February 2025 California Bar Examination · Fact-specific analysis, an issue outline, and pointers on the official question.
By Bar Exam Doctor · Published November 4, 2026
Practice first, compare second
This is an original, ungraded instructional response. It is not an official State Bar selected answer, a scored student submission, or a claim of attorney review. Use it to compare reasoning and organization after attempting the question. Alternative reasoned analyses may be possible.
Official source text with our added highlights and numbered notes. The PDF preserves the source layout. For the PT, the task, file, and substantive library pages appear below; the complete packet includes the instructions and dividers.
Read the marked-up question and teaching pointers
Official source page 8
QUESTION 4
Phil worked as a science teacher at City High. His career goal was to become head of
the science department there. He believed that getting experience as a school
administrator would help him to obtain his goal. In March1 2023, Phil learned that Delta
High, a private school, had a temporary one-year opening for head of its science
department next school year, running from August 2023 to June 2024. Phil immediately
applied. A week later the principal of Delta High telephoned Phil and offered him the job
at a salary of $80,000. Phil said, "I'm only interested if I can be head of the science
department." The principal responded, "Perfect! Our current head will be on leave. The
job is half-time teaching and half-time administration." Phil said, "I accept" and the
principal replied, "Great! I'll prepare the paperwork." Phil then told City High he was taking
a one-year leave of absence next school year.
In May 2023, Phil received a letter from Delta High welcoming him onboard and asking
him to complete a form for payroll purposes. The form, signed by the principal, was
labeled ''Temporary Employment" and included Phil's name, the employment duration
and salary of $80,000. The form stated nothing about the specific job title or duties.
Instead, it stated: "The duties of all employees at Delta High are determined at the
discretion2 of the School Board or its principal and are subject to change." Phil was asked
to fill in his social security number and to sign and return the form, which he timely did.
When Phil reported to work at Delta High in August 2023, the principal apologized and
told him, “Our science department head cancelled her planned leave. We’ll still pay you
the full salary, but you will only be teaching.” Phil responded, “I told you I would only do
the job if I could head the science department," and left the school. Phil then learned that
City High had already hired a replacement for him for the school year, but he was offered
a coaching3 job at a $40,000 salary. Frustrated, Phil declined and took a one-year position
as a gardener with a $30,000 salary. A few months later, Phil sued Delta High for breach
of contract.
1. Is Phil likely to prevail in his suit against Delta High? Discuss.
2. What remedies, if any, would likely be available to Phil? Discuss.
Before you write: issue outline
Analyze oral formation, the one-year rule, and the later payroll writing separately.
Resolve integration and the conflicting duties clause before declaring breach.
Compare replacement work by its character as well as its salary.
Formation and enforceability
The March conversation contains an offer, acceptance, and consideration: Phil would work August through June for $80,000, specifically as head of science with both teaching and administrative responsibilities. His statement that he would accept only the head position is central to the bargain, not simply an undisclosed hope. The principal confirmed those terms, supporting an oral agreement.
The one-year statute of frauds is measured from formation, not the first workday. A contract made in March 2023 and ending in June 2024 cannot be fully performed within one year as promised. The later signed payroll form identifies Phil, the employment period, and salary and bears the employer’s authorized signature, supporting a sufficient memorandum. Whether omission or contradiction of the particular head-of-science assignment leaves an essential term inadequately recorded is the harder issue.
Phil’s leave from City also supports reliance, but promissory estoppel is not an automatic way around every statute-of-frauds defense. He must show the jurisdiction’s requirements, a sufficiently definite promise, reasonable detrimental reliance, and the necessary injustice. His express concern about the particular position makes that reliance substantial.
Effect of the May form
The parol evidence rule applies only to a writing intended as a final expression, with its scope depending on whether integration is complete or partial. A payroll form used to collect administrative information may not embody the entire negotiated employment agreement. Phil can argue that the oral allocation of teaching and administrative duties supplements that limited writing.
Delta has a substantial response: the signed form expressly gives the board or principal discretion to change duties. If the form is an integrated agreement and that clause unambiguously permits reassignment, the earlier oral restriction may contradict it and be excluded. The court must examine the form’s purpose, language, and surrounding circumstances rather than infer complete integration merely from a signature.
Phil can also argue that general reassignment language should not erase the specifically negotiated reason for hiring him, and that discretion must be exercised in good faith. Delta can respond that replacement of the absent teacher was the very contingency addressed by the form. If the form is instead a proposed modification to an existing common-law contract, consideration and assent must be examined; merely promising the same salary already owed is not necessarily new consideration. These competing characterizations determine the outcome.
Breach and remedies
If the original head-of-science obligation remains enforceable, offering only a full-time teaching assignment removes the administrative experience Phil specifically required. That can be a material breach permitting him to decline performance. If the duties clause validly authorizes that reassignment, Delta’s offer of the full salary defeats or substantially weakens the breach theory.
Expectation damages would place Phil in the economic position promised, subject to reasonable certainty and mitigation. On a valid breach, the basic salary comparison is $80,000 minus the $30,000 earned gardening, or $50,000, adjusted for proved differences in benefits, expenses, and the relevant employment period.
The rejected $40,000 coaching position does not automatically reduce damages by $40,000. An employee must make reasonable efforts to find comparable work but ordinarily need not accept materially different or inferior employment. Coaching differs from heading a science department, although Delta can argue that it was suitable available school employment. If the court finds it reasonably comparable and unreasonably rejected, avoidable loss can reduce the award. If not, the gardening earnings remain the proper offset. Speculative career gains are not automatically recoverable, and specific performance of personal services is ordinarily unavailable.
Sources and further comparison
The official question controls its facts and jurisdiction. These responses address the exam scenario; subsequent legal changes and other fact patterns may require a different analysis. The PT uses the supplied fictional Columbia library, which must not be replaced with outside law.