false identification saying she was that old. She frequented taverns and drank heavily. One evening in a bar she became acquainted with Duke. He believed her when she told him her claimed age. They had several drinks and became inebriated. Later, they drove in Duke's car to a secluded spot. After they had necked for a while, Duke propositioned Linda and she consented. Before Duke achieved penetration, Linda changed her mind, saying, "Stop! Don't touch me! I don't want to do it." When Duke did not desist, Linda started to cry and said, "I am only 15." Duke immediately jumped from the car and ran away. Duke was indicted for attempted rape, assault with intent to rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempted statutory rape. The age of consent in the jurisdiction is 16.
Dorothy your question (though mikizee, you need to read it too because the statute also applies to your question) is:
If the contributing charge were based on a statute reading, "Whoever shall commit an act affecting the morals of a minor under 16 years of age shall be deemed guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period not to exceed 5 years," Duke's best legal defense would be that:
(A) The statute is unconstitutionally vague
(B) Linda consented to his actions
(C) He was entrapped by Linda's appearance
(D) He did not intend to contribute to her delinquency
Mikizee because I feel that this may come up for you at some point, your question is:
With respect to the contributing charge under the statute set out in the question above, proof by Duke that he was so inebriated that he could not have formed a criminal intent would be a:
(A) Good defense, because the charge requires a specific intent.
(B) Good defense, because at least a general criminal intent is required for every offense.
(C) Poor defense, because contributing to the delinquency of a minor is an offense against a child.
(D) Poor defense, because the state of mind of the defendant is irrelevant to this offense, so long as he was legally sane.
Documad
08-13-2009, 12:12 AM
A lot of these answers are utter bullshit.
A lot of these answers are utter bullshit.
they really, really are. the MBE is an exercise in ass-fucking. i had a question about whether a decision in a tribal court is immune from double jeopardy vis-a-vis a decision in a federal court under the dual sovereignty doctrine. i knew what the dual sovereingty doctrine was, and i knew how it applied to double jeopardy, but tribal courts??? i don't even know what those are
Documad
08-13-2009, 12:18 AM
they really, really are. the MBE is an exercise in ass-fucking. i had a question about whether a decision in a tribal court is immune from double jeopardy vis-a-vis a decision in a federal court under the dual sovereignty doctrine. i knew what the dual sovereingty doctrine was, and i knew how it applied to double jeopardy, but tribal courts??? i don't even know what those are
I know what tribal courts are because I've been involved with them here, but I still couldn't answer the damned question. :(
Can I have a question please? I'm ready to embarrass myself.
Kid Presentable
08-13-2009, 12:26 AM
I was best student in Trade Practices Act law for 2007. It follows that Bob should issue me a question.
I know what tribal courts are because I've been involved with them here, but I still couldn't answer the damned question. :(
Can I have a question please? I'm ready to embarrass myself.
since you have a unique appreciation of the bullshitness of the MBE, i will give you my most very favorite "are you fucking kidding me? that explanation is bullshit" question. i remember this one specifically. i might be ruining it by warning you how bullshit it is but oh god, it is so bullshit. you'll want to hit something when you learn how bullshit it is
v1 p. 37 Q 16
Tommy was in his third year of college, and Tommy's father, Dad, often sent Tommy money to help Tommy pay for books and for living expenses. During the last winter break, Tommy brought his girlfriend Gidget home to meet his family. Dad took an instant dislike to Gidget, and has continually lectured Tommy about her, insisting that Tommy could find someone "more refined" to date.
In early March, Tommy telephoned Dad from College Village, where the university was located. Tommy asked Dad for $1,000. Dad told Tommy, "I'll send you the thousand bucks, but if you don't find a classier girlfriend than that Gidget person, this is the last subsidy you'll get from me, young man." Tommy thanked Dad, and promptly went to a jeweler with Gidget, where Tommy and Gidget selected an engagement ring priced at $5,000. Tommy, who was 21 years of age, signed a contract to purchase the ring. The contract required Tommy to make a $1,000 down payment and then to make a series of installment payments. Tommy planned to use the $1,000 check he was expecting from Dad for the down payment. Tommy and Gidget both worked at part-time, minimum wage jobs while they attended school. Through a friend who lived in College Village, Dad discovered Tommy's plan to buy Gidget an expensive engagement ring. Dad refused to send Tommy the $1,000 check. The jeweler is now demanding that Tommy make the $1,000 down payment on the ring and pay the first installment as well.
