How to Ace FYLSE/October 2013 Exam

Introduction edit

Contracts edit

Fact Summary edit

With J (wedding chapel), O (florist) had a 5-year requirement contract and in the last 3 years O sold J 300-1,500 roses per year. Then, with 2 years remaining, J anticipatorily repudiated the contract for financial problem.

A (event hall) emailed O an order for 1,000 white stems to O without specifying price or type. A expected roses but O instead sent orchids which are the only available “white stems” then and A accepted them without inquiry about substitutes. O billed A twice that of roses and A refused to pay.

—October 2013 FYLSE Question 1
  1. O v. J
  2. O v. A

Outline edit

O v. J edit

Governing Law edit
  1. Goods-Rose
  2. Merchant-florist and wedding chapel
  3. UCC applies
Formation edit
  1. Mutual Assent
  2. Consideration (requirement contract)
  3. Statute of Frauds (written)
Breach edit
  1. Anticipatory repudiation
Defenses edit
  1. Impracticability
Remedies edit
  1. Expecatation
  2. Mitigation
  3. Lost volume seller

O v. A edit

Governing Law edit
  1. Goods-Rose
  2. Merchant-florist and event hall
  3. UCC applies
Formation edit
  1. Offer (indefiniteness, reasonable standard)
  2. Acceptance (nonconforming goods; perfect tender rule)
  3. Consideration
  4. Statute of Frauds (substantial performance exception)
Breach edit
  1. Refusal to Pay
Defenses edit
  1. Mistake (unilateral)
  2. Ambiguity
Remedies edit

Torts edit

Fact Summary edit

Outline edit

Criminal Law edit

Fact Summary edit

A thought E cheated A of pay and asked B to open a locked drawer in E's desk to get E's embarrassing secret documents and pressure E to pay A. B agreed to help.

A and B went and opened the drawer when E came. Surprised, A chased Bob onto a balcony and pushed him and Bob fell over the balcony railing and landed on D which killed D.

—October 2013 FYLSE Question 2
  1. State v. A
  2. State v. B
  3. State v. E

Outline edit

State v. A edit

  • Alma's Solicitation of Burglary, or In the Alternative Larceny, and Extortion, Merges with the Target Crimes.
  • Alma May be Guilty of Burglary.
  • Alma May be Guilty of Attempted Extortion.
  • Defenses
Alma's Defense Against the Agreement of Conspiracy Likely Fails.
Alma's Lack of Specific Intent Defense to Burglary, Larceny, and Extortion Fails.

State v. B edit

State v. E edit