Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

TheWalrus
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:20 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by TheWalrus » Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:50 pm

It's just an exception.

MIWITW
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:12 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by MIWITW » Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:53 am

TheWalrus wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:50 pm
It's just an exception.
Thanks!

So in any case regarding a donee, heir, or devisee, in which they receive the property from a BFP, they'll be treated like a BFP?

Thank you!! Super struggs with property and torts.

User avatar
KernKraft
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by KernKraft » Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:10 pm

MIWITW wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:26 pm
Here's one.

"Which of the following parties cannot be protected as a bona fide purchaser of land?

A) A donee from a bona fide purchaser of the land.

B) A purchaser from an heir to the land.

C) A devisee of the land.

D) A mortgagee of the land.


------
Spoiler:
Answer:
A devisee of the land (c) cannot be protected as a bona fide purchaser (“BFP”) of land. Notice and race-notice recording acts protect BFPs from prior unrecorded conveyances of the same property. A BFP is a purchaser who takes land without notice of a prior instrument and pays valuable consideration. Donees, heirs, and devisees are not BFPs because they do not give value for their interests; i.e., they are not purchasers.
A mortgagee of the land can be protected as a BFP of land. Mortgagees for value (but not those who receive a mortgage only as security for a preexisting debt) are treated as purchasers, either expressly by recording acts or by judicial classification. Thus, mortgagees for value who take without notice can be protected as BFPs.
A purchaser from an heir to the land can be protected as a BFP of land. Donees, heirs, and devisees themselves are not purchasers and thus cannot be BFPs. However, one who buys land from such a party will be protected against a prior unrecorded conveyance from the record owner.
A donee from a bona fide purchaser of the land can be protected as a BFP of land. Under the shelter rule, anyone who takes from a BFP will be treated like a BFP (i.e., will prevail against any interest her transferor would have prevailed against). This rule exists to protect the BFP by preserving his ability to convey property. It applies even when his transferee had actual knowledge of a prior unrecorded interest or did not take for substantial pecuniary value (i.e., was a donee). However, a non-BFP who previously had title cannot acquire BFP status by selling the land to a BFP and then repurchasing it.

How is it that "Donees, heirs, and devisees are not BFPs because they do not give value for their interests," but "A donee from a bona fide purchaser of the land can be protected as a BFP of land. Under the shelter rule, anyone who takes from a BFP will be treated like a BFP (i.e., will prevail against any interest her transferor would have prevailed against)." ??????????
I think that (C) is the only right one because the Shelter Rule can't apply and a devisee is not a purchaser. (D) is wrong because a morgagee is considered a purchaser but, as you said, heirs, donees, and devisees aren't purchasers so the only way they could be protected as BFP is through the Shelter Rule. If (C) said "A purchaser from a donee to the land" it would be equivalent to (A) or (B).

User avatar
KernKraft
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by KernKraft » Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:29 am

Painter contracts with homeowner to paint his house for $1,000. Homeowner is not satisfied of the job and refuses to pay (in good faith). Painter keeps caling him to get paid. Eventually, homeowner sends him a letter saying "I'll give you $800, but only if you agree to repaint the house". No response from painter. Two days later, painter receives a check for $800 from homeowner and cashes it right away. Is homeowner now entitled to have the house repainted?

A) Yes, because painter impliedly promised to repaint by accepting the money
B) No, because there is no consideration to support the painter's implied promise, if any

Correct answer:
Spoiler:
A.
So can we just consider the implied promise of the painter, his consideration for the accord to repaint? I kind of get the answer, but B is tempting too.

Opoponax
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed May 16, 2018 10:44 am

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by Opoponax » Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:04 am

KernKraft wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:29 am
Painter contracts with homeowner to paint his house for $1,000. Homeowner is not satisfied of the job and refuses to pay (in good faith). Painter keeps caling him to get paid. Eventually, homeowner sends him a letter saying "I'll give you $800, but only if you agree to repaint the house". No response from painter. Two days later, painter receives a check for $800 from homeowner and cashes it right away. Is homeowner now entitled to have the house repainted?

A) Yes, because painter impliedly promised to repaint by accepting the money
B) No, because there is no consideration to support the painter's implied promise, if any

Correct answer:
Spoiler:
A.
So can we just consider the implied promise of the painter, his consideration for the accord to repaint? I kind of get the answer, but B is tempting too.
Huh. Usually these questions have the guy writing something on the check before they cash it.

I guessed A because the "good faith" language tends to show Painter to be the breaching party, so without more, any answer favoring Painter is probably wrong. That's the wrong way of arriving at a right answer though and will lead to choosing the wrong answer more often than not. Usually this type of question has the guy scrawling some note on the check to show his intent. On the other hand, the terms of the letter are pretty clear.

It all sounds like something a dickhead lawyer would do though. Screw some guy over who's desperate to get paid because he has payroll coming up; short him a few hundred bucks, and then reserve the right to sue his ass later to get his whole house repainted. Painter would leave small claims court, having to pay for some other contractor's work who repainted Homeowner's house, wondering what in the hell just happened to him, and if he didn't hate all lawyers before, he does now.

Poor Painter. :(

User avatar
KernKraft
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by KernKraft » Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:06 pm

Homeowner is charged with arson of his own house. Is evidence that he insured his home against fire admissible to prove his motive to burn the house down?

A. Yes
B. No
Spoiler:
Yes. I understand that it's not being offered to prove his guilt (so it doesn't violate the policy exclusion of legal relevance), but seriously? Doesn't this defeat the whole purpose of the policy exclusion of not having the jury think he is guilty just because he insured the house against the very same occurence that he was charged with? Don't we want to encourage insuring houses against fires?

User avatar
Kümmel
Posts: 972
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:07 pm

Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

Post by Kümmel » Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:11 pm

On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately-operated law school:

The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1.

A student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he started in October, a winner.

The student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in a student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally.

On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefore:
The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. The student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15.

On May 1, it was announced that the student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything.
Can anyone break this down for me because I seem to always go the wrong direction on these. My understanding is that with unilateral contracts you accept by performance so saying that youre going to write the paper is irrelevant unless it goes to showing that you've already begun performance and therefore prevents the offeror from revoking?

What does it matter that:
(1) the student was already writing the paper
(2) she "intensified" her efforts
(3) she put a note saying she accepted
(4) they lost the note
(5) they revoked before paper was submitted
(6) she won

my understanding has been

(1) if she was already doing it then there was no detrimental reliance so she couldn't have "begun performance" after the offer was made because she was already performing
(2) here she "intensified" so thats the argument that she actually began performance
(3) and (4) irrelevant because its unilateral
(5) revocation okay because its similar means but cant revoke after performance has already begun
(6) she's entitled?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest