Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017 Forum

[robin600]

Themis discourages me more and more everyday.

I just did Practice Test #2 and scored a measly 46%. I guess I probably should've waited until I did more of the PQ sets, but at least now I know it's time to go back and review these subjects.

If it makes you feel any better the first time i took a bar (and passed) I was only scoring around 55-65% right on the MBE practice questions and aced the
MBE on the actual exam.

[bmmccb223]

I've tried googling stuff about Themis and the MBE PQs and whether they're real, how representative they are, etc. But Themis is such a new company that it seems like if the discussion is more than 2 or so years old it's not representative of what Themis is like now. I do have a nagging feeling that the questions Themis asks are not necessarily representative of the real MBE in terms of proportion of questions from each section of the law. For example...it seems like 60%+ of Themis Property MBE PQs are mortgages...is that really how many of the real MBE questions are on mortgages?

But in Texas the MBE is 40%, 12 essays are 40%, Texas civ pro/crim pro/evidence is 10%, and the MPT is 10%. I still have so much state specific stuff to do that if I'm getting 75% avg on Themis' MBE PQs without needing to do any other practice I'm not sure how practical it is to try to increase the score at the expense of other areas. The MPT is worth the equivalent of 50 MBE questions, and each state essay is worth the equivalent of 17 MBE questions.

At this point I guess I'll just go with what Themis wants me to do for at least another couple of weeks and then maybe start deviating if I feel like I need to.

edit:

Check out this post (scroll down to the big post) from just a few days ago by a guy who says he talked to a higher up at Themis about their distribution of MBE questions, which are supposedly 40/60 Themis/real. He says the real MBE questions don't show up until level 5+ of the PQs: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&start=25

I have to imagine that if you're getting around 75% average you'll be in good shape for the MBE.

[bmmccb223]

Did anyone else find the fourth MBE PQ set for Civ Pro ridiculously difficult? If not, I have some serious review of Civ Pro to do...

[star fox]

Did anyone else find the fourth MBE PQ set for Civ Pro ridiculously difficult? If not, I have some serious review of Civ Pro to do...

Yeah I bombed that one badly after doing well the first three sets

[J-english]

Did anyone else find the fourth MBE PQ set for Civ Pro ridiculously difficult? If not, I have some serious review of Civ Pro to do...

Yeah I bombed that one badly after doing well the first three sets

Same!!! Some of them I couldn't even understand what they were asking.... this is getting a little frustrating!

[Law4lyf]

I can't help but post that this guy bird thistle is the greatest thing ever. Particularly, during the 8th lecture on corporations when he's talking about who can be a director, he says anyone who is a natural person but not a Kardashian.

[MelaPela]

Did anyone else find the fourth MBE PQ set for Civ Pro ridiculously difficult? If not, I have some serious review of Civ Pro to do...

Yeah I bombed that one badly after doing well the first three sets

Same!!! Some of them I couldn't even understand what they were asking.... this is getting a little frustrating!

PQ 5 is a killer too. So many of these questions are testing nuances I just don't know.

[michelle3908]

Did anyone else find the fourth MBE PQ set for Civ Pro ridiculously difficult? If not, I have some serious review of Civ Pro to do...

Yeah I bombed that one badly after doing well the first three sets

Same!!! Some of them I couldn't even understand what they were asking.... this is getting a little frustrating!

PQ 5 is a killer too. So many of these questions are testing nuances I just don't know.

Seems like a few of the pq sets are that way... like Themis wants to build your confidence up with the first few sets, and then humble you (or crush your soul) with the last few sets.

[Slytherpuff]

Wow I am SO bad at Evidence. For some reason I keep forgetting to actually say whether the evidence is relevant/material on my essays, and I'm missing PQs all over the place. I actually took this in law school and my class matched up almost perfectly with what we need to know for the MBE (thank you, Daniel Capra) but it was just too long ago.

