So, here’s what I remember about today’s Essays 1-3
Feel free to post-game in the comments section.
(NOTE: Obviously this is just what I can remember – it’s by no means meant to be exhaustive!)
Question 1: Larry Landlord vs. Tanya Tenant
Written lease for 4-room office suite – no duration specified. Assume 1 year? Landlord promises to supply “essential services.” For 5 1/2 months, numerous occasions where water, heat, electricity, elevator shut off. One entire week in December – no water, no heat, no electricity.
Tanya says “As of Feb 28 I’m out of here.”
Landlord does nothing to find new tenant until April 15, finally has another move in on May 1.
Issue 1 – on what theory might Larry recover for March and April’s rent?
Tanya’s breach of duty to pay rent
Issue 2 – Tanya’s defenses
Landlord’s breach of “essential services” provision
Landlord’s failure to mitigate
Landlord’s frustration of Tanya’s purpose
Question 2: Cold Drink Blender
Named “cold drink blender,” brochure contains statement “perfect for making all your cold drinks” and “do not fill more than 2 inches below top.” Consumer buys one, fills it to top with hot soup, and blends – gets burned by splashing hot soup. Alleges that part of the cause of injuries was Manufacturer’s failure to include a blender lock. Blender lock not required by federal regulations.
Issue 1 – Manuf. moves to dismiss based on Consumer’s misuse
Issue 2 – Manuf. moves to dismiss based on Consumer’s negligence
Issue 3 – Manuf. moves to dismiss based on compliance with federal safety standards
Issue 4 – Retailer moves to dismiss based on its lack of involvement in design process.
Question 3: Mechanic Evidence
Issue 1 – Mechanic’s statement “His brakes are bad – he should get them fixed.”
Issue 2 – Mechanic’s instruction to Helper “Inspected brakes – repair?” and the work order form Helper wrote on.
Issue 3 – Mechanic’s statement to Plaintiff “Your brakes are bad.”
Issue 4 – Plaintiff’s response to Mechanic “I’m not surprised – they felt funny.”
Issue 5 – Bystander’s shout “The sports car ran the red light and hit the truck!”
PERFORMANCE TEST OUTLINE
I thought this was extremely easy.
#1) Substantially Factually Related (if you even make it its own separate header)
#2) The Final Presumption and its Rebuttability
#3) The Ethical Screen
What did you think of the PT? Can you list out your outline? I always screw the outline up (probably did today too).
Yah that is what I did for the PT. Point 2 is ALL law, no facts. Point 3 is very fact intensive. I underestimated it and had to rush to finish it.
Did you guys discuss federal preemption on Issue 3 of the Blender essay? I did, but I was kinda nervous about it, someone shouted *gooooood idea???* in my head so I wrote about Supremacy Clause and DCC… did anyone else?
I totally approached the first question differently but probably no big deal.
Landlord’s claims: breach of contract with expectancy damages (breach of covenant to pay rent) and estoppel based on foreseeable reliance
T’s defenses:periodic tenancy and she gave enough notice; breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; failure to mitigate
Mine was very different than you and biff. I did 1) can the initial lawyer be disqualified (which focused on the substantially related thing – and the presumption), then 2) is any disqualification imputed to NCHC, then 3) judicial recommendation.
KH – mine was closer to yours, but missed the reliance bit, and added the minority position on IWH as applicable to commercial leases.
Oh well – there’s always Thursday.
You realize that observant Jews will be taking this portion of the test tomorrow. Good job.
I am thanking you! Why are you deleting my posts?
[...] California Bar Exam – Day One Essays & NOW WITH PT OUTLINE! (bottom) So, here’s what I remember about today’s Essays 1-3 Feel free to post-game in the comments section. (NOTE: […] [...]
duh dude. Federal preemption had no place in the products liability discussion. The statute merely requires certain safety standards. Compliance with those standards, at best, is evidence that the product is not unreasonably dangerous.
Oh well, the grader will be in a coma and will skim right over that anyway.
You realize that you completely outlined the exam for those with accomodations and taking this test Wednesday. This is such a disservice to other examinees. I could care less who observes what on religious holidays, but let’s have an even playing field.
Presumably, you mean that the disservice was the bar’s decision to allow certain Jews to take the test a day later.
FEDERAL PREEMPTION?!!!!!!
In the products liability question of purely state tort law, federal preemption of mere compliance with federal regs???
Okay, don’t worry, the grader will be stoned as fuck reading your paper (or skimming your heading I should say).
You will be fine – as long as you didnt put “FEDERAL PREEMPTION” as a header. This was not a Con Law fact pattern. Nobody raised this.
for property I had this:
1) leasehold – implied PT month to month
2) holdover (maybe – couldnt figure out any other way to nail her for march and april)
3) breach of duty to pay rent
4) ICQE – contructive eviction
5) Implied Warranty of Habitability (i know commerical lease, but he covenanted expressly for “essentials” and the place was a wreck, so this defense had to be raised, plus some courts have applied IWH to comercial leases in unconscionable scenarios)
6) Duty to mitigate
7) Polar Bears and good weed
Note I’m posting this three days or so later. I meant that you seem to be giving your friends who likely got accomodations a big break. How much did they pay you?