RightTheWalrus wrote:Only if there is no indirect revocation.Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Re bolded: But, even if it's not an option contract, if offeror sells the car to someone else and does not effectively revoke the offer he made you, and you accept within a reasonable time, offeror would be liable to you, right?cnk1220 wrote:
To answer your first Q:
An option K is supported by consideration to keep it open and "un-revocable". So if you're selling me your car and I put down a deposit $100 for your car you can't sell it to anyone else bc now I have an option K supported by consideration. If there's no consideration it's not an option K and you'd be free to sell your car to someone else. So to answer your Q the first guy doesn't have the right to sell it even if second guy says mmm not sure if its an option K because the second guy put down $$$... note even if second guy says "I don't want it" if he's made consideration (i.e. Put down $$$) the first guy can't sell it until the deadline for the option K runs out. This was a barbri Q I remember from the refresher mbe set.
A similar hypo re: tomatoes and lack of option k was the contracts MEE essay Q this past feb.
MBE Question Thread Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
To follow up, if the seller breached a revocable offer and sold it to a 3rd party, what are the buyer's options?
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
In most cases, I believe it would be replacement costs above contract price.TheWalrus wrote:To follow up, if the seller breached a revocable offer and sold it to a 3rd party, what are the buyer's options?
- Toubro
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Yeah, that I believe is an incorrect statement of the law, but feel free to check with a professor.Samarcan wrote:Hmm. But the flash card (Critical Pass #13 for Civ Pro) says, "P can use supplemental Jx to overcome insufficient amount in controversy." What you wrote above seems to say P can aggregate claims via Diversity Jx without needing to resort to supplemental Jx. Am I missing something here?Toubro wrote:The flash card is right because a plaintiff can aggregate related or unrelated claims to reach the amount in controversy. You don't need supplemental jurisdiction for this - this original SMJ by way of diversity.Samarcan wrote:I have a quick civil procedure question I'd appreciate any help with. If P wants to sue D in federal court and cannot satisfy the Federal Question prong of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ), and thus must satisfy the Diversity prong of SMJ, can he use supplemental jurisdiction to reach the amount-in-question aspect of Diversity Jurisdiction?
So for example his original cause of action is for $70k, which doesn't meet the amount-in-question requirement, which must per rule exceed $75k. So can he add another claim, in the way supplemental jurisdiction contemplates, to get up to the $75K+ requirement?
Critical Pass card #13 for Civil Procedure says the answer is yes, but I've seen elsewhere that the answer is no -- that you can't get a claim in, through supplemental jurisdiction, until *after* you've *already* satisfied the SMJ requirement, through either FQ or Diversity.
Any help would be nice. Thanks!
What you've heard is also right, that you can't get a claim in through supplemental jurisdiction unless there is already a claim in there through either FQ or diversity. But in your example, the aggregation of claims by one P against one D results in diversity jurisdiction and there is no need to consider supplemental jurisdictions.
Also btw two or more Ps cannot aggregate claims to meet the amount in controversy requirement. One P must satisfy the AIC either by way of one claim or aggregated claims (as above), then another P whose only issue is that she doesn't have enough amount in controversy can come in under supplemental jurisdiction (this is Exxon).
These hypos are really useful (although probably overkill for the MBE): http://www.nathenson.org/courses/civpro ... gregation/
Suppose P1 has two claims, each for 40K. P1 cannot use "supplemental" jurisdiction and combine any of them because there is no claim in there that by itself would satisfy the AIC, thus there's no hook to get into federal court. It would only work if all of them combined were to give the court original SMJ by way of diversity.
