The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
EXTREMELY INTERESTING AND SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT BAR EXAM QUESTION
| Motley Tanning Salon | 07/25/17 |
| marvelous up-to-no-good brethren | 07/25/17 |
| rebellious stage | 07/25/17 |
| lemon galvanic son of senegal toaster | 07/25/17 |
| contagious shitlib foreskin | 07/25/17 |
| rebellious stage | 07/25/17 |
| Motley Tanning Salon | 07/25/17 |
| lemon galvanic son of senegal toaster | 07/25/17 |
| Ocher zombie-like sandwich | 07/25/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:18 PM Author: Motley Tanning Salon A father lived with his son, who was an alcoholic. When drunk, the son often became violent and physically abused his father. As a result, the father always lived in fear. One night, the father heard his son on the front stoop making loud obscene remarks. The father was certain that his son was drunk and was terrified that he would be physically beaten again. In his fear, he bolted the front door and took out a revolver. When the son discovered that the door was bolted, he kicked it down. As the son burst through the front door, his father shot him four times in the chest, killing him. In fact, the son was not under the influence of alcohol or any drug and did not intend to harm his father. At trial, the father presented the above facts and asked the judge to instruct the jury on self-defense. How should the judge instruct the jury with respect to self-defense?
(A) Give the self-defense instruction, because it expresses the defense’s theory of the case.
(B) Give the self-defense instruction, because the evi-dence is sufficient to raise the defense. (
C) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father was not in imminent danger from his son.
(D) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father used excessive forc |
 |
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:28 PM Author: marvelous up-to-no-good brethren jfc @ this stupid test (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851239) |
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:24 PM Author: rebellious stage B (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851198) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:26 PM Author: lemon galvanic son of senegal toaster (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851219) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:25 PM Author: contagious shitlib foreskin Depends on the state (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851211) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:27 PM Author: rebellious stage I'm assuming this is for multistate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851226) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:28 PM Author: Motley Tanning Salon A woman borrowed $800,000 from a bank and gave the bank a note for that amount secured by a mortgage on her farm. Several years later, at a time when the woman still owed the bank $750,000 on the mortgage loan, she sold the farm to a man for $900,000. The man paid the woman $150,000 in cash and specifically assumed the mortgage note. The bank received notice of this transaction and elected not to exer-cise the optional due-on-sale clause in the mortgage. Without informing the man, the bank later released the woman from any further personal liability on the note. After he had owned the farm for a number of years, the man defaulted on the loan. The bank properly accelerated the loan, and the farm was eventually sold at a foreclosure sale for $500,000. Because there was still $600,000 owing on the note, the bank sued the man for the $100,000 deficiency. Is the man liable to the bank for the deficiency?
(A) No, because the woman would have still been primarily liable for payment, but the bank had released her from personal liability.
(B) No, because the bank’s release of the woman from per-sonal liability also released the man.
(C) Yes, because the bank’s release of the woman consti-tuted a clogging of the equity of redemption.
(D) Yes, because the man’s personal liability on the note was not affected by the bank’s release of the woman. |
|
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:31 PM Author: lemon galvanic son of senegal toaster D (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851265) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:45 PM Author: Ocher zombie-like sandwich D, but I would want to see how he "specifically assumed the mortgage note" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851384) |