Thursday, July 26, 2007

Okay, here goes nuttin'!

I have one last opportunity this morning to rearrange the cells in that very small part of my brain that's currently labeled, "Civil Procedure: FRCP & CCP" in such a way that when I shine the search light of consciousness on it in about 2 hours, it doesn't go slinking off in to the back of my skull in embarrassment, but rather stands up proudly and says "Yep! Abso-Freakin'-Lutely! We're here for you, Poobah! Figured out, it is! Make a hole, we're comin' through! Yee-Haw!". They're going to be just like Slim Pickens in the last scene of Dr. Strangelove, riding the tactical nuclear missile of Civ-Pro destruction all the way down to the paper.

Well, one can hope.

Best of luck to everyone on this last day. May it truly be our Last Day!

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Major Bleep. I wrote this beautiful products liability essay on Tuesday. It never occurred to me to discuss civ pro. Often I have seen questions where someone is making a motion to dismiss or something, when there is no civ pro on there. I said not one word about civ pro! Bleep bleep bleep. I will basically have to jump off a cliff if I fail because of that stupid question!

Richard said...

Still no civ pro!! Both of your dragons were defeated for nothing! lol... but at least they are defeated now! ;)

calbar blondie said...

The civpro "thing" on Q2 was very tiny, I think. It got two sentences out of me. Just like the partnership thing did on q6. I still didn't really see it, just the word set off fire alarms. DUH non-issue I'm sure..I am told that I missed the "agency" on q5. DAMN

Anonymous said...

Bleep. I missed the partnership thing too. Bloody hell.

Refusing to confirm a non issue is an issue said...

Do you guys really think there was an agency issue on question 5? A friend told me that he talked about it in the mutuality element of spec. perf. I don't buy it. I chalked it off to me being stupid and actually talking about the exam with a nerd over lunch.

Please tell me there are others that thought it was a non-issue, hey the agent had already fully performed!

(I did write about partnership ownership interest in question 6 though but not too much.)

All 6 MBEs on the essays -- that is almost unheard of. Way to stick to all of us committee.

Anonymous said...

Definitely agency on Q5. The issue was mutuality, that is, would the third party be able to sue the agent or not, because the principal was undisclosed.

Anonymous said...

yeah I handled the agency in q5 with one line b/c the principal was not disclosed...don't know if that is right though.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
calbar blondie said...

I wrote about partnership ownership interest/liability to other partners but then struck it down in q6. Guess I saw the word partnership and thought it was there for a reason.
I did not do the same in q5 for agency, although I think that might have been a bonus issue. I think the real meat was in the contracts discussion/UCC and the Specific Performance/remedies call.
The principal would have been Museum, no? I am kicking myself that I did not see that..and Paula/Agent(couldn't they have named her Anne?) could bind them as an agent..or was she trying to be an agent(first time commission?).

Anonymous said...

OK - I dont think we needed to discuss agency - b/c the call of the question asked if PAULA could enforce the agreement against SALLY. IF it was SALLY who was suing and trying to enforce the agreement against the MUSEUM (the principle) - then I would see the need to discuss agency as it would be appropriate to say the agent (Paula) could bind the principle. However, why would Paula want to use agency? She personally entered into a binding agreement with Sally and was trying to enforce it on that basis. I said the agreement was enforceable b/c the SOF was satisfied throught the certified refund check (signed w/ description) Sally gave to Paula the next day. PLEASE DISCUSS - DID we really need to discuss agency - I dont think we did

Anonymous said...

That question had a huge agency component to it. There is no valid contract unless Paula could actually bind the Museum. Paula had actual express authority--which can be oral. However, because here the product was for a sale of goods over $500--i.e. the painting, the authority must also be in writing under the equal dignities doctrine. Aside from that, there was the undisclosed P aspect.

Then there was huge contract analysis needed to see if there was actually a valid contract formed. SOF was big here, sale of goods yada yada, but Paula performed so thats an exception--plus, there was the check so that may be a judcial admission. And then you can do a remedies analysis of specific performance.

andrew said...

was there a partnership call in the the CP 6?

Goodwill = cp subject to division to the extent acquired during marriage, and the 3K in the partnership agreement was not binding, but mere evidence of goodwill value.

Isn't that the answer in a nutty nutty shell?

Did we have to discuss RUPA principles for purposes of answering CP-6?