9.24.24 Lecture Recording

Overview of Exam Preparation

• Sources for Practice Exams

  • Various external outlines and sources available for practicing contract law problems.

  • Bar prep services provide books with sample questions and answers for early sign-ups.

  • Academic support on the 3rd floor offers practice examples and assistance.

Common Issues with Professors’ Exam Questions

• Predictability in Questions

  • Some professors stick to the same questions each year, leading to predictable studying patterns.

  • Example: A professor with a specific idiosyncratic focus who repeats questions annually, resulting in an easy study guide for students.

• Unpredictability

  • Other professors mix it up to avoid repetition, leading to bizarre and unique problem sets that can confuse students.

  • Example: Hypothetical fact patterns involving absurd scenarios, such as interactions with Martians or historical figures.

Exam Structure and Strategy

• Sample Answers and Past Exams

  • No prior copies of exams are circulated but will be provided post-exam along with sample responses.

  • Students can access answers from upperclassmen (2Ls and 3Ls).

• Exam Focus

  • Professors strive to maintain a focus on core legal principles, avoiding overly complicated or irrelevant scenarios.

  • Aim to ensure students are well-versed in practical, foundational knowledge and skills.

Case Study: Alaska Packers Case

• Background

  • Contract signed in March 1900 between fishermen and a harbor operation.

  • Fishermen demand more money upon arrival in Alaska due to collusion among themselves.

• Key Legal Concepts

  • Preexisting Duty Rule: You cannot modify a contract without fresh consideration.

  • Court's Decision: No enforceable modification due to lack of mutual consideration; the fishermen held a preexisting duty to fish for the agreed payment.

• Details

  • Original payment terms: $50-$60, plus 2¢ per salmon.

  • Modification: Demanded $100 per season for the same work, which the court rejected.

  • Established that extorting terms under duress does not create enforceable modifications.

Comparisons with Other Cases

• Angel v. Murray (1974)

  • Different circumstances involving a waste collector and a city contract.

  • Modification was approved despite no mutual consideration due to:

    • Unexpected change in circumstances (increase in waste due to new dwellings).

    • No duress, as the contractor presented his case before the city council.

  • The court cited unfairness and unexpected circumstances to enforce the modification.

• Key Takeaway: Good Faith Requirement

  • The need for modifications to fulfill the good faith requirement under UCC section 2209.

  • Emphasized to avoid extortion of agreements without legitimate commercial reasons.

Keeping Legal Knowledge Sharp

• Exam Preparation Essentials

  • Master the preexisting duty rule and understand case applications like Angel v. Murray.

  • Recognize the difference between UCC modifications and common law requirements for enforceability.

  • Be able to cite relevant sections, such as UCC 2209 and the rationale behind it, in discussions and analyses.

Practical Exam Tips

• Structure Your Responses

  • Use clear headings, organized arguments, and logical steps in answers to reflect understanding.

  • Prepare by hypothesizing possible legal issues, utilizing proper citation of cases and rules.

  • Remember to differentiate between sales of goods (UCC) and services (common law) in fact patterns.

Overview of Exam Preparation

Sources for Practice Exams

• Various external outlines and resources are available for practicing contract law problems, including books, online platforms, and study groups.

• Bar prep services provide comprehensive books that include sample questions and detailed answers for students who sign up early, ensuring they have ample material for preparation.

• The academic support center on the 3rd floor offers not only practice examples but also personalized assistance and tutoring sessions with experienced faculty or upperclassmen.

Common Issues with Professors’ Exam Questions

Predictability in Questions

• Some professors adhere to a specific set of questions each year, leading to predictable studying patterns. This allows students to effectively create targeted study guides and review materials, enhancing their exam preparedness.

  • Example: A professor known for having a particular idiosyncratic focus often repeats certain questions annually, making it easier for students to anticipate the exam content.

Unpredictability

• Conversely, some professors prefer to mix up their exam questions to avoid any form of repetition. This can lead to bizarre and unique problem sets that might confuse students due to their complexity and unusual scenarios.

  • Example: Hypothetical fact patterns involving absurd or surreal interactions, such as those with Martians or historical figures, may challenge students’ critical thinking and adaptability.

Exam Structure and Strategy

Sample Answers and Past Exams

• Although prior copies of exams are typically not circulated among students, professors distribute them post-examination along with compiled sample responses. This helps students understand the expectations of quality answers.

• Students are also encouraged to reach out to older peers (2Ls and 3Ls) to access answers and strategies derived from their own experiences in previous exams.

Exam Focus

• Professors aim to maintain a focus on core legal principles, ensuring that examinations avoid overly complicated or irrelevant scenarios that detract from assessing students' foundational knowledge.

  • This approach emphasizes the importance of practical skills and understanding of the main legal doctrines rather than rote memorization.

Case Study: Alaska Packers Case

Background

• This case involved a contract signed in March 1900 between fishermen and a harbor operation in Alaska. Upon arrival, fishermen sought greater compensation due to alleged collusion among themselves, raising critical legal questions regarding contract modifications.

Key Legal Concepts

• Preexisting Duty Rule: This foundational principle states that you cannot modify a contract without fresh consideration, emphasizing the necessity of mutual agreement on any changes.

• Court's Decision: The court ruled that there was no enforceable modification due to lack of mutual consideration; the fishermen possessed a preexisting duty to fish for the agreed-upon payment.

  • Details: Original payment terms stipulated $50-$60, plus 2¢ per salmon, while the fishermen's demand for $100 per season for the same work was rejected by the court. The decision established that extorting terms under duress does not lead to enforceable modifications.

Comparisons with Other Cases

Angel v. Murray (1974)

• In contrast to the Alaska Packers case, this case involved a waste collector and a city contract where a modification was approved despite the absence of mutual consideration due to:

  • Unexpected changes in circumstances (i.e., an increase in waste generated due to new housing developments).

  • The absence of duress; the contractor presented his case before the city council, showcasing professionalism and fairness in negotiations.

• The court cited the principle of fairness and unexpected circumstances to justify enforcing the modification, highlighting the need for legal flexibility in certain scenarios.

Key Takeaway: Good Faith Requirement

• Modifications to contracts must fulfill the good faith requirement under UCC section 2209, which is crucial in ensuring that agreements are modified for legitimate commercial reasons rather than extortion or coercion.

Keeping Legal Knowledge Sharp

Exam Preparation Essentials

• Master the preexisting duty rule and thoroughly understand cases such as Angel v. Murray for practical application. This ensures that you can differentiate relevant concepts effectively during exams.

• Recognize distinctions between UCC modifications and common law requirements for enforceability, which is vital for accurate legal analysis.

• Be prepared to cite applicable sections, such as UCC 2209, and understand the rationale behind these legal standards in discussions.

Practical Exam Tips

• Structure Your Responses: Employ clear headings, organized arguments, and logical step-by-step reasoning in your answers to showcase comprehension.

• Hypothesize Possible Legal Issues: Prepare for your exam by anticipating potential legal questions and utilizing proper citations of significant cases and rules where relevant.

• Differentiate Between Sale of Goods and Services: Remember to distinguish between the laws governing sales of goods (UCC) and services (common law) in various fact pattern scenarios, which can significantly affect the legal outcomes.