The exam files, I'm talkin' about. I just received the e-mails from Examsoft that acknowledge the receipt of today's exams. Day one is in the books, campers. Let's go make some S'mores.
I wasn't going to post about the subjects we had today because I heard that the folks with accommodations, the ones who are getting more time to answer these darn things, might hit the net tonight in a search for clues as to what was tested. But then it was explained to me that the Bar schedules them such that there is no advantage.
Okay then. Here I go....
btw: I know I missed issues and didn't have enough time to fully discuss others that I saw. So feel free to chime in here with your thoughts.
Essay 1 - Real Property
Landlord tenant, commercial lease, periodic tenancy of the month-to-month nature. Apparently valid and written even though I didn't have time to bring up the Statute of Frauds (but I don't feel too bad because it wasn't a formation issue. I really only thought about when the tenant bailed without a written 30-day notice.) Tenant rents four offices on the 12th-floor of a new 20-floor building, $500/mo. There's a clause in the lease that obligates landlord to provide the "basic utilities", or "bare necessities", or some other Disney song. Anyway, I believe that clause was intended to make him contractually liable for the same stuff that that he would have been liable for if this was a residential lease. In other words, I figured that the clause was a legal substitute for the "implied warranty of habitability" because that warranty only applies to residential leases, and through this clause we have a way to hold him liable for the heating, plumbing, and electrical breaches in this fact pattern. Of course, that left me having to mention the same stuff under the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment that IS present in all leases, commercial or otherwise.
Anyway, all goes well for a few months until the "necessities" start failing, including the elevator. I think the elevator is more of a quiet enjoyment issue, being a common area and all. Anyway, she's on the 12th floor, so a working elevator for a commercial office building where people are trying to make a living is a serious matter.
So I went through the constructive eviction analysis as though it was a residential habitability issue and said she was justified in bailing out even though she probably should have provided written 30-day notice, but it was nice of her to provide the 2 1/2 month oral notice (should have mentioned SoF here). And I used that to mitigate his damages because he should have by looking for a new tenant.
I threw some other rules and duties in along the way but that's pretty much it. Now that I think about it, tenant could probably have hit him up for some sort of damages based on his constructive eviction of her business. But, again, I ran out of time. Anyway, this is probably all wrong. It would probably not be a bad idea to have them keep my room warm for my February stay.
Essay 2 - Torts (w/Secret-Civ-Pro xover)
This was a freakin' racehorse for me. Strict products liability based on design defect and inadequate labeling. I got into the whole "reasonable to expect a variety of uses, misuses, and un-freakin-believable uses of a blender in a average everyday ordinary household kitchen", including kids blending frogs and houseplants and their sister's science project. So because someone put hot liquid in your "Cold Drink" blender is not misuse such that you have any defense you silly manufacturer you. Then I went through their (lack of) defenses and found them liable via strict liability in tort.
At this time I realized I should have left more time for the negligence issue so I blitzed through that with less analysis than it deserved. And I was positively conclusory with Retailer's liability on both strict product liability (none, but contribution if held so) and negligence (only if he made it dangerous, and he didn't).
And I didn't even give the whole "Manufacturer's motion to dismiss" stuff a second thought. Not until much, much, much too late to do anything about it. But in my defense, I don't think I've ever seen a Torts / Civil Procedure crossover before. Ever. So, to the degree that the Civ Pro thing was important, I hosed that essay
Essay 3 - Plain old FRE-style Evidence
They gave us an Evidence essay with no CA call. A civil trial, too. Can't even mention Prop 8. Blah. I did manage to mention CA's "item in dispute" relevance difference even though it felt odd because, again, they didn't even mention California evidence ONCE! They didn't even tell us the events took place in California! Not even a state bordering California or one that has laws just like the California Evidence Code!
So, I just ripped through it like any other FRE Evidence question. I probably missed a whole ton of stuff because I was so shocked at HAVING NO CA STUFF TO TALK ABOUT!!! And now I'm thinking they did this back-to-back racehorse with the funny Torts call and the Evidence with no CEC just to freak us out. Well, it freaked me out.
But I digress....
I barely finished it but I use the word "finish" like I wrote the whole thing properly. The previous Torts/Secret-Civ-Pro question took me 10 minutes longer than it should have so I had to get in and out of what would have been a racehorse Evidence essay on a good day. And I had to do it in 50 minutes. I started off strong but realized that I was going to have to get very conclusory if I wanted to finish. So I finished. But my last items went like this (read this very fast!):
This is relevant because it shows that Dave's car hit Polly's truck
Helper heard it personally, so it's reliable.
This is hearsay because it's offered for its truth.
Because the shriek about the car accident was made contemporaneous with the declarant's observation, it's not hearsay.
And now, because I barely ate all day, I'm going to get dinner then do 2,000 mBEs.
Okay, maybe only 1,000. (;-)>
btw: feel free to opine on my essay commentary. It's mostly what I wrote. I think. Anyway, it's what I remember.
Okay, Calbar Blondie, I'll throw in a P.S. here on PT-A.
I haven't written a complete PT under timed conditions yet. I had written what I thought was about 2/3 of my outline when she made the 5-minute call. So I hurried up and made a conclusion/recommendation that encompassed all of about two sentences. Then when she called 5-seconds I quickly decided to bold and center the conclusion header. Good Ideeea?!? Not. In my haste I ended up deleting it (the header only, thank God) and didn't even have enough time to do a CTRL/Z before she said "Time's up"!
It felt like a solid 60. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a 55 because I think I found the issues. But my time management skills are sorely lacking.
I was encouraged by the fact that it seemed straightforward enough and if I had given myself another 30 minutes, or managed my time a little better, I would have done a bang-up job. I have high hopes for Thursday!