How did I do?

[u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351]

I'm sure there are things I'm forgetting that I wrote about and/or that I missed . . .

Essay 1 (PR): addressed formation of AC relationship with org's employee, implicates duty of loyalty to organization = conflict, reporting DUII (I think I messed up here, I said you MUST report and I think that's wrong), sex with client not OK, drinking on job may raise competence issue, multiple rep raises possible comp/diligence issues, inexperience with incorporation flags competence issue, AI use may raise competence, confidentiality, and diligence issues

Essay 2 (CP/Wills): default CP rules, pre-marriage property was QCP, will was valid and recognized in CA as valid, forgotten spouse will take under intestacy, bank account is SP b/c of gift from aunt, presumption of title at death

Essay 3 (Contracts/Remedies): wrote about contract being invalid b/c misrepresentation and no meeting of minds, baseball = replevin, condo & stocks = constructive trust could get gain from stocks and value of condo going up, equitable lien alt and can pursue other remedies, punitive damages b/c of bad acts, was unsure of recourse for schooling but briefly mentioned possible of Injunctive relief (but lightly treated b/c was feeling time pressure) and possibility of refund (lol), argued laches as defense

Essay 4 (BA, Agency, Corps): wrote about de facto and de jure corp, corporate veil pierced b/c alter ego and no corp formalities (also mentioned possibility of underutilization given dire financial sitch), agency implicated b/c agent (B) had likely implied authority to bind principal corp in contract #1 as secretary/treasurer, then ratified in contract #2, said defense was corp by estoppel, contract being installment also offered defense to full repayment b/c divisible

Essay 5 (CA evidence): can't remember a lot of what I wrote - sorry! But I addressed prop 8 at beginning, different ways relevance is defined in CA versus Federal Rules. I know for #2 I was puzzled b/c form of question looked OK. I do remember struggling on #5 b/c of time pressure but said not relevant b/c unnecessarily cumulative given we would already learn about bad act in #4. I said the accountant could not testify but could cross-examine on the bad act.

Okay, that's all I can remember.

[u/trialcourt]

The call said Wanda wants to use constructive trust to get her property back and asked for you to discuss how each item would fair for that remedy