Can Tommy legally enforce Dad's promise to send Tommy $1,000?
(A) Yes, because Tommy relied on Dad's promise and the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies
(B) Yes, because Tommy was an intended beneficiary
(C) No, because Dad's promise was a gift unsupported by consideration
(D) No, because Dad did not promise to send the money with the expectation of inducing Tommy to buy an engagement ring for Gidget
I was best student in Trade Practices Act law for 2007. It follows that Bob should issue me a question.
i bought my bar review books second-hand. i randomly flipped to a page and this question has a doodle of a heart with a thumbtack stuck into it next to it, i feel like that's a sign
v1 p. 215 q 15
A movie, Last Rhumba in Havana was critically acclaimed and received the coveted Golden Bratwurst award at the Sheboygan International Film Festival. The film was heavily attended in the nation's large metropolitan areas and eventually worked its way to smaller towns. Last Rhumba has portrayals of nudity and scenes involving sexuality, but its advertising is very tasteful and concentrates on its critical accalim and its receipt of seven Academy Award nominations. However, when Last Rhumba opened in Bleaton, Michinois, there was a public outcry against the film. Picketers appeared in front of the local theater carrying signs such as "Keep Filth Out of Bleaton!"
Bleaton was founded in the late nineteenth century by a fundamentalist religious group. Although the original religious group has faded from the scene, Bleaton remains a very conservative and highly religious community. Bleaton is the only community in Michinois where a consensus of the community would find Last Rhumba to be an oscene film. The Bleaton police, however, responding to community pressure, went to the local court seeking an injunciton to halt the showing of the movie Bleaton. Cecil B. Selwyn, owner of the theater, refused to voluntarily stop showing the film and appeared in court to defend against the proposed injunction.
What is Selwyn's best defense?
(A) The proper "community standards" should be those of the entire state rather than of the won.
(B) The film has some redeeming social value.
(C) The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents the state from enforcing a particular set of religous beliefs.
(D) The film has proven artistic merit.
Dorothy Wood
08-13-2009, 12:39 AM
The following two questions are based on the following fact pattern:
v2 p. 302 q 16-17
Linda was 15 years old, but she appeared and acted older. When asked, she always said she was 22, and she carried false identification saying she was that old. She frequented taverns and drank heavily. One evening in a bar she became acquainted with Duke. He believed her when she told him her claimed age. They had several drinks and became inebriated. Later, they drove in Duke's car to a secluded spot. After they had necked for a while, Duke propositioned Linda and she consented. Before Duke achieved penetration, Linda changed her mind, saying, "Stop! Don't touch me! I don't want to do it." When Duke did not desist, Linda started to cry and said, "I am only 15." Duke immediately jumped from the car and ran away. Duke was indicted for attempted rape, assault with intent to rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempted statutory rape. The age of consent in the jurisdiction is 16. My answer is D.
Dorothy your question (though mikizee, you need to read it too because the statute also applies to your question) is:
If the contributing charge were based on a statute reading, "Whoever shall commit an act affecting the morals of a minor under 16 years of age shall be deemed guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period not to exceed 5 years," Duke's best legal defense would be that:
(A) The statute is unconstitutionally vague
(B) Linda consented to his actions
(C) He was entrapped by Linda's appearance
(D) He did not intend to contribute to her delinquency
okay, A seems dumb. B can't be it because the age of consent is 16. I think C might be possible because she claimed she was of age...however, it seems like D would cover that by saying he didn't know she was 15, and therefore could not have intended to commit a crime, as there would be no crime if she were actually 22.
did I win?
Dorothy Wood
08-13-2009, 12:41 AM
whoa, I keep trying to edit my post so it says "my answer is D", but it won't let me. it'll let me type it, then it disappears.
so anyway, did I win?
Kid Presentable
08-13-2009, 12:43 AM
i bought my bar review books second-hand. i randomly flipped to a page and this question has a doodle of a heart with a thumbtack stuck into it next to it, i feel like that's a sign
v1 p. 215 q 15
A movie, Last Rhumba in Havana was critically acclaimed and received the coveted Golden Bratwurst award at the Sheboygan International Film Festival. The film was heavily attended in the nation's large metropolitan areas and eventually worked its way to smaller towns. Last Rhumba has portrayals of nudity and scenes involving sexuality, but its advertising is very tasteful and concentrates on its critical accalim and its receipt of seven Academy Award nominations. However, when Last Rhumba opened in Bleaton, Michinois, there was a public outcry against the film. Picketers appeared in front of the local theater carrying signs such as "Keep Filth Out of Bleaton!"
Bleaton was founded in the late nineteenth century by a fundamentalist religious group. Although the original religious group has faded from the scene, Bleaton remains a very conservative and highly religious community. Bleaton is the only community in Michinois where a consensus of the community would find Last Rhumba to be an oscene film. The Bleaton police, however, responding to community pressure, went to the local court seeking an injunciton to halt the showing of the movie Bleaton. Cecil B. Selwyn, owner of the theater, refused to voluntarily stop showing the film and appeared in court to defend against the proposed injunction.
What is Selwyn's best defense?
(A) The proper "community standards" should be those of the entire state rather than of the won.
(B) The film has some redeeming social value.
(C) The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents the state from enforcing a particular set of religous beliefs.
(D) The film has proven artistic merit.
Well, duh.
okay, A seems dumb. B can't be it because the age of consent is 16. I think C might be possible because she claimed she was of age...however, it seems like D would cover that by saying he didn't know she was 15, and therefore could not have intended to commit a crime, as there would be no crime if she were actually 22.
did I win?
nope. the answer was A. B-D are not actual defenses to the crime, and so his only hope is to challenge the statute's constitutionality for vagueness, since it does not "apprise a defendant of acts which are proscribed"
Dorothy Wood
08-13-2009, 12:49 AM
nope. the answer was A. B-D are not actual defenses to the crime, and so his only hope is to challenge the statute's constitutionality for vagueness, since it does not "apprise a defendant of acts which are proscribed"
crap. I thought I was being so logical.
Well, duh.
nope. D.
C is wrong because the town isn't trying to enforce its religious views, it's just saying that under its communal standards (which is part of the test for obscenity), the movie is obscene. the fact that those standards coincide with a religious view doesn't violate the establishment clause
this question is totally bullshit too. in fact it's a perfect example how the MBE is bullshit because three of the answers are technically sort of right, but only one is the "best". listen to this
"(A) is not as good an argument as (D) because the supreme court has held that while a statewide community standard may be used, it is not mandatory - a local community standard may suffice.
(B) is not as good an argument as (D) because it is not sufficient that there is some redeeming social value; it must have serious redeeming value."
congratulations on picking the only answer that couldn't possibly be right though (y)
Kid Presentable
08-13-2009, 12:51 AM
No need to thank me, haha (y)
crap. I thought I was being so logical.
don't feel too bad. most of these questions require you to recall fairly specific, often obscure points of law that you spend two months trying to memorize. if you study for the bar, you understand what "void for vagueness" means, which is what the question is trying to get you to remember. but even if you have done that, there's still a very good chance of you getting it wrong because the people who write these answers are dicks. mostly you're relying on the curve to pass to be honest
Dorothy Wood
08-13-2009, 01:01 AM
don't feel too bad. most of these questions require you to recall fairly specific, often obscure points of law that you spend two months trying to memorize. if you study for the bar, you understand what "void for vagueness" means, which is what the question is trying to get you to remember. but even if you have done that, there's still a very good chance of you getting it wrong because the people who write these answers are dicks. mostly you're relying on the curve to pass to be honest
oh I don't feel too bad, it's just that my grandma told me she thought I'd be a good lawyer once when I was like 12 because she watched me negotiate a bargain with some people at a garage sale we were having.
although maybe that just means I should've been a mattress salesperson.
Documad
08-13-2009, 01:06 AM
since you have a unique appreciation of the bullshitness of the MBE, i will give you my most very favorite "are you fucking kidding me? that explanation is bullshit" question. i remember this one specifically. i might be ruining it by warning you how bullshit it is but oh god, it is so bullshit. you'll want to hit something when you learn how bullshit it is
v1 p. 37 Q 16
Tommy was in his third year of college, and Tommy's father, Dad, often sent Tommy money to help Tommy pay for books and for living expenses. During the last winter break, Tommy brought his girlfriend Gidget home to meet his family. Dad took an instant dislike to Gidget, and has continually lectured Tommy about her, insisting that Tommy could find someone "more refined" to date.
In early March, Tommy telephoned Dad from College Village, where the university was located. Tommy asked Dad for $1,000. Dad told Tommy, "I'll send you the thousand bucks, but if you don't find a classier girlfriend than that Gidget person, this is the last subsidy you'll get from me, young man." Tommy thanked Dad, and promptly went to a jeweler with Gidget, where Tommy and Gidget selected an engagement ring priced at $5,000. Tommy, who was 21 years of age, signed a contract to purchase the ring. The contract required Tommy to make a $1,000 down payment and then to make a series of installment payments. Tommy planned to use the $1,000 check he was expecting from Dad for the down payment. Tommy and Gidget both worked at part-time, minimum wage jobs while they attended school. Through a friend who lived in College Village, Dad discovered Tommy's plan to buy Gidget an expensive engagement ring. Dad refused to send Tommy the $1,000 check. The jeweler is now demanding that Tommy make the $1,000 down payment on the ring and pay the first installment as well.
Can Tommy legally enforce Dad's promise to send Tommy $1,000?
(A) Yes, because Tommy relied on Dad's promise and the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies
(B) Yes, because Tommy was an intended beneficiary
(C) No, because Dad's promise was a gift unsupported by consideration
(D) No, because Dad did not promise to send the money with the expectation of inducing Tommy to buy an engagement ring for Gidget
I have to go with C because the other answers make no sense. And even if there was consideration, Tommy failed to follow through on dumping his trashy girlfriend so the consideration failed.
Documad
08-13-2009, 01:12 AM
oh I don't feel too bad, it's just that my grandma told me she thought I'd be a good lawyer once when I was like 12 because she watched me negotiate a bargain with some people at a garage sale we were having.
although maybe that just means I should've been a mattress salesperson.
These questions in no way demonstrate that someone is going to be a good lawyer. They only demonstrate that you studied the right things in the review course and remembered the bizarro logic that you learn for this test and only for this test.
I have to go with C because the other answers make no sense. And even if there was consideration, Tommy failed to follow through on dumping his trashy girlfriend so the consideration failed.
that's what i thought too, but no! the answer is D. A & B are obviously wrong, but check out the explanation for why D is right and C is wrong
"(D). Tommy cannot enforce Dad's promise on either contractual or promissory estoppel grounds. An enforceable contract does not exist because there was no consideration for Dad's promise to send $1,000 [wasn't this the answer to (C)...?]. . . . However, consideration is not necessary if the promisor should be estopped from not performing. A promise is enforceable to the extent necessary to prevent injustice if [and then it runs through the elements of promissory estoppel and explains why the doctrine of promissory estoppel doesn't apply]
(C) is not as good an answer as (D). it is true that Dad's promise was a gift unsupported by consideration. However, if circumstances existed justifying the application of promissory estoppel, the promise would be enforceable even in the absence of consideration. Therefore, (C) is not as precise as (D) [emphasis added]"
i literally threw the book to the ground and yelled "FUCK" when i read that
These questions in no way demonstrate that someone is going to be a good lawyer. They only demonstrate that you studied the right things in the review course and remembered the bizarro logic that you learn for this test and only for this test.
but you aren't allowed to be a lawyer if you fail! even if you already are a lawyer, or if you're just trying to be licensed to be a lawyer in a new state
also you have to pay hundreds of dollars to take the test ($815 in MA) and thousands to take the class ($2,750 in MA)
lawyering is for suckers
Documad
08-13-2009, 01:24 AM
(C) is not as good an answer as (D). it is true that Dad's promise was a gift unsupported by consideration. However, if circumstances existed justifying the application of promissory estoppel, the promise would be enforceable even in the absence of consideration. Therefore, (C) is not as precise as (D) [emphasis added]"
That's fucked up. It's also a great example of how stupid the test is. You pick an answer that's true but it's still not good enough. :rolleyes:
(I think the review class cost about $900 back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.)
That's fucked up. It's also a great example of how stupid the test is. You pick an answer that's true but it's still not good enough. :rolleyes:
(I think the review class cost about $900 back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.)
yes, it's very very frustrating at times. and i swear that there were questions on the real MBE, the one i sat down and took that will govern whether or not i'm licensed to practice law, in which the difference between the right answer and wrong answer was whether a person's conduct was "reasonable". it was literally something like (A) defendant is liable because he did not exercise a reasonable standard of care or (C) defendant is not liable because he exercised a reasonable standard of care
inappropriate! those are debatable factual issues which have no place on a multiple choice test
i kind of wish i'd made this thread while i was actually studying, because it's turning out to be a pretty decent review tool for me. if only it mattered.
