Overclaim Marker

Subject distribution

• Civil Procedure2
• CRIMINAL1
• Torts1

• 18784_fellowship_lot_used_car · TORTS · Choice AFraud never applies to private sales between acquaintances.

  Why it's attractive

  The word 'never' is the visible overclaim marker. Fraud applies in every commercial context where the elements are met; the acquaintance status is irrelevant.

  Why it's wrong

  The word 'never' is the visible overclaim marker. Fraud applies in every commercial context where the elements are met; the acquaintance status is irrelevant.

• 18784_fellowship_lot_used_car · TORTS · Choice BRuth wins because reliance is presumed whenever a seller speaks.

  Why it's attractive

  The word 'presumed' is the visible overclaim marker. Reliance is an affirmative element the plaintiff must prove, and reasonable-reliance inquiry is required in every fraud claim.

  Why it's wrong

  The word 'presumed' is the visible overclaim marker. Reliance is an affirmative element the plaintiff must prove, and reasonable-reliance inquiry is required in every fraud claim.

• 18784_fellowship_lot_used_car · TORTS · Choice DDaniel's oral assurance was automatically incorporated into the bill of sale.

  Why it's attractive

  The call is in tort (fraud defense); the choice is in contract (parol evidence / contract integration). The choice answers a different question than the one asked.

  Why it's wrong

  The call is in tort (fraud defense); the choice is in contract (parol evidence / contract integration). The choice answers a different question than the one asked.

• 18811_elevator_access_class · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo class can be certified, because each student uses the elevator at different times of day.

  Why it's attractive

  The call is 'which Rule 23(b) category is the most natural fit?' The choice refuses the call entirely — it answers 'no class can be certified,' which is a different question (can a class exist at all?).

  Why it's wrong

  The call is 'which Rule 23(b) category is the most natural fit?' The choice refuses the call entirely — it answers 'no class can be certified,' which is a different question (can a class exist at all?).

• 18811_elevator_access_class · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BRule 23(b)(1) only, because a judgment about one student could influence the university's conduct toward the others.

  Why it's attractive

  Rule 23(b)(1) covers mandatory classes where separate actions would risk inconsistent adjudications or impairment of absent members' interests. The dormitory-access claim fits neither prong. The 'could influence the university's conduct' framing is a half-truth that gestures at the right area but picks the wrong subsection.

  Why it's wrong

  Rule 23(b)(1) covers mandatory classes where separate actions would risk inconsistent adjudications or impairment of absent members' interests. The dormitory-access claim fits neither prong. The 'could influence the university's conduct' framing is a half-truth that gestures at the right area but picks the wrong subsection.

• 18811_elevator_access_class · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DRule 23(b)(3), because every class action involving many people must satisfy predominance and superiority.

  Why it's attractive

  The word 'every' is the visible overclaim marker. Rule 23(b)(2) is a separate category that does not require predominance or superiority. The dominant trap.

  Why it's wrong

  The word 'every' is the visible overclaim marker. Rule 23(b)(2) is a separate category that does not require predominance or superiority. The dominant trap.

• 18843_patio_pressure_washer · CRIMINAL · Choice BNo, because power tools are not personal property.

  Why it's attractive

  The 'not personal property' framing is a `tiered_absolute` overclaim that loses to the obvious counterexample: a pressure washer is a movable, tangible item of personal property capable of being larcenized. The choice is also NOT_RESPONSIVE to the real issue, which is the intent-to-permanently-deprive element, not the personal-property element.

  Why it's wrong

  The 'not personal property' framing is a `tiered_absolute` overclaim that loses to the obvious counterexample: a pressure washer is a movable, tangible item of personal property capable of being larcenized. The choice is also NOT_RESPONSIVE to the real issue, which is the intent-to-permanently-deprive element, not the personal-property element.

• 18843_patio_pressure_washer · CRIMINAL · Choice CYes, because any unauthorized use of property is larceny.

  Why it's attractive

  The word 'any' is the visible overclaim marker. Larceny requires the intent to permanently deprive, not merely unauthorized use. Safe, short, return-planned borrowing is the counterexample that the universal quantifier cannot capture. Dominant trap.

  Why it's wrong

  The word 'any' is the visible overclaim marker. Larceny requires the intent to permanently deprive, not merely unauthorized use. Safe, short, return-planned borrowing is the counterexample that the universal quantifier cannot capture. Dominant trap.

• 18843_patio_pressure_washer · CRIMINAL · Choice DYes, because the pressure washer moved from one place to another.

  Why it's attractive

  Asportation is one of the elements of larceny, not the whole thing. The intent-to-permanently-deprive element is independently required, and the stem supplies clear temporary-use and intent-to-return facts that defeat the intent element on their face.

  Why it's wrong

  Asportation is one of the elements of larceny, not the whole thing. The intent-to-permanently-deprive element is independently required, and the stem supplies clear temporary-use and intent-to-return facts that defeat the intent element on their face.

• 18890_hanna_erie_threshold · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BNothing; outcome effect is the complete Erie test in every case.

  Why it's attractive

  The word 'every' is the visible overclaim marker. Under Hanna, the outcome-determinative test runs only if no valid federal directive directly controls. The 'Erie is the outcome test in every case' framing loses to the Hanna counterexample. Dominant trap.

  Why it's wrong

  The word 'every' is the visible overclaim marker. Under Hanna, the outcome-determinative test runs only if no valid federal directive directly controls. The 'Erie is the outcome test in every case' framing loses to the Hanna counterexample. Dominant trap.

• 18890_hanna_erie_threshold · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice CIt is wrong because state law always applies in diversity.

  Why it's attractive

  The word 'always' is the visible overclaim marker. Erie holds that federal courts in diversity apply state substantive law, but federal procedural law — including valid Federal Rules — also applies when directly on point. The state-only cliche cannot displace a valid federal directive directly on point.

  Why it's wrong

  The word 'always' is the visible overclaim marker. Erie holds that federal courts in diversity apply state substantive law, but federal procedural law — including valid Federal Rules — also applies when directly on point. The state-only cliche cannot displace a valid federal directive directly on point.

• 18890_hanna_erie_threshold · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DIt is wrong because federal law always applies in diversity.

  Why it's attractive

  The word 'always' is the visible overclaim marker. Erie holds that state substantive law applies in diversity; federal law applies only to the extent a valid federal directive directly controls the issue, or to the extent a federal procedural rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. The 'federal law always applies' framing cannot replace the Erie substantive-law rule.

  Why it's wrong

  The word 'always' is the visible overclaim marker. Erie holds that state substantive law applies in diversity; federal law applies only to the extent a valid federal directive directly controls the issue, or to the extent a federal procedural rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. The 'federal law always applies' framing cannot replace the Erie substantive-law rule.