Now, a plaintiff can use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome insufficient amount in controversy if another plaintiff is already in there and has independently met the AIC for diversity. That's Exxon, and I believe the flash card is only correct to the extent that it's reciting that principle.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:41 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Yea, it definitely is an incorrect statement of law. Supplemental jurisdiction simply gets claim(s) into federal court that (1) are not able to be brought on their own basis (i.e., don't meet diversity and are not federal question), and (2) where the original claim (that invokes diversity or fq) and the supplemental claim share a "common nucleus of operative fact." The only exception w/ sup. jx is that when the original claim is in federal court based on diversity, the plaintiff cannot use sup. jx to bring in a claim that could not have been brought on its own basis, but the plaintiff can do so if the original claim is a federal questionToubro wrote:Yeah, that I believe is an incorrect statement of the law, but feel free to check with a professor.Samarcan wrote:Hmm. But the flash card (Critical Pass #13 for Civ Pro) says, "P can use supplemental Jx to overcome insufficient amount in controversy." What you wrote above seems to say P can aggregate claims via Diversity Jx without needing to resort to supplemental Jx. Am I missing something here?Toubro wrote:The flash card is right because a plaintiff can aggregate related or unrelated claims to reach the amount in controversy. You don't need supplemental jurisdiction for this - this original SMJ by way of diversity.Samarcan wrote:I have a quick civil procedure question I'd appreciate any help with. If P wants to sue D in federal court and cannot satisfy the Federal Question prong of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ), and thus must satisfy the Diversity prong of SMJ, can he use supplemental jurisdiction to reach the amount-in-question aspect of Diversity Jurisdiction?
So for example his original cause of action is for $70k, which doesn't meet the amount-in-question requirement, which must per rule exceed $75k. So can he add another claim, in the way supplemental jurisdiction contemplates, to get up to the $75K+ requirement?
Critical Pass card #13 for Civil Procedure says the answer is yes, but I've seen elsewhere that the answer is no -- that you can't get a claim in, through supplemental jurisdiction, until *after* you've *already* satisfied the SMJ requirement, through either FQ or Diversity.
Any help would be nice. Thanks!
What you've heard is also right, that you can't get a claim in through supplemental jurisdiction unless there is already a claim in there through either FQ or diversity. But in your example, the aggregation of claims by one P against one D results in diversity jurisdiction and there is no need to consider supplemental jurisdictions.
Also btw two or more Ps cannot aggregate claims to meet the amount in controversy requirement. One P must satisfy the AIC either by way of one claim or aggregated claims (as above), then another P whose only issue is that she doesn't have enough amount in controversy can come in under supplemental jurisdiction (this is Exxon).
These hypos are really useful (although probably overkill for the MBE): http://www.nathenson.org/courses/civpro ... gregation/
Suppose P1 has two claims, each for 40K. P1 cannot use "supplemental" jurisdiction and combine any of them because there is no claim in there that by itself would satisfy the AIC, thus there's no hook to get into federal court. It would only work if all of them combined were to give the court original SMJ by way of diversity.
Now, a plaintiff can use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome insufficient amount in controversy if another plaintiff is already in there and has independently met the AIC for diversity. That's Exxon, and I believe the flash card is only correct to the extent that it's reciting that principle.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:14 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Wait a sec, the exception you write above (underlined) amounts to saying that bringing in another claim through sup. jx. is only available when the original claim is brought through FQ Jx, not Div. Jx. Is that right?FormerChild wrote:Yea, it definitely is an incorrect statement of law. Supplemental jurisdiction simply gets claim(s) into federal court that (1) are not able to be brought on their own basis (i.e., don't meet diversity and are not federal question), and (2) where the original claim (that invokes diversity or fq) and the supplemental claim share a "common nucleus of operative fact." The only exception w/ sup. jx is that when the original claim is in federal court based on diversity, the plaintiff cannot use sup. jx to bring in a claim that could not have been brought on its own basis, but the plaintiff can do so if the original claim is a federal questionToubro wrote:Yeah, that I believe is an incorrect statement of the law, but feel free to check with a professor.Samarcan wrote:Hmm. But the flash card (Critical Pass #13 for Civ Pro) says, "P can use supplemental Jx to overcome insufficient amount in controversy." What you wrote above seems to say P can aggregate claims via Diversity Jx without needing to resort to supplemental Jx. Am I missing something here?Toubro wrote:The flash card is right because a plaintiff can aggregate related or unrelated claims to reach the amount in controversy. You don't need supplemental jurisdiction for this - this original SMJ by way of diversity.Samarcan wrote:I have a quick civil procedure question I'd appreciate any help with. If P wants to sue D in federal court and cannot satisfy the Federal Question prong of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ), and thus must satisfy the Diversity prong of SMJ, can he use supplemental jurisdiction to reach the amount-in-question aspect of Diversity Jurisdiction?
