Practice Questions Explanations Megathread

[RespondeatInferior]

Going through some Adaptibar questions, and finding the explanations conflict. The parol evidence rule bars prior or contemp oral that contradict the full, completely integrated contract. Adaptibar explanations have said one of two things: 1) "Extrinsic evidence cannot supplement or contradict the express terms of a completely integrated agreement, but the evidence can explain the terms of an agreement.” AND 2) Extrinsic evidence cannot contradict but CAN supplement or explain the fully integrated K." Does anyone know which is correct?

I'm not sure about the conflicting usage of supplement there, but here's the rule as I generally know it:

If a contract is completely integrated, you cannot introduce prior or contemporaneous extrinsic evidence of prior understandings or negotiations UNLESS you are raising a defense to the formation of contract, you are raising a defense to the enforcement of the contract, you are attempting to prove a condition precedent to the formation of the contract, you are bringing the evidence to clarify an ambiguity in the contract, or you are bringing the evidence to show there was a wholly separate agreement.

If a contract is partially integrated, you can bring extrinsic evidence so long as it is consistent with the writing. The same exceptions as above apply here.

If a contract is not integrated at all you can bring anything you want, subject to the traditional rules of evidence.

[RespondeatInferior]

Sorry, one more: statements made within business records. Are statements/notations made within those documents automatically admissible, or do those statements have to be brought in under another exception/it could be shown whoever wrote the statement had a business or public duty to report the info/statement accurately?

If the statement in the business record is hearsay then it would have to pass its own hearsay exception/exclusion to be admissible. Hearsay within hearsay.

[KernKraft]

A high school teacher played on a hockey team in a local recreational league. During a league game, the teacher was involved in a fight with another hockey player. That player sued the teacher in a battery action to recover for injuries inflicted during the fight. The teacher contended that he had acted in self-defense. The teacher called his principal to testify that the teacher had a reputation within the school community for peacefulness. The plaintiff, who had not introduced evidence of the teacher’s character for violence, objected to this testimony.

Should the court admit this testimony?

Answers:

A: Yes, because the defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of a pertinent good character trait.
B: because character evidence may be introduced through reputation testimony.
C: because the plaintiff had not introduced evidence of the teacher’s character for violence.
D: No, because such evidence is not admissible in a civil action.

Spoiler:

You Selected: A: Yes, because the defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of a pertinent good character trait.
B: Yes, because character evidence may be introduced through reputation testimony.
C: No, because the plaintiff had not introduced evidence of the teacher’s character for violence.
Correct Answer: D: No, because such evidence is not admissible in a civil action.

Rationale:

Answer choice D is correct. Evidence of a defendant’s character is inadmissible in a civil case to prove that the defendant acted in conformity with that character trait unless the defendant’s character is an essential element of a claim or defense. Since the defendant’s character for peacefulness is not an element of either battery or self-defense, the principal’s testimony is not admissible. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although a defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of a pertinent good character trait in a criminal case, such evidence is not admissible in a civil case. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although reputation testimony is an acceptable form of presenting character evidence when such evidence is permitted, character evidence is generally not admissible in a civil action. Answer choice C is incorrect because it is not relevant that the plaintiff has not introduced such evidence. Such evidence is not permitted in a civil case, whether introduced by the plaintiff or the defendant.

I mean, I guess I get that character for peacefulness is not an essential trait of a self-defense claim for battery, but it just feels....wrong. Is the only reason this is inadmissible just because it is not essential to show the teacher is a peaceful person? What if it was just the teacher's word against the student? It seems like it would be a pretty big deal for your defense to be able to have people back up the fact that you don't start fights. It feels wrong and I hate it. Though only 19% of people got this one right. So at least I'm not alone.

I would have chosen the same wrong answer too. Wow, these are the kind of annoying questions that don't make any sense.

[RespondeatInferior]

Sorry, one more: statements made within business records. Are statements/notations made within those documents automatically admissible, or do those statements have to be brought in under another exception/it could be shown whoever wrote the statement had a business or public duty to report the info/statement accurately?

If the statement in the business record is hearsay then it would have to pass its own hearsay exception/exclusion to be admissible. Hearsay within hearsay.

Had this slightly wrong, here's a follow up to this. If the statement in the business record is by someone who works for the business, you do not need a separate hearsay exception. But you do otherwise.

[onlyunholy]

Thanks so much, I appreciate the help and clarification!

[TheWalrus]

Missing something obvious here:
A resident of state a sued a resident of state b in Federal district court for breach of contract. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. The plaintiff alleged that the contract was entered into in State C and was to be performed in State D. The plaintiff further alleged that he failed to perform.

While hearing this case, what substantive law should the federal district court apply?
A. The law state D court apply.
B. The law that the state court c would apply.
C. The law that the state b court would apply.
D. The law that the federal district court believes most logically applies.

I picked a because the contract is to be performed in State D. Why is it C?

