HAPPY FATHER'S DAY, DAD!

I promise I will call later, but I just wanted to wish you a Happy Dad's Day before I leave for Church. I have about an hour before I have to start getting ready and I thought I'd post and give an update on yesterday.

Thanks for the offers for a clock. I went out yesterday to find one and found it VERY difficult. I guess no one really wants tiny analog clocks anymore. Finally, I decided to just order one from Amazon. I ended up getting three so I can pick the best one when they get here. They were VERY cheap!

So, I didn't get too far in the MC's yesterday. After the "Introductory" problems, I listed to the downloadable lecture on them. The first thing the lecturer said was, "Contracts is the hardest area on the Multistate Exam. You won't get them all right-- in fact, you'll probably only get around half right." That should have made me feel better since I did only get about half right on the practice, but it didn't. It made me angry at the bar examiners for designing questions that they hope people get wrong! I don't know why they have to be so tricky-- why can't they just test the law?

Here's an example: One question gave a simple fact pattern. (A baseball player promised a little kid that he would hit a home run for the kid. Later the kid's dad told the baseball player that the dad would pay him $$ if he did hit the homer.) The call of the question was: "Which is true under the modern trend?" OK, so... you read the answers and think about what "trend" means. I thought that meant the majority view (that's a trend, right?). Nope. "Modern trend" apparently means the minority view! And it gets worse-- the lecturer said, "Are you expected to know the minority view? No. All you need to know is that it isn't the majority view." So, you find the majority view and then pick whatever answer is opposite. BUT THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK! Sometimes the minority view isn't the opposite-- sometimes it's just a slight variation.

So, I guess the moral of the story is this: for contracts, you get the basics down and then forget the rest. The lecturer said, "Don't waste your time trying to learn the law-- it's not going to help you. Just cut your losses." Nice. Really helpful. Thanks!

So, the answer to the baseball player question? Well, the question wasn't really about whether there was a contract (K) or not. It was whether the K was enforceable b/c there was "preexisting duty." The promise to the kid put the baseball player under a moral responsibility to perform (get the homer). A later K to perform the same duty would not be enforceable under the majority view because there is no new consideration/promise. You can't get a benefit for something you already should do. The minority view is that when there's a promise to a third party the preexisting duty rule doesn't apply.

Now let's hope that exact question is on the exam!