Previous exam questions and selected answers are provided for the limited and personal use of Texas Bar Exam candidates only. The publication of previous exam questions and selected answers (or comments) is not intended to indicate one or more specific legal issues that will be considered in a future review. Do not use them as a substitute for learning the subjects covered by the exam. The answers you see below are answers from real candidates that are not changed. Based on Lightfingers` story, Howard received a search warrant for Fine House. The next day, Howard and other officers, including officers in a tactical helicopter, executed the arrest warrant for Fine House. No stolen electronic devices or other evidence of a theft network were found in the apartment. However, officers in the helicopter saw what they thought was a marijuana field in an area far behind the house. They phoned Howard to investigate this information. He discovered a significant amount of marijuana growing on the property and arrested Fine. She was informed of her rights under Miranda, told the officers who arrested her that she knew nothing about the harvest, and explicitly refused to answer further questions.
The buyer has a claim against the client for breach of contract for the completion of the building by March 1, 2009. The question is whether the builder is in breach of the contract and, if so, what damages the buyer can receive from the builder. To have a valid contract, (i) an offer, (ii) an acceptance and (iii) consideration are required. The counterpart may take the form of a Bargined to the detriment. It is a service contract and therefore the common law of contract law. A service contract cannot be revoked as soon as the service has begun. Here, the buyer and builder had a valid contract. The builder had to construct a six-storey building by March 1, 2009, and the buyer had to pay the builder $2,400,000 to construct the building.
Here, the customer breaks the contract with the seller, as the building should only be completed 6 months after February 14, 2009. In the contract between the buyer and the builder, there was a clause on lump sum damages. The clause states “1,000,000 that would take effect if the building was not completed on time.” Therefore, the buyer should be able to obtain 1,000,000 from the builder, as the building should not be completed until 6 months after February 14, 2009, i.e. beyond the date of February 1, 2009. March 2009, the date on which the building was to be completed in the contract. If the court finds that the damages clause is inadequate, the buyer may claim any foreseeable, incidental and consequential damages. The expected damages would place the plaintiff in the situation in which he would have found himself if the breach had not occurred and the contract had been fully performed. Incidental damages are the costs incurred as a result of the breach. Indirect damages are the costs that the customer had communicated by the buyer at the beginning of the contract. In the present case, the buyer would be entitled to depreciation costs from 1 March 2009 to 5 months later (since it was 6 months on 14 February 2009). The buyer knew that after March 1, 2009, he would lose about $200,000 per month for each delay, resulting in damages of about $1,000,000 ($200,000 * 5 months).
Incidental costs for the buyer may include costs associated with renting the building and the obligation to pay the tenant damages due to the builder`s violation. In addition, the builder knew that “there would be significant costs associated with any deterioration in the completion,” so it is possible that the builder would be liable for consequential damages that the buyer had notified the builder of if the building was not completed. There are 2 strong COAs for Sally and Joe has viable defenses. These are questions for the jury. The customer can successfully defend himself against the clause on liquidated shock absorbers. The question is whether the lump sum damages clause is enforceable under the party agreement. A lump sum indemnification clause in a contract is maintained if (i) the potential damage is speculative (ii) it is reasonable (iii) and such a clause was necessary. In this case, the damages arising from the buyer-builder contract are not speculative, since the buyer had calculated that if it was delayed after March 1, 2009, it would lose $200,000 per month. The amount of $1,000,000 is not reasonable, given that the damages would be calculated at approximately $200,000 per month after March 1, 2009.
There was therefore no need to dispose of that clause, since the damage would have been calculable in the event of an infringement. Therefore, the lump-sum indemnification clause would not be enforceable. The bill is likely to be challenged as an unconstitutional ex-post-facto law, as a taker of compensation and as Attainder`s bill. First, the bill is not an ex-post facto law, since the constitutional prohibition applies only to criminal laws. This law, despite its punitive effect, is not criminal in nature, so it does not violate the ex post facto clause. On June 19, 2008, Builder engaged the buyer to construct a six-storey building by March 1, 2009 for $2,400,000. The buyer calculated that if it were delayed beyond March 1, 2009, it would lose $200,000 per month. During negotiations, the buyer told Builder that “a delay in completion would result in significant costs.” The contract included a $1,000,000 lump sum damages clause that would come into effect if the building was not completed on time. Although the contract is the final approval of the buyer`s design until the 30th anniversary. In June 2008, between June 2008 and February 2009, the customer granted four requests from the buyer to significantly change the design.
If an applicant`s complaint is administratively dismissed for failure to prosecute, but is subsequently resumed, the defendant(s) have the opportunity to file a response to the reinstated complaint. However, if the defendants do not respect the deadline for the submission of their answers, a judgment in absentia on the appeal resumed will be rendered against them. Here, after Purchasher resubmitted his complaint, Broker never filed his response. Therefore, at first glance, brokers would not be able to submit a response.