A Heartfelt F* You to the NCBEX
First of all, for those of you, who I presume to be in the vast majority, who scratched their head this afternoon thinking "just what the f* is Dumpor's Rule and why the f* didn't anyone tell me about it," here it is:
Rule in Dumpor's case: Where LL agrees to one assignment, he is held to have agreed to subsequent assignments unless he specifically reserves his right to forbid them. (Does not apply to subleases; is abolished in most jurisdictions.)
So yes, that is something we learned about, it's just that they're calling it something we've never heard of before. That's totally fair. It's like potayto/potahto, or first degree murder of the NCBEX and their families/justifiable homicide.
Second, why is it that nobody told me that there was a 7th category of questions, namely on Civ Pro, on this dirty bitch? Why did BarBri never say "gosh guys, you should really buckle down and learn what it means to move for directed verdict/summary judgment/dismissal, because they're going to ask you 5-10 questions that requires you to know that stuff."
And don't tell me I should have learned that for the essays. I know I should have, but I didn't.
And finally, thank you so much to the MBTA, which knew that I was going to be in a delicate state of mind this afternoon and went out of its way not to shock me with efficiency. Thank you for making sure there were no Silver line buses for the longest time, then three all together, two of which were completely empty. Thank you for the festive smell in the dank underground tunnel between the Red and Orange lines at Downtown Crossing. And in particular, thank you for allowing me to squeeze myself onto a preposterously overcrowded Orange line train towards home, then stopping one stop before my stop and announcing that the train was going express to the end of the line. My favorite part was that almost literally every single person on the train got off, because no one ever goes to the end of the line. There was like, one guy left on the car I got out of and I think he was either passed out drunk or dead. But never fear, you had a fully packed train right behind it for us to elbow and claw our way onto (sorry to that family of four I knocked under the train) to go one more stop. Because we were all just going one more stop.
Rule in Dumpor's case: Where LL agrees to one assignment, he is held to have agreed to subsequent assignments unless he specifically reserves his right to forbid them. (Does not apply to subleases; is abolished in most jurisdictions.)
So yes, that is something we learned about, it's just that they're calling it something we've never heard of before. That's totally fair. It's like potayto/potahto, or first degree murder of the NCBEX and their families/justifiable homicide.
Second, why is it that nobody told me that there was a 7th category of questions, namely on Civ Pro, on this dirty bitch? Why did BarBri never say "gosh guys, you should really buckle down and learn what it means to move for directed verdict/summary judgment/dismissal, because they're going to ask you 5-10 questions that requires you to know that stuff."
And don't tell me I should have learned that for the essays. I know I should have, but I didn't.
And finally, thank you so much to the MBTA, which knew that I was going to be in a delicate state of mind this afternoon and went out of its way not to shock me with efficiency. Thank you for making sure there were no Silver line buses for the longest time, then three all together, two of which were completely empty. Thank you for the festive smell in the dank underground tunnel between the Red and Orange lines at Downtown Crossing. And in particular, thank you for allowing me to squeeze myself onto a preposterously overcrowded Orange line train towards home, then stopping one stop before my stop and announcing that the train was going express to the end of the line. My favorite part was that almost literally every single person on the train got off, because no one ever goes to the end of the line. There was like, one guy left on the car I got out of and I think he was either passed out drunk or dead. But never fear, you had a fully packed train right behind it for us to elbow and claw our way onto (sorry to that family of four I knocked under the train) to go one more stop. Because we were all just going one more stop.
7 Comments:
At 10:45 PM, Anonymous said…
how about 8 subjects.... wills!!! i swear there were a dozen questions on wills...
At 11:25 PM, Anonymous said…
How about that representative agent question? Or whether a reasonable doubt would make a person pause and take facts as untrue as presented? WTF? A father teaches his kids Russian Roulette and gives them beer, and is then charged with manslaughter. Great. My ass hurts from being raped.
At 4:29 PM, Anonymous said…
The answer was sublease.
Miracuously, I had studied property for 2 hours -
I read answers for 50 PMBR property question. And got the whole down low on Assignment v. Sublease. I saw the fact pattern, wanted the sublease answer and found it.
Dumpor's Rule. Yes, that was strange.
what about the ABCO, FOODCO, DEVCO?
I encountered that question set 177 and 178 (PM) with about 4 minutes to go on the exam and 4 problems to go. It was about 4:26
I had just flown through the prior 6 problems in about 6 minutes.
tortious interference with one's contract.
My last problem of the day was the really long 900 number fact pattern. I didn't read it all, I looked at the answer choices. 1 minute to go. ex post facto clause. Both Bar Bri and PMBR said, those are always a wrong answer. Ex Post Facto is a criminal law concept. This was a civil case, I think.
Each answer choice was four lines long. Those MFers. My last problem. I filled in Box A. It seemed to fit.
At 5:44 PM, feithline said…
In re: wills, I enjoyed the wills questions, because it let me feel like I could pick the right answer without thinking about hideous evil contracts (boo hiss)
In re: reasonable doubt, I second your WTF, and demand a recount! What the hell was the answer to that f*ing thing? I knew going in that I know nothing about the constitutionality of jury instructions so I said they were both bad and moved on (after, like, five wasted minutes).
In re: sublease, I picked that too! Yay! Solidarity!
I was 100% brain dead for 179 & 180. I said the awful elections thing was constitutional and that the 900 number thing violated the commerce clause, but just because.
At 3:02 AM, Anonymous said…
I'm glad that someone else found the dumpor's rule answer a little odd. I think the obscurity of this nomenclature is apparent when a google search for it only reveals two hits - and ONE was this blog! I'm guessing that the bar examiners just thought it'd make a good laugh to put that one in there :)
At 1:03 AM, Anonymous said…
Now that a few days have passed, my most vivid memory is chuckling that one of the answers involved the word caribou.
At 9:06 PM, Anonymous said…
If i remember correctly tho, the dumpor's answer was correct. Had to do with someone wanting to sublease w/out landlord permission or something. Cruel
Post a Comment
<< Home