Gap-filler.....
The value of taking tests cannot be underestimated. Often people such as myself are convinced we know the law because we can spew back a few sentences on the topic. But unless challenged by the facts, this isn't always true. The more I do tests, the more I fill in the gaps.
Yesterday I was working on a obvious 2-207 issue, and felt good about it until I looked at the answer. I might have passed, but the "knock out" provisions or "gap filler" aspect of 2-207 I have never seen tested. Usually it's just whether there is a material alteration of the contract that is a deal breaker. That's easy to spot. This was not, and this is precisely why the California bar exam has a 48% pass rate and even one out of ten of the elite go down in flames. No matter how much you know, if you don't know it within the CONTEXT of the exam, your toast. Pure and simple.
See you next Feb......
Yesterday I was working on a obvious 2-207 issue, and felt good about it until I looked at the answer. I might have passed, but the "knock out" provisions or "gap filler" aspect of 2-207 I have never seen tested. Usually it's just whether there is a material alteration of the contract that is a deal breaker. That's easy to spot. This was not, and this is precisely why the California bar exam has a 48% pass rate and even one out of ten of the elite go down in flames. No matter how much you know, if you don't know it within the CONTEXT of the exam, your toast. Pure and simple.
See you next Feb......
posted by Robert Smith at 9:32 AM
1 Comments:
I agree. I ran into a remedies question yesterday on sale of a house.. involving 2 people who went in on it together each giving equal amt of money for the downpayment, one person takes title in their name, house appreciates. Then dan, the guy who has title, sells, what remedy for Pam, who gave consideration
I was feeling ok... did remedies for about 85 hours, because I HATE remedies, and can't get it straight for the life of me, and then I read the model answer, that says Pam's ability to get a purchase money resulting trust is cut off by sale to a BFP, but no wait, she can get a constructive trust..
I am wondering to myself, she wants the ##*King money, not the house.. why BFP? and why does it get cut off for the purchase $$ resulting trust, but NOT the freaking other equitable remedies .
This sent me over the edge yesterday, and I had to lay on the couch and drink some wine. I hate California.
PS.. maybe there is an easy answer to this .. which wouldn't surprise me since I am now getting tripped up on "EASY" things like the statute of frauds. Way to go, with 3 weeks to go.
Post a Comment
<< Home