Re: Practice Questions Explanations Megathread
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:50 pm
It's just an exception.
Taking you from Law School to Life
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).MIWITW wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:26 pmHere'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.
Huh. Usually these questions have the guy writing something on the check before they cash it.KernKraft wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:29 amPainter 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: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.Spoiler:
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?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.