[bmmccb223]

Can someone confirm the point at which performance is substantial under the UCC (installment)/common law? I was under the impression that it was at the halfway point (according to Critical Pass) but there is a problem in the 5th Contract & Sales problem set that rejects that view.

[honeyybee]

I can't help but post that this guy bird thistle is the greatest thing ever. Particularly, during the 8th lecture on corporations when he's talking about who can be a director, he says anyone who is a natural person but not a Kardashian.

He is the best!!! I wish all the lecturers had his same humor.

[almaz]

Can someone confirm the point at which performance is substantial under the UCC (installment)/common law? I was under the impression that it was at the halfway point (according to Critical Pass) but there is a problem in the 5th Contract & Sales problem set that rejects that view.

Under the UCC, there is no magic number. The buyer can only reject an installment when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured. The buyer can only reject the entire contract when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the whole contract. Sending 24 widgets instead of 50 wouldn't substantially impair the value of the installment if the other 26 were to arrive the next day.

[Puffman1234]

Can someone confirm the point at which performance is substantial under the UCC (installment)/common law? I was under the impression that it was at the halfway point (according to Critical Pass) but there is a problem in the 5th Contract & Sales problem set that rejects that view.

Under the UCC, there is no magic number. The buyer can only reject an installment when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured. The buyer can only reject the entire contract when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the whole contract. Sending 24 widgets instead of 50 wouldn't substantially impair the value of the installment if the other 26 were to arrive the next day.

I believe that for installment contracts technically to reject the shipment it has to be substantial impairment AND inability to cure. So 24/50 might be a substantial impairment but if there was time to cure (and it is cured) then the delivery can't be rejected outright.

I'm not entirely sure how the "time to cure" works as it hasn't been tested on any practice Q for me. I presume that if the contract states that the installment is to be delivered on the 10th of each month and the seller delivers a substantially impaired installment on the 10th then the seller can't cure within the time specified for performance?

Of course these scenarios are in bar exam land. In real life parties will be breaking the rules all the time because the buyer probably doesn't really care about whether they can technically reject an installment delivery. They just want want they paid for and if they can wait a couple days past the explicitly stated due date without getting screwed I imagine they typically will.

[almaz]

Can someone confirm the point at which performance is substantial under the UCC (installment)/common law? I was under the impression that it was at the halfway point (according to Critical Pass) but there is a problem in the 5th Contract & Sales problem set that rejects that view.

Under the UCC, there is no magic number. The buyer can only reject an installment when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured. The buyer can only reject the entire contract when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the whole contract. Sending 24 widgets instead of 50 wouldn't substantially impair the value of the installment if the other 26 were to arrive the next day.

I believe that for installment contracts technically to reject the shipment it has to be substantial impairment AND inability to cure. So 24/50 might be a substantial impairment but if there was time to cure (and it is cured) then the delivery can't be rejected outright.

I'm not entirely sure how the "time to cure" works as it hasn't been tested on any practice Q for me. I presume that if the contract states that the installment is to be delivered on the 10th of each month and the seller delivers a substantially impaired installment on the 10th then the seller can't cure within the time specified for performance?

Of course these scenarios are in bar exam land. In real life parties will be breaking the rules all the time because the buyer probably doesn't really care about whether they can technically reject an installment delivery. They just want want they paid for and if they can wait a couple days past the explicitly stated due date without getting screwed I imagine they typically will.

That is correct. It is also exactly what I posted, lol. I said nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured.

[almaz]

Can someone confirm the point at which performance is substantial under the UCC (installment)/common law? I was under the impression that it was at the halfway point (according to Critical Pass) but there is a problem in the 5th Contract & Sales problem set that rejects that view.

Under the UCC, there is no magic number. The buyer can only reject an installment when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured. The buyer can only reject the entire contract when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the whole contract. Sending 24 widgets instead of 50 wouldn't substantially impair the value of the installment if the other 26 were to arrive the next day.

I'm not entirely sure how the "time to cure" works as it hasn't been tested on any practice Q for me. I presume that if the contract states that the installment is to be delivered on the 10th of each month and the seller delivers a substantially impaired installment on the 10th then the seller can't cure within the time specified for performance?