So for example his original cause of action is for $70k, which doesn't meet the amount-in-question requirement, which must per rule exceed $75k. So can he add another claim, in the way supplemental jurisdiction contemplates, to get up to the $75K+ requirement?
Critical Pass card #13 for Civil Procedure says the answer is yes, but I've seen elsewhere that the answer is no -- that you can't get a claim in, through supplemental jurisdiction, until *after* you've *already* satisfied the SMJ requirement, through either FQ or Diversity.
Any help would be nice. Thanks!
What you've heard is also right, that you can't get a claim in through supplemental jurisdiction unless there is already a claim in there through either FQ or diversity. But in your example, the aggregation of claims by one P against one D results in diversity jurisdiction and there is no need to consider supplemental jurisdictions.
Also btw two or more Ps cannot aggregate claims to meet the amount in controversy requirement. One P must satisfy the AIC either by way of one claim or aggregated claims (as above), then another P whose only issue is that she doesn't have enough amount in controversy can come in under supplemental jurisdiction (this is Exxon).
These hypos are really useful (although probably overkill for the MBE): http://www.nathenson.org/courses/civpro ... gregation/
Suppose P1 has two claims, each for 40K. P1 cannot use "supplemental" jurisdiction and combine any of them because there is no claim in there that by itself would satisfy the AIC, thus there's no hook to get into federal court. It would only work if all of them combined were to give the court original SMJ by way of diversity.
Now, a plaintiff can use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome insufficient amount in controversy if another plaintiff is already in there and has independently met the AIC for diversity. That's Exxon, and I believe the flash card is only correct to the extent that it's reciting that principle.
The main Themis outline says that "When a district court has diversity jurisdiction over a claim, the common-nucleus-of-operative-facts rule also applies to determine whether the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an additional claim." That sounds like it says you can use sup. jx. to bring in another claim if the original claim is based on Diversity, rather than FQ, Jx.
- whats an updog
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:12 am
Re: MBE Question Thread
Torts question:
Doesn't negligence "come to a rest" at a certain point? I remember from 1L that it did, but I guess it doesn't for purposes of the bar exam. I just got the following question in adaptibar:
The victim's leg was broken by a negligent driver. As a result of the injury, the victim was forced to use crutches. Later, the victim slipped on a banana peel left negligently by a shopkeeper. The correct answer said that she could recover from the original driver.
Is that right?
Doesn't negligence "come to a rest" at a certain point? I remember from 1L that it did, but I guess it doesn't for purposes of the bar exam. I just got the following question in adaptibar:
The victim's leg was broken by a negligent driver. As a result of the injury, the victim was forced to use crutches. Later, the victim slipped on a banana peel left negligently by a shopkeeper. The correct answer said that she could recover from the original driver.
Is that right?
