\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

EXTREMELY INTERESTING AND SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT BAR EXAM QUESTION

A father lived with his son, who was an alcoholic. When drun...
twinkling up-to-no-good hissy fit travel guidebook
  07/25/17
jfc @ this stupid test
Amethyst marketing idea locus
  07/25/17
B
Insecure Lascivious Old Irish Cottage
  07/25/17
...
Stirring coral wagecucks stage
  07/25/17
Depends on the state
erotic degenerate area
  07/25/17
I'm assuming this is for multistate
Insecure Lascivious Old Irish Cottage
  07/25/17
A woman borrowed $800,000 from a bank and gave the bank a no...
twinkling up-to-no-good hissy fit travel guidebook
  07/25/17
D
Stirring coral wagecucks stage
  07/25/17
D, but I would want to see how he "specifically assumed...
irate fuchsia plaza
  07/25/17


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: July 25th, 2017 12:18 PM
Author: twinkling up-to-no-good hissy fit travel guidebook

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

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851146)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 25th, 2017 12:28 PM
Author: Amethyst marketing idea locus

jfc @ this stupid test

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851239)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 25th, 2017 12:24 PM
Author: Insecure Lascivious Old Irish Cottage

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851198)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 25th, 2017 12:26 PM
Author: Stirring coral wagecucks stage



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851219)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 25th, 2017 12:25 PM
Author: erotic degenerate area

Depends on the state

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851211)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 25th, 2017 12:27 PM
Author: Insecure Lascivious Old Irish Cottage

I'm assuming this is for multistate

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851226)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 25th, 2017 12:28 PM
Author: twinkling up-to-no-good hissy fit travel guidebook

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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851233)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 25th, 2017 12:31 PM
Author: Stirring coral wagecucks stage

D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684427&forum_id=2#33851265)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 25th, 2017 12:45 PM
Author: irate fuchsia plaza

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)