I'm still in question-based review (for the rest of the week)....today, Evidence. And while the test writers again have me musing on social phenomena, at least today they have me chuckling. If you recall, or will trust my word for it, so-called "intelligence" tests had a period of controversy due to assumed cultural knowledge. The result was test scores showing rich white kids are more intelligent than poorer, more color-prone children. As an aside, this problem persists, but now for different reasons. The examples typically involve sports like rowing or croquette, the sorts that 1920s Ivy Leaguers would participate in. Evidently our writers are striving to be more culturally sensitive, but I'm afraid they missed the mark.
Yesterday, one of the contracts questions hinged on the value of "opening day" in baseball. George Steinbrenner had contracted with a hatter to provide 10,000 Yankees hats for fans on opening day of the season; but the hatter delivered Mets caps. The crux of the question was whether the hatter should have time to remedy his mistake by replacing the hats with Yankees hats. Normally he would get that chance, but because opening day is a big deal in baseball, Steinbrenner doesn't have to let him. But nothing in the question indicated that opening day was different than any other day of the year...so I am thinking that unless you are a baseball fan or a clever test taker, you probably struggle with that one.
On the other hand, today they made sure they didn't leave anybody out. Question 36 involved a company purchasing a new fork lift, which would later roll over onto one of their employees "causing massive internal bleeding and life-threatening injuries" (how pleasant). They go on to note that "A forklift is a heavy duty machine used for the hoisting and transporting of heavy objects by means of steel blades inserted under the load." Not only is all of that entirely irrelevant to the question, which was about whether statements the worker made to doctors at the hospital were admissible in court, but I'm pretty sure I was more confused about what a fork lift was after I read that than before.
So kudos for the effort and sentiment, my test writing friends...but try harder. Or less hard. I'm not really sure.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
How Are Lawyers Like Sperm?
Our reintroduction to Contracts today was again a "question-based review," which afforded our self-indulgent exam writers another opportunity to expose more universal truths to all of us. I was particularly inspired by this gem, which I can't help myself but reproduce in its entirety (and hope Kaplan's lawyers don't take notice and/or offense):
Moreover, let's look at reality. If this lawyer is living in "an exquisite home located in a fashionable neighborhood," he's probably doing pretty well in his practice. The jag bag can afford to pay his long-time friend more than $200 to do his garden, could hire someone else to do it, or just let the whole thing go. But instead, he went down to small claims court and paid $150 to try to recover $200 from his landscaper buddy.
At the risk of being branded a racist, I would further point to the fact that odds are good that the lawyer is a white man, and even greater that his friend is brown (be honest...were you picturing something else?). He has a fair shot at being a migrant worker, and may or may not speak English as a second language. Now his lawyer "friend" is suing him for trying to be nice in a conversation, and he pretty much has three choices: cave in to the lawyer's demands, go pay some other asshole lawyer more than the case is worth to find out that he is actually on the right side of the law and shouldn't worry, or else have wicked stones and go head to head against the lawyer in front of the judge. Lesson: don't be friends with lawyers.
Also, it is mostly law professors who write bar review questions. Evidently they hate lawyers and law students as much as anyone...Question 29 kicks off with another motivational premise:
Because about one in a million turns out to be a human being.
How are lawyers like nuclear weapons?
Once one side has one the other side has to get one; once they're launched, there's no calling them back; and when they arrive, they screw things up forever.
A lawyer lived in an exquisite home located in a fashionable neighborhood. He had known a gardner for many years. One day the gardner was walking down the street when he ran into the lawyer. The gardner said to the lawyer, "I will landscape your garden for $200." The lawyer replied, "That seems like a good deal." Thereupon the lawyer's brother-in-law walked by. The three individuals then started conversing about the stock market. Nothing further was said about landscaping the lawyer's garden. The next day, the lawyer telephoned the gardener and said, "I accept your offer." The gardner replied, "I can't landscape your garden because last night I contracted to landscape your neighbor's property."
The lawyer sues the gardner for breach of contract. Who will likely prevail?I honestly don't even know where to begin with this one...not so much in the answer to the question, but in my analysis thereof. I guess first I'll answer the question...the lawyer is completely in the wrong. The most fundamental legal reason is that the gardner's offer was terminated at the conclusion of their conversation, and therefore was not open for the lawyer to accept as he tried to do the next day. And as a lawyer, he should have known and not been a jerk. Good to know he's holding down the asshole name for us over $200.
Moreover, let's look at reality. If this lawyer is living in "an exquisite home located in a fashionable neighborhood," he's probably doing pretty well in his practice. The jag bag can afford to pay his long-time friend more than $200 to do his garden, could hire someone else to do it, or just let the whole thing go. But instead, he went down to small claims court and paid $150 to try to recover $200 from his landscaper buddy.
At the risk of being branded a racist, I would further point to the fact that odds are good that the lawyer is a white man, and even greater that his friend is brown (be honest...were you picturing something else?). He has a fair shot at being a migrant worker, and may or may not speak English as a second language. Now his lawyer "friend" is suing him for trying to be nice in a conversation, and he pretty much has three choices: cave in to the lawyer's demands, go pay some other asshole lawyer more than the case is worth to find out that he is actually on the right side of the law and shouldn't worry, or else have wicked stones and go head to head against the lawyer in front of the judge. Lesson: don't be friends with lawyers.