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:41 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Only for the plaintiff, there is no such restriction for the defendant--a defendant may bring a claim in using sup. jx. whether the original claim is through diversity or fq. According to Barbri, "… the limitation does not take away supplemental jurisdiction over claims by defendants or third-party defendants or defendant intervenors." Also, even though a defendant or plaintiff (if fq in original claim) may meet all the requirements for sup. jx, court has discretion to decline it under a few circumstancesSamarcan wrote:Wait a sec, the exception you write above (underlined) amounts to saying that bringing in another claim through sup. jx. is only available when the original claim is brought through FQ Jx, not Div. Jx. Is that right?FormerChild wrote:Yea, it definitely is an incorrect statement of law. Supplemental jurisdiction simply gets claim(s) into federal court that (1) are not able to be brought on their own basis (i.e., don't meet diversity and are not federal question), and (2) where the original claim (that invokes diversity or fq) and the supplemental claim share a "common nucleus of operative fact." The only exception w/ sup. jx is that when the original claim is in federal court based on diversity, the plaintiff cannot use sup. jx to bring in a claim that could not have been brought on its own basis, but the plaintiff can do so if the original claim is a federal questionToubro wrote:Yeah, that I believe is an incorrect statement of the law, but feel free to check with a professor.Samarcan wrote:Hmm. But the flash card (Critical Pass #13 for Civ Pro) says, "P can use supplemental Jx to overcome insufficient amount in controversy." What you wrote above seems to say P can aggregate claims via Diversity Jx without needing to resort to supplemental Jx. Am I missing something here?Toubro wrote:The flash card is right because a plaintiff can aggregate related or unrelated claims to reach the amount in controversy. You don't need supplemental jurisdiction for this - this original SMJ by way of diversity.Samarcan wrote:I have a quick civil procedure question I'd appreciate any help with. If P wants to sue D in federal court and cannot satisfy the Federal Question prong of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ), and thus must satisfy the Diversity prong of SMJ, can he use supplemental jurisdiction to reach the amount-in-question aspect of Diversity Jurisdiction?
So for example his original cause of action is for $70k, which doesn't meet the amount-in-question requirement, which must per rule exceed $75k. So can he add another claim, in the way supplemental jurisdiction contemplates, to get up to the $75K+ requirement?
Critical Pass card #13 for Civil Procedure says the answer is yes, but I've seen elsewhere that the answer is no -- that you can't get a claim in, through supplemental jurisdiction, until *after* you've *already* satisfied the SMJ requirement, through either FQ or Diversity.
Any help would be nice. Thanks!
What you've heard is also right, that you can't get a claim in through supplemental jurisdiction unless there is already a claim in there through either FQ or diversity. But in your example, the aggregation of claims by one P against one D results in diversity jurisdiction and there is no need to consider supplemental jurisdictions.
Also btw two or more Ps cannot aggregate claims to meet the amount in controversy requirement. One P must satisfy the AIC either by way of one claim or aggregated claims (as above), then another P whose only issue is that she doesn't have enough amount in controversy can come in under supplemental jurisdiction (this is Exxon).
These hypos are really useful (although probably overkill for the MBE): http://www.nathenson.org/courses/civpro ... gregation/
Suppose P1 has two claims, each for 40K. P1 cannot use "supplemental" jurisdiction and combine any of them because there is no claim in there that by itself would satisfy the AIC, thus there's no hook to get into federal court. It would only work if all of them combined were to give the court original SMJ by way of diversity.
Now, a plaintiff can use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome insufficient amount in controversy if another plaintiff is already in there and has independently met the AIC for diversity. That's Exxon, and I believe the flash card is only correct to the extent that it's reciting that principle.
The main Themis outline says that "When a district court has diversity jurisdiction over a claim, the common-nucleus-of-operative-facts rule also applies to determine whether the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an additional claim." That sounds like it says you can use sup. jx. to bring in another claim if the original claim is based on Diversity, rather than FQ, Jx.
- cnk1220
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
whats an updog wrote:Torts question:
Doesn't negligence "come to a rest" at a certain point? I remember from 1L that it did, but I guess it doesn't for purposes of the bar exam. I just got the following question in adaptibar:
The victim's leg was broken by a negligent driver. As a result of the injury, the victim was forced to use crutches. Later, the victim slipped on a banana peel left negligently by a shopkeeper. The correct answer said that she could recover from the original driver.