[bigballerbrand]

Missing something obvious here:
A resident of state a sued a resident of state b in Federal district court for breach of contract. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. The plaintiff alleged that the contract was entered into in State C and was to be performed in State D. The plaintiff further alleged that he failed to perform.

While hearing this case, what substantive law should the federal district court apply?
A. The law state D court apply.
B. The law that the state court c would apply.
C. The law that the state b court would apply.
D. The law that the federal district court believes most logically applies.

I picked a because the contract is to be performed in State D. Why is it C?

Is the Federal District Court in State B?

Edit: If so, for Erie purposes, when a federal court has diversity jurisdiction it uses the choice-of-law rules of the state that it sits in. So if the district court is in State B, it would apply the choice-of-law rules of State B.

[TheWalrus]

What jobs count for self government purposes when discriminating against aliens?

[weasels]

What jobs count for self government purposes when discriminating against aliens?

Police officers, probation officers and primary and secondary school teachers.

[TheWalrus]

What jobs count for self government purposes when discriminating against aliens?

Police officers, probation officers and primary and secondary school teachers.

Gracias. I'm trying to recram all of this stuff for my second bar, so if I can't find something with a quick Google search, I don't really have the time since I'm also still working.

[TheWalrus]

This makes no sense to me:
Which of the following additions to or changes in the facts of the preceding question would produce a violation of the common law Rule against perpetuities?
A. A posthumous child was born to the man.
B. The man's will expressed the intention to include all after-born grandchildren in the gift.
C. The instrument was an inter vivos conveyance rather than a will.
D. The man had no grandchildren living at the time if his death.

How is it not a?

[onlyunholy]

Have you posted the preceding question?

From looking at the question, I am pretty sure I've seen it -- is it from barbri? Pretty sure the answer is C, because the "time the document takes effect" will vary depending whether the document is a will or an inter vivos transfer. For wills, the date is the date of death. For inter vivos transfers, it is the date when the transaction is completed. This can affect RAP....

[KernKraft]

Ok, this is bothering me because I saw contradicting explanations on Adaptibar in two different questions that tested the same issue and gave opposite results.

Criminal statute says "rape is sex without consent". Who has the burden of proving consent? The prosecution, because it's an element of the crime or the defendant because it's a defense?

Question #1312 says that the prosecution has the burden of proof, but I'm sure 100% that another question said exactly the opposite. Which one is right? Is one version an outdated version of the law?

[RespondeatInferior]

Ok, this is bothering me because I saw contradicting explanations on Adaptibar in two different questions that tested the same issue and gave opposite results.

Criminal statute says "rape is sex without consent". Who has the burden of proving consent? The prosecution, because it's an element of the crime or the defendant because it's a defense?

Question #1312 says that the prosecution has the burden of proof, but I'm sure 100% that another question said exactly the opposite. Which one is right? Is one version an outdated version of the law?

Innocent until proven guilty. Stop stressing yourself out.

Edit: In more detail, if it's an element required for the statute to be enforced, it's not a defense.

[TheWalrus]

Have you posted the preceding question?

From looking at the question, I am pretty sure I've seen it -- is it from barbri? Pretty sure the answer is C, because the "time the document takes effect" will vary depending whether the document is a will or an inter vivos transfer. For wills, the date is the date of death. For inter vivos transfers, it is the date when the transaction is completed. This can affect RAP....

Thanks that makes sense. It's from the pre-questions part of emmanuel's and the explanation was really short so I didn't get it.

[RespondeatInferior]

No questions here, I'd just like to take a moment to say fuck statutory interpleader and fuck rule interpleader. Stupid-ass overlapping horseshit.

[TheWalrus]

No questions here, I'd just like to take a moment to say fuck statutory interpleader and fuck rule interpleader. Stupid-ass overlapping horseshit.

You are going to pass quite easily.

[RespondeatInferior]

No questions here, I'd just like to take a moment to say fuck statutory interpleader and fuck rule interpleader. Stupid-ass overlapping horseshit.

You are going to pass quite easily.

Here's hoping we all do, godspeed.

Why am I still awake

[TheWalrus]

No questions here, I'd just like to take a moment to say fuck statutory interpleader and fuck rule interpleader. Stupid-ass overlapping horseshit.

You are going to pass quite easily.

Here's hoping we all do, godspeed.

Why am I still awake

I had the same problem.

[KernKraft]

so... is joint tenancy severed by a contract to sell or by the conveyance? long day today...

[onlyunholy]

i believe.. severs if K or by conveyance...?

[FinallyPassedTheBar]

I believe joint tenancy is severed at time of contract. But I am only slightly confident on that.

[RespondeatInferior]

I said contract, because isn't the general rule that buyer has equitable title at contract? Hence why they're on the hook when the house burns down before they get the deed.

[TheWalrus]

I said contract, because isn't the general rule that buyer has equitable title at contract? Hence why they're on the hook when the house burns down before they get the deed.

What I believe.

[MIWITW]

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)." ??????????