and this thread may not indicate this, but i actually am doing a pretty good job of not thinking back and stressing out about the bar - for the most part i am taking the sage advice of just forgetting about it and not worrying about whether i passed or failed until i get my results. this is just kind of cathartic for me
i did, however, have the worst dream the other night. i dreamt i was sitting in a classroom, and there was a teacher grading bar exam essays, and she got to mine and she kind of flipped through it and noticed how many pages i'd left blank in the answer books and she gave me this disapproving look, all like "really? well, good luck..." and started grading
i literally woke up in a sweat, although my room was very, very hot and my pool of sweat was probably going to inevitably wake me up anyway
paul jones
08-13-2009, 02:10 AM
zug zug
mikizee
08-13-2009, 04:22 AM
The following two questions are based on the following fact pattern:
v2 p. 302 q 16-17
Linda was 15 years old, but she appeared and acted older. When asked, she always said she was 22, and she carried false identification saying she was that old. She frequented taverns and drank heavily. One evening in a bar she became acquainted with Duke. He believed her when she told him her claimed age. They had several drinks and became inebriated. Later, they drove in Duke's car to a secluded spot. After they had necked for a while, Duke propositioned Linda and she consented. Before Duke achieved penetration, Linda changed her mind, saying, "Stop! Don't touch me! I don't want to do it." When Duke did not desist, Linda started to cry and said, "I am only 15." Duke immediately jumped from the car and ran away. Duke was indicted for attempted rape, assault with intent to rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempted statutory rape. The age of consent in the jurisdiction is 16.
Dorothy your question (though mikizee, you need to read it too because the statute also applies to your question) is:
If the contributing charge were based on a statute reading, "Whoever shall commit an act affecting the morals of a minor under 16 years of age shall be deemed guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period not to exceed 5 years," Duke's best legal defense would be that:
(A) The statute is unconstitutionally vague
(B) Linda consented to his actions
(C) He was entrapped by Linda's appearance
(D) He did not intend to contribute to her delinquency
Mikizee because I feel that this may come up for you at some point, your question is:
With respect to the contributing charge under the statute set out in the question above, proof by Duke that he was so inebriated that he could not have formed a criminal intent would be a:
(A) Good defense, because the charge requires a specific intent.
(B) Good defense, because at least a general criminal intent is required for every offense.
(C) Poor defense, because contributing to the delinquency of a minor is an offense against a child.
(D) Poor defense, because the state of mind of the defendant is irrelevant to this offense, so long as he was legally sane.
Ummmm I'm pretty high right now but I'm gonna go for D (or A)
Gareth
08-13-2009, 05:38 AM
miller v jackson [1977] QB 966 (CA)
LORD DENNING, M.R.
In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch.
In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club house for the players and seats for theonlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practise while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there any more. He has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that when a batsman hits a six the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at week-ends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the judge to stop the cricket being played. And the judge, much against his will, has felt that he must order the cricket to be stopped: with the consequence, I suppose, that the Lintz Cricket Club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.
The cricket club...did everything possible to see that no balls went over. In 1975, before the cricket season opened, they put up a very high protective fence...They told the batsmen to try to drive the balls low for four and not hit them up for six. This greatly reduced the number of balls that got into the gardens.
Despite these measures, a few balls did get over.
No one has been hurt at all by any of these balls, either before or after the high fence was erected. There has, however, been some damage to
property, even since the high fence was erected. The cricket club have offered to remedy all the damage and pay all expenses. They have offered to supply and fit unbreakable glass in the windows, and shutters or safeguards for them. They have offered to supply and fit a safety net over the garden whenever cricket is being played. In short, they have done everything possible short of stopping playing cricket on the ground at all. But Mrs. Miller and her husband have remained unmoved. Every offer by the club has been rejected. They demand the closing down of the cricket club. Nothing else will satisfy them.