Is that right?
Yes because the injury (broken leg caused by negligent driver) was further aggravated because the victim had to use crutches- if she wasn't on crutches she wouldn't have slipped on the banana peel so the driver was at fault and because of JS liability, she can sue and recover from the original driver.
- whats an updog
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:12 am
Re: MBE Question Thread
Yeah, I get that's the explanation, it's just hard to believe that's right. Seems like after you've gotten medical care and crutches, the link is too attenuated. But, that's fine, I will swallow it.cnk1220 wrote:whats an updog wrote:Torts question:
Doesn't negligence "come to a rest" at a certain point? I remember from 1L that it did, but I guess it doesn't for purposes of the bar exam. I just got the following question in adaptibar:
The victim's leg was broken by a negligent driver. As a result of the injury, the victim was forced to use crutches. Later, the victim slipped on a banana peel left negligently by a shopkeeper. The correct answer said that she could recover from the original driver.
Is that right?
Yes because the injury (broken leg caused by negligent driver) was further aggravated because the victim had to use crutches- if she wasn't on crutches she wouldn't have slipped on the banana peel so the driver was at fault and because of JS liability, she can sue and recover from the original driver.
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:16 am
Re: MBE Question Thread
I've had difficulty with this concept as well. The first question of this sort that I missed involved a guy playing baseball in his backyard; he popped the ball over the fence while his neighbor was having a barbecue, causing a bystander to attempt to protect the neighbor, knock over the BBQ, and set the neighbor on fire. I thought that was sufficiently disconnected from the risks attached to playing baseball in your backyard, but I was wrong. It seems on the MBE questions that unless the superseding cause is basically something ridiculous (think a meteor strike) the chain of causation is not broken.whats an updog wrote:Yeah, I get that's the explanation, it's just hard to believe that's right. Seems like after you've gotten medical care and crutches, the link is too attenuated. But, that's fine, I will swallow it.cnk1220 wrote:whats an updog wrote:Torts question:
Doesn't negligence "come to a rest" at a certain point? I remember from 1L that it did, but I guess it doesn't for purposes of the bar exam. I just got the following question in adaptibar:
The victim's leg was broken by a negligent driver. As a result of the injury, the victim was forced to use crutches. Later, the victim slipped on a banana peel left negligently by a shopkeeper. The correct answer said that she could recover from the original driver.
Is that right?
Yes because the injury (broken leg caused by negligent driver) was further aggravated because the victim had to use crutches- if she wasn't on crutches she wouldn't have slipped on the banana peel so the driver was at fault and because of JS liability, she can sue and recover from the original driver.
That's not how it works in the real world, but that's apparently how it is for the bar. I presume they're just trying to test really basic connection, i.e. they want you to only go to superseding cause if you see (1) really crazy intervening causes (act of god style); or (2) intentional torts and criminal acts. I haven't yet seen a question where the chain of causation was broken.
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Looking to see if I understand this correctly: under the open mines doctrine, you can expand an existing operation, but not create a new one?
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Am I understanding this UCC contract reality correctly?
There is no rule under the UCC that makes contracts between merchants cancellable within a reasonable time. Thus, you could have a scenario where merchant 1 says “ship me xyz at a usual price,” merchant 2 says “OK, but the price is higher. Sorry.” Merchant 2 then goes ahead and prepares shipping. Merchant 1 then replies THE NEXT DAY and says “sorry, price too high.” Merchant 1 can sue merchant 2 for breach for the incidental costs of preparing shipping and the difference between contract and resale price.
So, the only way to avoid liability from merchant 1 is to make the offer conditional? Like saying "ship me xyz ONLY if the price is less than $xx" ?