Also, it is mostly law professors who write bar review questions. Evidently they hate lawyers and law students as much as anyone...Question 29 kicks off with another motivational premise:
A student had failed the bar exam three times. On her fourth try, she hired a tutor...Thanks Prof. I needed that just now. Those butt holes also love coming up with the most convoluted, ridiculous, never-going-to-happen-but-would-cause-interesting-legal-situations-if-they-did kind of scenarios. For example, Question 7 (paraphrased):
Hod, God's little brother, was slightly less omnipotent than his older sibling. Mostly he could just put ideas in people's heads and liked to cause trouble. One day he decided to mess with law students studying contracts and/or water fountain law. He makes a water fountain manufacturer send a letter to a retailer, offering to sell him 100 water fountains at $200 each. At the exact same time, he makes the retailer write a letter to the seller offering to buy 100 water fountains at $200 each. What is their legal relationship?Eff it. I'm done.
Because about one in a million turns out to be a human being.
How are lawyers like nuclear weapons?
Once one side has one the other side has to get one; once they're launched, there's no calling them back; and when they arrive, they screw things up forever.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Welcome Wagon
Greetings ladies, gentlemen, and those of you with nothing better to do!
Allow me to explain myself: Today is Day 1 of Bar Review. For the next 10-ish weeks, a team of lecturers are going to try to force three years of education into my brain. To be quite honest, I have no idea what the result will be, although as you may suspect from my title I rather anticipate a steady degradation into decrepitude. Regardless, it is my intent to chronicle here my thoughts as I proceed through the bar exam preparation process.
It's been some time since I took a non-law school test. As I recall, it is a universal character flaw in exam question writers to consider themselves witty and clever. For example, one question for today involved the greatest basketball player to every play the game, Jordan Michaels of the Chicago Cyclones. As it turns out, when those writers are lawyers their corrupted souls and twisted minds often produce disturbing results. Let me begin this blog by sharing with you some of the torts questions that I answered this morning (paraphrased, because I have a sneaking suspicion the exam prep people's lawyers would not appreciate my re-publishing their material):
#32) A private construction crew is using dynamite to blast a foundation for a ski resort into a mountain. The noise scares the animals on a nearby mink farm, causing many of the mink mothers to eat their young. Will the rancher win if he sues the construction company?
#44) Some jerk is talking about his "friend"who is a doctor behind his back. For which of the following statements will he be liable?
(a) Don't let your daughter date him; he rapes his girlfriends.
(b) Don't go to him for treatment; that quack doesn't know how to diagnose anything
(c) Don't let him visit your mother; he would have stabbed his own mother to death last week if she hadn't died in a car accident first
(d) Don't go to him for emergency treatment; he's a drunk and once couldn't treat a patient because he was too wasted.
#46) Governor Douchebag grabbed a pina colata and escaped to Venezuela to visit his mistress while his wife was out of town. When the mistress found out the Governor was married, she called to berate him. When she got his answering machine, she left an angry message in Spanish insinuating that the Governor had given her a venerial disease to upset the Governor's wife. The Governor listened to his messages on speakerphone with his wife present. When his wife asked what the mistress had said, the Governor lied, "Happy Birthday." If Governor Douchebag sues his mistress for defamation of character, will he succeed?
#48) With her family away, a married woman with several children went to a local hotel to rendezvous with her illicit lover. While the adulterers were in the throes of passion, a fire was started and burned the hotel to the ground. The lovers escaped the flames in their bathrobes, and we unknowingly photographed by a newspaper photographer. The photo was published on the front page of the next day's paper, leading the woman's husband to file for divorce and to the woman's general shame and humiliation. If she sues the newspaper for publishing the picture without her permission, will she win?
Allow me to explain myself: Today is Day 1 of Bar Review. For the next 10-ish weeks, a team of lecturers are going to try to force three years of education into my brain. To be quite honest, I have no idea what the result will be, although as you may suspect from my title I rather anticipate a steady degradation into decrepitude. Regardless, it is my intent to chronicle here my thoughts as I proceed through the bar exam preparation process.
It's been some time since I took a non-law school test. As I recall, it is a universal character flaw in exam question writers to consider themselves witty and clever. For example, one question for today involved the greatest basketball player to every play the game, Jordan Michaels of the Chicago Cyclones. As it turns out, when those writers are lawyers their corrupted souls and twisted minds often produce disturbing results. Let me begin this blog by sharing with you some of the torts questions that I answered this morning (paraphrased, because I have a sneaking suspicion the exam prep people's lawyers would not appreciate my re-publishing their material):
#32) A private construction crew is using dynamite to blast a foundation for a ski resort into a mountain. The noise scares the animals on a nearby mink farm, causing many of the mink mothers to eat their young. Will the rancher win if he sues the construction company?
#44) Some jerk is talking about his "friend"who is a doctor behind his back. For which of the following statements will he be liable?
(a) Don't let your daughter date him; he rapes his girlfriends.
(b) Don't go to him for treatment; that quack doesn't know how to diagnose anything
(c) Don't let him visit your mother; he would have stabbed his own mother to death last week if she hadn't died in a car accident first
(d) Don't go to him for emergency treatment; he's a drunk and once couldn't treat a patient because he was too wasted.
#46) Governor Douchebag grabbed a pina colata and escaped to Venezuela to visit his mistress while his wife was out of town. When the mistress found out the Governor was married, she called to berate him. When she got his answering machine, she left an angry message in Spanish insinuating that the Governor had given her a venerial disease to upset the Governor's wife. The Governor listened to his messages on speakerphone with his wife present. When his wife asked what the mistress had said, the Governor lied, "Happy Birthday." If Governor Douchebag sues his mistress for defamation of character, will he succeed?
#48) With her family away, a married woman with several children went to a local hotel to rendezvous with her illicit lover. While the adulterers were in the throes of passion, a fire was started and burned the hotel to the ground. The lovers escaped the flames in their bathrobes, and we unknowingly photographed by a newspaper photographer. The photo was published on the front page of the next day's paper, leading the woman's husband to file for divorce and to the woman's general shame and humiliation. If she sues the newspaper for publishing the picture without her permission, will she win?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)