Of course these scenarios are in bar exam land. In real life parties will be breaking the rules all the time because the buyer probably doesn't really care about whether they can technically reject an installment delivery. They just want want they paid for and if they can wait a couple days past the explicitly stated due date without getting screwed I imagine they typically will.

The examiners aren't going to have seller send the remaining widgets 11 days later and then have us conclude whether they sufficiently cured.

Any time the application of the rule falls squarely in a grey area like that, either:

1) They include one answer choice saying "No breach because seller cured" and another saying "Breach because seller didn't cure" (both will be wrong because we don't have sufficient facts to make that determination); or

2) They make it obvious by including a fact like "the buyer was not prejudiced by the delay" to signify that the nonconformity was cured.

[Puffman1234]

Can someone confirm the point at which performance is substantial under the UCC (installment)/common law? I was under the impression that it was at the halfway point (according to Critical Pass) but there is a problem in the 5th Contract & Sales problem set that rejects that view.

Under the UCC, there is no magic number. The buyer can only reject an installment when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured. The buyer can only reject the entire contract when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the whole contract. Sending 24 widgets instead of 50 wouldn't substantially impair the value of the installment if the other 26 were to arrive the next day.

I'm not entirely sure how the "time to cure" works as it hasn't been tested on any practice Q for me. I presume that if the contract states that the installment is to be delivered on the 10th of each month and the seller delivers a substantially impaired installment on the 10th then the seller can't cure within the time specified for performance?

Of course these scenarios are in bar exam land. In real life parties will be breaking the rules all the time because the buyer probably doesn't really care about whether they can technically reject an installment delivery. They just want want they paid for and if they can wait a couple days past the explicitly stated due date without getting screwed I imagine they typically will.

The examiners aren't going to have seller send the remaining widgets 11 days later and then have us conclude whether they sufficiently cured.

Any time the application of the rule falls squarely in a grey area like that, either:

1) They include one answer choice saying "No breach because seller cured" and another saying "Breach because seller didn't cure" (both will be wrong because we don't have sufficient facts to make that determination); or

2) They make it obvious by including a fact like "the buyer was not prejudiced by the delay" to signify that the nonconformity was cured.

Thanks for the response. Do you know what happens if the time for cure has passed but the seller sends a curative shipment anyways and the buyer takes it and uses it? I'm guessing the buyer can at most sue for whatever damages might have come of the late delivery but it will otherwise be treated as though the seller had cured on time?

[whats an updog]

Anyone do the constitutional graded essay for California? That was a son of a bitch of a question

[almaz]

Can someone confirm the point at which performance is substantial under the UCC (installment)/common law? I was under the impression that it was at the halfway point (according to Critical Pass) but there is a problem in the 5th Contract & Sales problem set that rejects that view.

Under the UCC, there is no magic number. The buyer can only reject an installment when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured. The buyer can only reject the entire contract when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the whole contract. Sending 24 widgets instead of 50 wouldn't substantially impair the value of the installment if the other 26 were to arrive the next day.

I'm not entirely sure how the "time to cure" works as it hasn't been tested on any practice Q for me. I presume that if the contract states that the installment is to be delivered on the 10th of each month and the seller delivers a substantially impaired installment on the 10th then the seller can't cure within the time specified for performance?

Of course these scenarios are in bar exam land. In real life parties will be breaking the rules all the time because the buyer probably doesn't really care about whether they can technically reject an installment delivery. They just want want they paid for and if they can wait a couple days past the explicitly stated due date without getting screwed I imagine they typically will.

The examiners aren't going to have seller send the remaining widgets 11 days later and then have us conclude whether they sufficiently cured.

Any time the application of the rule falls squarely in a grey area like that, either:

1) They include one answer choice saying "No breach because seller cured" and another saying "Breach because seller didn't cure" (both will be wrong because we don't have sufficient facts to make that determination); or

2) They make it obvious by including a fact like "the buyer was not prejudiced by the delay" to signify that the nonconformity was cured.