There is a contest here between the interest of the public at large; and the interest of a private individual. The public interest lies in protecting the environment by preserving our playing fields in the face of mounting development, and by enabling our youth to enjoy all the benefits of outdoor games, such as cricket and football. The private interest lies in securing the privacy of his home and garden without intrusion or interference by anyone. In deciding between these two conflicting interests, it must be remembered that it is not a question of damages. If by a million to one chance a cricket ball does go out of the ground and cause damage, the cricket club will pay. There is no difficulty on that score. No, it is a question of injunction. And in our law you will find it repeatedly affirmed that an injunction is a discretionary remedy. In a new situation like this, we have to think afresh as to how discretion should be exercised. On the one hand, Mrs. Miller is a very sensitive lady who has worked herself up into such a state that she exclaimed to the judge: "I just want to be allowed to live in peace...Have I got to wait until someone is killed before anything can be done?" If she feels like that about it, it is quite plain that, for peace in the future, one or other has to move. Either the cricket club has to move: but goodness knows where. I do not suppose for a moment there is any field in Lintz to which they could move. Or Mrs. Miller must move else-where. As between their conflicting interests, I am of opinion that the public interest should prevail over the private interest. The cricket club should not be driven out. In my opinion the right exercise of discretion is to refuse an injunction; and, of course, to refuse damages in lieu of an injunction. Likewise as to the claim for past damages...So if the club had put it to the test, I would have dismissed the claim for damages also. But as the club very fairly say that they are willing to pay for any damage, I am content that there should be an award of 400 pounds to cover any past or future damage. I would allow the appeal, accordingly.
mikizee
08-14-2009, 04:30 AM
So bob did I get it right?
hpdrifter
08-14-2009, 11:20 AM
this is another long explanation and i don't really feel like typing it out but basically the answer is D because robbery is larceny via the use of force or fear - jack didn't actually use any force, and the teller clearly felt no fear at any point, so there's no robbery, and thus paul can't be an accomplice to that. jack did, however, commit attempted robbery (and paul would be an accomplice to that) but that's not what the question was about! lol! the bar exam is great
FUCK!
That's the only one I thought it wouldn't be because it sounded too stupid. This is my new strategy for answering these questions. Gimme another one.
still doin it just give me time
mikizee
08-14-2009, 09:18 PM
So bob did I get it right or what? The suspense is killing me
checkyourprez
08-17-2009, 12:06 AM
v2 p. 323 q 19
Alex and Sam were arrested for holding up a gas station. They were taken to police headquarters and placed in a room for interrogation. As a police officer addressing both started to give them Miranda warnings prior to the questioning, Alex said, "Look, Sam planned the damned thing and I was dumb enough to go along with it. We robbed the place - what else is there to say?" Sam said nothing. Sam was escorted into another room an a full written confession was then obtained from Alex.
If Sam is brought to trial on an indictment charging him with robbery, the fact that Sam failed to object to Alex's statement and remained silent after Alex had implicated him the crime should be ruled:
(A) Admissible, because his silence was an implied admission by Sam that he had participated in the crime.
(B) Admissible, because a statement of a participant in a crime is admissible against another participant.
(C) Inadmissible because under the circumstances there was no duty or responsibility on Sam's part to respond.
(D) Inadmissible because whatever Alex may have said has no provative value in a trial against Sam.
C is what me thinks.
checkyourprez
08-17-2009, 12:08 AM
but you aren't allowed to be a lawyer if you fail! even if you already are a lawyer, or if you're just trying to be licensed to be a lawyer in a new state
also you have to pay hundreds of dollars to take the test ($815 in MA) and thousands to take the class ($2,750 in MA)
lawyering is for suckers
its just part of the game. once they get your money, then you can start taking other peoples money.
skra75
08-17-2009, 11:53 AM
Side note: I answered this a week ago and then my computer froze up and I lost everything :(
Lemme see what I can recall from that sleepless evening of real-estate law research.
By process of elimination...
(A) Any right implied to expand the original use of the right-of-way creates an interest that violates the Rule Against Perpetuities
The Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply here, because the property was not part of a will or settlement but was wholly owned by Oaks.
(B) The original installation by United Utility defined the scope of the easement.
I had a really great answer for this one the other night. Haha. But I think this direction doesn't hold up because the definition of scope of easement was agreed upon by both parties in the first instance, and that those terms were never meant to be ongoing. From what I read it seemed the scope was defined by both location and terms between both Oaks and United Utility. In the second instance, the verbal agreement was not a factor, therefor a liability for United Utility.
(D) The assertion of the right to install an additional pipeline constituted inverse condemnation.
Inverse condemnation only applied to government owned entities. If United Utility was in fact government owned (which the brief doen't specify) then this in fact would be a sure-fire argument.
(C) Oaks did not expressly agree to the location of the right-of-way.
Due to the non-specific language of the original scope of easement, Oaks has a solid defense. Oaks would have to prove in court that the terms of the second installation were not mutually agreed upon. They'd have to produce evidence in the form of emails or otherwise.
Lesson learned: Just because you laid your six-inch pipe once don't assume you can go on in and lay it wherever you want without getting consent first.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.