There is no rule under the UCC that makes contracts between merchants cancellable within a reasonable time. Thus, you could have a scenario where merchant 1 says “ship me xyz at a usual price,” merchant 2 says “OK, but the price is higher. Sorry.” Merchant 2 then goes ahead and prepares shipping. Merchant 1 then replies THE NEXT DAY and says “sorry, price too high.” Merchant 1 can sue merchant 2 for breach for the incidental costs of preparing shipping and the difference between contract and resale price.
So, the only way to avoid liability from merchant 1 is to make the offer conditional? Like saying "ship me xyz ONLY if the price is less than $xx" ?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- pancakes3
- Posts: 6619
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
i think the doctrine is ambiguous about expanding but definitely allows continued operation.TheWalrus wrote:Looking to see if I understand this correctly: under the open mines doctrine, you can expand an existing operation, but not create a new one?
also, to be clear, this comes up in the context of waste.
Are you talking about cancellable as in making the contract voidable, or are you talking about avoiding liability?ConfusedL1 wrote:Am I understanding this UCC contract reality correctly?
There is no rule under the UCC that makes contracts between merchants cancellable within a reasonable time. Thus, you could have a scenario where merchant 1 says “ship me xyz at a usual price,” merchant 2 says “OK, but the price is higher. Sorry.” Merchant 2 then goes ahead and prepares shipping. Merchant 1 then replies THE NEXT DAY and says “sorry, price too high.” Merchant 1 can sue merchant 2 for breach for the incidental costs of preparing shipping and the difference between contract and resale price.
So, the only way to avoid liability from merchant 1 is to make the offer conditional? Like saying "ship me xyz ONLY if the price is less than $xx" ?
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
I mean, both, to the extent they apply. But if the contract is formed as soon as Merchant 2 says OK and prepares to ship (even if the "usual price" isn't right), reasons to void it don't seem to be there in this hypo, so it's more of liability.pancakes3 wrote:i think the doctrine is ambiguous about expanding but definitely allows continued operation.TheWalrus wrote:Looking to see if I understand this correctly: under the open mines doctrine, you can expand an existing operation, but not create a new one?
also, to be clear, this comes up in the context of waste.
Are you talking about cancellable as in making the contract voidable, or are you talking about avoiding liability?ConfusedL1 wrote:Am I understanding this UCC contract reality correctly?
There is no rule under the UCC that makes contracts between merchants cancellable within a reasonable time. Thus, you could have a scenario where merchant 1 says “ship me xyz at a usual price,” merchant 2 says “OK, but the price is higher. Sorry.” Merchant 2 then goes ahead and prepares shipping. Merchant 1 then replies THE NEXT DAY and says “sorry, price too high.” Merchant 1 can sue merchant 2 for breach for the incidental costs of preparing shipping and the difference between contract and resale price.
So, the only way to avoid liability from merchant 1 is to make the offer conditional? Like saying "ship me xyz ONLY if the price is less than $xx" ?
- pancakes3
- Posts: 6619
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
I just came across the Barbri question that prompted your post - Contracts Set 1 Q 7.ConfusedL1 wrote:I mean, both, to the extent they apply. But if the contract is formed as soon as Merchant 2 says OK and prepares to ship (even if the "usual price" isn't right), reasons to void it don't seem to be there in this hypo, so it's more of liability.pancakes3 wrote:Are you talking about cancellable as in making the contract voidable, or are you talking about avoiding liability?ConfusedL1 wrote:Am I understanding this UCC contract reality correctly?
There is no rule under the UCC that makes contracts between merchants cancellable within a reasonable time. Thus, you could have a scenario where merchant 1 says “ship me xyz at a usual price,” merchant 2 says “OK, but the price is higher. Sorry.” Merchant 2 then goes ahead and prepares shipping. Merchant 1 then replies THE NEXT DAY and says “sorry, price too high.” Merchant 1 can sue merchant 2 for breach for the incidental costs of preparing shipping and the difference between contract and resale price.
So, the only way to avoid liability from merchant 1 is to make the offer conditional? Like saying "ship me xyz ONLY if the price is less than $xx" ?
