One of my biggest fears while studying for the California bar exam was that I would encounter a cross-over question. It’s one thing to put on your “Crimes” hat and to spot all the crimes or to put on your “Contracts” hat and go through the formula for dealing with a contract dispute. It’s a whole different ball game to have to wear two hats at once and to spot unique twists on the normal issues. I’ll try to focus a few posts on past cross-over questions to give you an idea of how you might encounter these on the bar exam and how best to prepare. There's no reason that a cross-over question should prevent you from passing. A little extra preparation will have you ready for these curve balls.
The California bar exam in February 2011 had two cross-over questions – a Business Associations/Professional Responsibility cross-over and then a mega mash-up of Contracts, Evidence, and Remedies. I’ll be addressing that second essay question in this post because it involved three subjects. As you’ll see, it actually wasn’t too bad.
February 2011 Essay #6
This question involved a would-be winning lottery ticket and a store attendant’s error in entering the wrong numbers for a usual customer. The would-be winner filed a lawsuit against the store seeking to reform his lottery ticket (to reflect his usual numbers which were the winning numbers) and the store filed a cross-complaint seeking rescission.
The first question asks whether certain testimony should be admitted under California law. At trial, the store objects to the sore loser’s testimony about (1) the clerk’s question (“The usual numbers?”), (2) the loser’s answers; and (3) the loser’s attempts to explain what “the usual numbers” means. The second question asks how the court should rule on each party’s claim for relief.
Hopefully seeing “admitted” signals to you that there is an evidence component to the question. For each of the three parts of the first question, you should go through the usual evidence checklist: relevance (legal/logical); hearsay; and any remotely applicable hearsay exceptions.
Did you spot the contract issue in the first question? It’s certainly a little subtle since this isn’t the normal sort of “contract” that you’re used to seeing. Hopefully during your analysis you picked up on the argument over the meaning of terms and it reminded you of the good ol’ parol evidence rule. Remember the argument over the meaning of “chicken”?
The second question is a mix of contracts and remedies. Before you jump right into your remedies checklist, don’t forget to see if the parties have requested anything specific. Here, they did – reform and rescission. You should address these first.
Final Thoughts
That wasn’t too bad after all, right? A valuable lesson to be learned from this question is that you should not freak out when you encounter a cross-over question. Keep a cool head and don’t lose your focus. Break it down into its individual parts. See what the questions are asking.
You’ll frequently see cross-over questions that involve Remedies and Professional Responsibility. Makes sense. These should be subjects that you don’t just learn in a vacuum, but are ready to apply in different contexts (i.e., Contracts, Business Associations, TWE).
No comments:
Post a Comment