Thanks for the response. Do you know what happens if the time for cure has passed but the seller sends a curative shipment anyways and the buyer takes it and uses it? I'm guessing the buyer can at most sue for whatever damages might have come of the late delivery but it will otherwise be treated as though the seller had cured on time?

Since there really isn't a set timeframe, I would argue that the seller has cured if the buyer accepts conforming goods at any time. Generally speaking, the UCC wants to keep installment contracts going. The buyer would have to reject the subsequent shipment and argue that the nonconformity substantially impaired the value of that installment and that the subsequent goods did not cure.

Here is an example with a set time to cure to show you what I mean:

A & B have an installment contract under which A receives a box of bananas to be delivered on the 1st of each month. A sells the bananas at a local farmers market on the 5th day of each month. This month, B mistakenly sent a box of tennis balls. In order to cure, the bananas should be delivered to A in time for the farmers market. If A gets them after the farmers market, A can reject the installment (substantially impaired + uncured). But if A accepts the bananas after the farmers marker, A should be SOL.

[changing_names]

Anyone do the constitutional graded essay for California? That was a son of a bitch of a question

Yes, that question sucked. It took me an inordinate amount of time to figure out how to structure my argument, how to parse my argument and what to say where...was WAY out of time by the time I was done with it. When I checked the model answer, I didn't think their organization really made sense (at least not to the way that I write and think about Con Law). This really worried me. I searched for model answers online that the Bar had released and was a bit relieved to find that what I had written wasn't far off from what the bar had released. Themis' "sample answer" was not organized in an intuitive way (in my humble opinion). They have asked a similarly structure question at least one other time so I am going to review that essay as well just to make sure I am prepared if a storm like that one strikes again for our bar (July 2016, Question 4).
Here it is in case you want to review it as well:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/docu ... s1-6_R.pdf

[whats an updog]

Anyone do the constitutional graded essay for California? That was a son of a bitch of a question

Yes, that question sucked. It took me an inordinate amount of time to figure out how to structure my argument, how to parse my argument and what to say where...was WAY out of time by the time I was done with it. When I checked the model answer, I didn't think their organization really made sense (at least not to the way that I write and think about Con Law). This really worried me. I searched for model answers online that the Bar had released and was a bit relieved to find that what I had written wasn't far off from what the bar had released. Themis' "sample answer" was not organized in an intuitive way (in my humble opinion). They have asked a similarly structure question at least one other time so I am going to review that essay as well just to make sure I am prepared if a storm like that one strikes again for our bar (July 2016, Question 4).
Here it is in case you want to review it as well:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/docu ... s1-6_R.pdf

Thanks, I'll definitely check that out.

[Love With The Coco]

Themis discourages me more and more everyday.

I just did Practice Test #2 and scored a measly 46%. I guess I probably should've waited until I did more of the PQ sets, but at least now I know it's time to go back and review these subjects.

If it makes you feel any better the first time i took a bar (and passed) I was only scoring around 55-65% right on the MBE practice questions and aced the
MBE on the actual exam.

Are the Themis MBE PQs harder than the actual bar exam?

Should we expect to do slightly/significantly better than our Themis average?

[Bass]

Someone tell me it's not possible to memorise all the priority rules for secured transactions and that I should just give up...

[michelle3908]

Someone tell me it's not possible to memorise all the priority rules for secured transactions and that I should just give up...

Making flashcards of those specifically has helped me.

[michelle3908]

Is anyone doing the PQs when you are mentally tired just to get a feel for what it's going to be like towards the end of the MBE? I've been doing a few sets like that just to see how well I can combat the fatigue and push through. I know that affects my percentage I'm getting correct but still think it's beneficial. Same with doing some of the practice essays after studying for awhile.

[HCM510]

So am I crazy? Are all the corporations essay questions exactly the same question? I opened them individually and they were the same. Is that happening to anyone else?