In the barbri question, buyer says "send me chairs at the usual price" and seller confirms "ok, i'll send you the chairs at $75, which is the usual price." In your hypo, the "usual price" and the numeric price are different, which brings a formation/2-207 issue as to whether the contract is formed or not.
This fact makes it ok for the reader to assume that there isn't a formation issue. Even though there isn't a mirror image on price, the contract is still valid.
However, even if valid, the answer choice that states "this is a contract between merchants and the wholesaler canceled within a reasonable time." is wrong bc like you (and the explanation) says: "There is no rule under the UCC that makes contracts between merchants cancellable within a reasonable time."
That's not in the UCC, and really it goes to the entire point of contract law - contracts are binding.
If you're looking for ways the buyer can limit his liability, there are lots of other ways. He can state the price he wants for the chairs explicitly, he can ask the seller about the price before making an offer, etc.
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
I'm having problems with foreseeable plaintiff on Torts. Any tips or helpful info?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:16 am
Re: MBE Question Thread
Double posted accidentally
Last edited by Puffman1234 on Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:16 am
Re: MBE Question Thread
I have difficulty with these questions as well because I apparently am much more cautious in my application of "reasonableness" than the writers of the questions. My experience so far has been that unless it's truly ridiculous, an outcome or plaintiff is always foreseeable.TheWalrus wrote:I'm having problems with foreseeable plaintiff on Torts. Any tips or helpful info?
I've only seen one question where the answer was that the defendant should prevail because the plaintiff was not foreseeable. The facts were basically:
Driver D is driving along, cell phone rings, he picks it up, sees a pedestrian crossing the street, swerves to avoid the pedestrian, and hits a utility pole. This causes a power outage within the neighborhood. The lights go out in a house a couple blocks away. A kid who lives there and who is afraid of the dark runs out of the house and into the street where she is hit by a bicyclist and injured. The child's parent's sue D. Who prevails?
Answer: The driver, because he owed no duty to the child.
- pancakes3
- Posts: 6619
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
if an offeree mails an acceptance but then subsequently mails a rejection, mailbox rule applies.
if an offeree mails a rejection but then subsequently mails an acceptance, mailbox rule doesn't apply and the contract forms or fails based on which correspondence is received first - but not read first.
lol, ok.
if an offeree mails a rejection but then subsequently mails an acceptance, mailbox rule doesn't apply and the contract forms or fails based on which correspondence is received first - but not read first.
lol, ok.
- Toubro
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Yeah, this threw me off too. Especially because the Critical Pass flash card on the Mailbox Rules doesn't make this distinction. It just says "if both offer and rejection are mailed, whichever arrives first is effective" but Epstein's lecture made it sound like the Mailbox rule is only suspended if the rejection is mailed before acceptance (which is what you said).pancakes3 wrote:if an offeree mails an acceptance but then subsequently mails a rejection, mailbox rule applies.
if an offeree mails a rejection but then subsequently mails an acceptance, mailbox rule doesn't apply and the contract forms or fails based on which correspondence is received first - but not read first.
lol, ok.
I think this rule won't be as tested as the Mailbox rule exception for option contracts or offers in which a time to respond is specified.
Question if any practicing attorney is reading this - does the mailbox rule even have any practical significance anymore after the advent of email? The NCBE should probably avoid testing such decidedly archaic rules.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Probably a dumb question, but what are the hearsay exceptions where the declarant must be unavailable?
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804TheWalrus wrote:Probably a dumb question, but what are the hearsay exceptions where the declarant must be unavailable?
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:14 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
For the Evidence topic, if it comes up as an essay topic on the MEE portion, do we need to cite actual FRE numbers when we cite rules? Anyone know?
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
You can just cite the rules.Samarcan wrote:For the Evidence topic, if it comes up as an essay topic on the MEE portion, do we need to cite actual FRE numbers when we cite rules? Anyone know?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login