FYLSX Legal Analysis & Essay Writing Skills 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A FYLSX contract essay involves an oral agreement for the sale of land. After spotting offer and acceptance, the next most critical issue to analyze is:
- Whether the parties had prior dealings establishing a course of conduct
- Whether the agreement satisfies the Statute of Frauds writing requirement (Correct answer)
- Whether the price was commercially reasonable under UCC Article 2
- Whether the seller had marketable title at the time of contracting
Correct answer: Whether the agreement satisfies the Statute of Frauds writing requirement
Contracts for the sale of land must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds, making enforceability the threshold issue once formation is established.
Question 2: In analyzing criminal law on the FYLSX, an examinee must distinguish between specific intent and general intent crimes because:
- General intent crimes carry higher penalties under California law
- Certain defenses, such as voluntary intoxication, apply only to specific intent crimes (Correct answer)
- Specific intent crimes do not require proof of actus reus
- The distinction determines whether the case is tried in state or federal court
Correct answer: Certain defenses, such as voluntary intoxication, apply only to specific intent crimes
Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes because it can negate the required mental state, but it does not negate the general intent required for general intent crimes.
Question 3: Which of the following best illustrates the difference between actual cause and proximate cause in a FYLSX negligence essay?
- Actual cause is a policy concept; proximate cause is a factual inquiry
- Actual cause asks 'but for the breach, would harm have occurred?'; proximate cause asks whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the breach (Correct answer)
- Actual cause requires expert testimony; proximate cause does not
- Actual cause and proximate cause are interchangeable terms for the same analysis
Correct answer: Actual cause asks 'but for the breach, would harm have occurred?'; proximate cause asks whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the breach
Actual cause (but-for causation) is a factual link between breach and harm, while proximate cause limits liability by asking whether the type of harm was a foreseeable result of the negligent conduct.
Question 4: A FYLSX essay asks you to 'advise the defendant.' This instruction most directly requires you to:
- Analyze all facts objectively from a neutral perspective without recommending an outcome
- Identify the legal issues, analyze the likely outcomes, and state which arguments the defendant should raise (Correct answer)
- Only present the defendant's strongest arguments and ignore the plaintiff's position entirely
- Draft a legal memo identical in format to what you would file in court
Correct answer: Identify the legal issues, analyze the likely outcomes, and state which arguments the defendant should raise
Advising the defendant means applying legal analysis to assess realistic outcomes and recommending the legal arguments and defenses most favorable to the defendant's position.
Question 5: An offer to purchase a car is accepted via email two days after the offeror sent a written revocation by first-class mail. The issue of whether a contract was formed depends on:
- Whether the car is worth more than $500, triggering UCC Article 2 writing requirements
- The mailbox rule, which determines when acceptance becomes effective relative to revocation (Correct answer)
- Whether email constitutes a valid method of acceptance under the common law
- The mental intent of the offeror at the time the revocation was mailed
Correct answer: The mailbox rule, which determines when acceptance becomes effective relative to revocation
The mailbox rule makes acceptance effective upon dispatch, so if acceptance was emailed before the revocation was received, a contract may have been formed despite the attempted revocation.
Question 6: A FYLSX examinee writes: 'Defendant is liable because his actions were wrong and injured the plaintiff.' This sentence fails as legal analysis because:
- It is too short; longer sentences always score higher on bar exam essays
- It states a conclusion without applying any legal elements or connecting facts to a rule (Correct answer)
- It uses first-person perspective, which is prohibited in formal legal writing
- It fails to cite a specific statute number supporting the legal conclusion
Correct answer: It states a conclusion without applying any legal elements or connecting facts to a rule
Legal analysis requires identifying the applicable rule, applying each element to the specific facts, and then drawing a conclusion — conclusory statements without analysis earn no points.
Question 7: On the FYLSX, when a fact pattern contains multiple defendants who each contributed to a plaintiff's injury, the examinee should:
- Analyze only the primary defendant since secondary defendants reduce complexity
- Analyze each defendant's liability separately, applying the relevant legal test to each (Correct answer)
- Combine all defendants into a single analysis block to demonstrate understanding of joint liability
- Address defendants in alphabetical order to organize the essay efficiently
Correct answer: Analyze each defendant's liability separately, applying the relevant legal test to each
Each defendant's liability must be independently analyzed because the facts, applicable legal theories, and defenses may differ for each defendant even when they contributed to the same injury.
FYLSX Legal Analysis & Essay Writing Skills 5
A FYLSX contract essay involves an oral agreement for the sale of land.
After spotting offer and acceptance, the next most critical issue to analyze is: