answer int64 0 3 | choices listlengths 4 4 | question stringlengths 1 6.54k | subject stringclasses 1
value | __source_orig_idx__ int64 1 99.8k |
|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | [
"win, because the language of the deed created a determinable fee, which leaves a possibility of reverter in the grantor. ",
"win, because the language of the deed created a fee subject to condition subsequent, which leaves a right of entry or power of termination in the grantor. ",
"lose, because the language ... | Anders conveyed her only parcel of land to Burton by a duly executed and delivered warranty deed, which provided: To have and to hold the described tract of land in fee simple, subject to the understanding that within one year from the date of the instrument said grantee shall construct and thereafter maintain and operate on said premises a public health center. The grantee, Burton, constructed a public health center on the tract within the time specified and operated it for five years. At the end of this period, Burton converted the structure into a senior citizens' recreational facility. It is conceded by all parties in interest that a senior citizens' recreational facility is not a public health center. In an appropriate action, Anders seeks a declaration that the change in the use of the facility has caused the land and structure to revert to her. In this action, Anders should | 353 | |
0 | [
"prevail if the sprinkler head was a hazard that Peter probably would not discover.",
"prevail, because O'Neill had not objected to children playing on the common area. 87 ",
"not prevail, because Peter did not live in the apartment complex. ",
"not prevail unless the sprinkler heads were abnormally dangerous... | A group of children, ranging in age from 8 to 15, regularly played football on the common area of an apartment complex owned by O'Neill. Most of the children lived in the apartment complex, but some lived elsewhere. O'Neill knew that the children played on the common area and had not objected. Peter, a 13-year-old who did not live in the apartment complex, fell over a sprinkler head while running for a pass and broke his leg. Although Peter had played football on the common area before, he had never noticed the sprinkler heads, which protruded one inch above the ground and were part of a permanently installed underground sprinkler system. If a claim is asserted on Peter's behalf, Peter will | 354 | |
3 | [
"the Constitution expressly empowers Congress to enact laws for \"the general welfare.\" ",
"Congress has the authority to regulate such products' interstate transportation and importation from abroad.",
"Congress may regulate the prices of every purchase and sale of goods and services made in this country, bec... | Congress passes a law regulating the wholesale retail prices of "every purchase or sale of oil, natural gas, and electric power made in the United States." The strongest argument in support of the constitutionality of this statute is that | 355 | |
0 | [
"$10,000, the contract price. ",
"the difference between the contract price and the market value of the chairs.",
"nothing, because the chairs had not been delivered. ",
"nothing, because the Singer-Byer contract forbade an assignment"
] | In a written contract, Singer agreed to deliver to Byer 500 described chairs at $20 each F.O.B. Singer's place of business. The contract provided that "neither party will assign this contract without the written consent of the other." Singer placed the chairs on board a carrier on January 30. On February 1 Singer said in a signed writing, "I hereby assign to Wheeler all my rights under the Singer-Byer contract." Singer did not request and did not get Byer's consent to this transaction. On February 2 the chairs were destroyed while in transit in a derailment of the carrier's railroad car. ". In an action by Wheeler against Byer, Wheeler probably will recover | 356 | |
3 | [
"succeed, because the carrier will be deemed to be Singer's agent. ",
"succeed, because the risk of loss was on Singer. ",
"not succeed, because of impossibility of performance. ",
"not succeed, because the risk of loss was on Byer"
] | In a written contract, Singer agreed to deliver to Byer 500 described chairs at $20 each F.O.B. Singer's place of business. The contract provided that "neither party will assign this contract without the written consent of the other." Singer placed the chairs on board a carrier on January 30. On February 1 Singer said in a signed writing, "I hereby assign to Wheeler all my rights under the Singer-Byer contract." Singer did not request and did not get Byer's consent to this transaction. On February 2 the chairs were destroyed while in transit in a derailment of the carrier's railroad car. "In an action by Byer against Singer for breach of contract, Byer probably will | 357 | |
1 | [
"acquitted, because of the defendant's good faith belief concerning parental rights in supervising children. ",
"acquitted, because summoning the physician or feeding the child would not have prevented the child's death from cancer. ",
"convicted, because the father's treatment of his son showed reckless indiff... | Dutton, disappointed by his eight-year-old son's failure to do well in school, began systematically depriving the child of food during summer vacation. Although his son became seriously ill from malnutrition, Dutton failed to call a doctor. He believed that as a parent he had the sole right to determine whether the child was fed or received medical treatment. Eventually the child died. An autopsy disclosed that the child had suffered agonizingly as a result of the starvation, that a physician's aid would have alleviated the suffering, and that although the child would have died in a few months from malnutrition, the actual cause of death was an untreatable form of cancer. The father was prosecuted for murder, defined in the jurisdiction as "unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." The father should be | 358 | |
2 | [
"not guilty, because the statute defines an attempted crime and there cannot be an attempt to attempt. ",
"not guilty, because to convict him would be to punish him simply for having a guilty mind. ",
"guilty, because he was close enough to entering the property and he had the necessary state of mind. ",
"gui... | Vance had cheated Dodd in a card game. Angered, Dodd set out for Vance's house with the intention of shooting him. Just as he was about to set foot on Vance's property, Dodd was arrested by a police officer who noticed that Dodd was carrying a revolver. A statute in the jurisdiction makes it a crime to "enter the property of another with the intent to commit any crime of violence thereon." 88 If charged with attempting to violate the statute, Dodd should be found | 359 | |
1 | [
"constitutional, because congressional control over questions of energy usage is plenary. ",
"constitutional, because Congress may establish the manner in which the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is exercised. ",
"unconstitutional, because they infringe on the sovereign right of state... | Congress enacted a statute providing that persons may challenge a state energy law on the ground that it is in conflict with the federal Constitution in either federal or state court. According to this federal statute, any decision by a lower state court upholding a state energy law against a challenge based on the federal Constitution may be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court. The provisions of this statute that authorize direct United States Supreme Court review of specified decisions rendered by lower state courts are | 360 | |
0 | [
"Yes, because obtaining a loan was a condition precedent to the existence of an enforceable contract. ",
"Yes, because the agreement about obtaining a loan is a modification of a construction contract and is not required to be in writing. ",
"No, because the agreement about obtaining a loan contradicts the expr... | On January 15, in a signed writing, Artisan agreed to remodel Ohner's building according to certain specifications, and Ohner agreed to pay the specified price of $5,000 to Artisan's niece, Roberta Neese, as a birthday present. Neese did not learn of the agreement until her birthday on May 5. Before they signed the writing, Artisan and Ohner had orally agreed that their "written agreement will be null and void unless Ohner is able to obtain a $5,000 loan from the First National Bank before January 31.""For this question only, assume that Ohner was unable to obtain the loan, and on January 31, phoned Artisan and told him, "Don't begin the work. The deal is off." In an action for breach of contract brought against Ohner by the proper party, will Ohner be successful in asserting as a defense his inability to obtain a loan? | 362 | |
3 | [
"Yes, because she is an intended beneficiary of the written Artisan-Ohner contract. ",
"Yes, because the written Artisan-Ohner contract operated as an assignment to Neese, and Artisan thereby lost whatever rights he may have had to the $5,000. ",
"No, because Neese had not furnished any consideration to support... | On January 15, in a signed writing, Artisan agreed to remodel Ohner's building according to certain specifications, and Ohner agreed to pay the specified price of $5,000 to Artisan's niece, Roberta Neese, as a birthday present. Neese did not learn of the agreement until her birthday on May 5. Before they signed the writing, Artisan and Ohner had orally agreed that their "written agreement will be null and void unless Ohner is able to obtain a $5,000 loan from the First National Bank before January 31."For this question only, assume that Ohner obtained the loan, that Artisan completed the remodeling on May 1, and that on May 3, at Artisan's request, Ohner paid the $5,000 to Artisan. If Neese learns of Ohner's payment to Artisan on May 5, at the same time she learns of the written Artisan-Ohner contract, will she succeed in action against Ohner for $5,000? | 363 | |
1 | [
"Yes, because it is an admission. ",
"Yes, because its value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. ",
"No, because the privilege against selfincrimination is applicable. ",
"No, because specific instances of conduct cannot be proved by extrinsic evidence"
] | Dryden is on trial on a charge of driving while intoxicated. When Dryden was booked at the police station, a videotape was made that showed him unsteady, abusive, and speaking in a slurred manner. If the prosecutor lays a foundation properly identifying the tape, should the court admit it in evidence and permit it to be shown to the jury? | 364 | |
2 | [
"prevail, because a cotenant has no right to assign all or any part of a leasehold without the consent of all interested parties. ",
"prevail, because the lease provision prohibits assignment. ",
"not prevail, because he is not the beneficiary of the nonassignment provision in the lease. ",
"not prevail, beca... | Talbot and Rogers, as lessees, signed a valid lease for a house. Lane, the landlord, duly executed the lease and delivered possession of the premises to the lessees. During the term of the lease, Rogers verbally invited Andrews to share the house with the lessees. Andrews agreed to pay part of the rent to Lane, who did not object to this arrangement, despite a provision in the lease that provided that "any assignment, subletting, or transfer of any rights under this lease without the express written consent of the landlord is strictly prohibited, null, and void." Talbot objected to Andrews's moving in, even if Andrews were to pay a part of the rent. When Andrews moved in, Talbot brought an appropriate action against Lane, Rogers, and Andrews for a declaratory judgment that Rogers had no right to assign. Rogers' defense was that he and Talbot were tenants in common of a term for years, and that he, Rogers, had a right to assign a fractional interest in his undivided onehalf interest. In this action, Talbot will | 365 | |
0 | [
"Jones, because Jones was a third-party creditor beneficiary of the contract between Sloan and Abstract Company. ",
"Jones, because the abstract prepared by Abstract Company constitutes a guarantee of Jones's title to Newacre. ",
"Abstract Company, because Abstract Company had no knowledge of the existence of t... | The owner of Newacre executed and delivered to a power company a right-of-way deed for the building and maintenance of an overhead power line across Newacre. The deed was properly recorded. Newacre then passed through several intermediate conveyances until it was conveyed to Sloan about 10 years after the date of the right-of-way deed. All the intermediate deeds were properly recorded, but none of them mentioned the right-of-way. Sloan entered into a written contract to sell Newacre to Jones. By the terms of the contract, Sloan promised to furnish an abstract of title to Jones. Sloan contracted directly with Abstract Company to prepare and deliver an abstract to Jones, and Abstract Company did so. The abstract omitted the right-of-way deed. Jones delivered the abstract to his attorney and asked the attorney for an opinion as to title. The attorney signed and delivered to Jones a letter stating that, from the attorney's examination of the abstract, it was his "opinion that Sloan had a free and unencumbered marketable title to Newacre." Sloan conveyed Newacre to Jones by a deed which included covenants of general warranty and against encumbrances. Jones paid the full purchase price. After Jones had been in possession of Newacre for 90 more than a year, he learned about the right-of-way deed. Sloan, Jones, Abstract Company, and Jones's attorney were all without actual knowledge of the existence of the right-of-way at the time of the conveyance from Sloan to Jones."If Jones sues Abstract Company for damages caused to Jones by the presence of the right-ofway, the most likely result will be a decision for | 366 | |
1 | [
"Jones, because Sloan is liable for his negligent misrepresentation. ",
"Jones, because the covenants in Sloan's deed to Jones have been breached. ",
"Sloan, because Jones relied upon Abstract Company, not Sloan, for information concerning title. ",
"Sloan, because Sloan was without knowledge of any defects i... | The owner of Newacre executed and delivered to a power company a right-of-way deed for the building and maintenance of an overhead power line across Newacre. The deed was properly recorded. Newacre then passed through several intermediate conveyances until it was conveyed to Sloan about 10 years after the date of the right-of-way deed. All the intermediate deeds were properly recorded, but none of them mentioned the right-of-way. Sloan entered into a written contract to sell Newacre to Jones. By the terms of the contract, Sloan promised to furnish an abstract of title to Jones. Sloan contracted directly with Abstract Company to prepare and deliver an abstract to Jones, and Abstract Company did so. The abstract omitted the right-of-way deed. Jones delivered the abstract to his attorney and asked the attorney for an opinion as to title. The attorney signed and delivered to Jones a letter stating that, from the attorney's examination of the abstract, it was his "opinion that Sloan had a free and unencumbered marketable title to Newacre." Sloan conveyed Newacre to Jones by a deed which included covenants of general warranty and against encumbrances. Jones paid the full purchase price. After Jones had been in possession of Newacre for 90 more than a year, he learned about the right-of-way deed. Sloan, Jones, Abstract Company, and Jones's attorney were all without actual knowledge of the existence of the right-of-way at the time of the conveyance from Sloan to Jones."If Jones sues Sloan because of the presence of the right-of-way, the most likely result will be a decision for | 367 | |
0 | [
"a public school teacher to exclude AfricanAmerican pupils from her class, solely because of their race. ",
"African-American pupils, solely because of their race, to refrain from attending a privately owned and operated school licensed by the state. ",
"the bus driver operating a free school bus service under ... | Congress enacts a criminal statute prohibiting "any person from interfering in any way with any right conferred on another person by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Application of this statute to Jones, a private citizen, would be most clearly constitutional if Jones, with threats of violence, coerces | 368 | |
0 | [
"recover if she can recover against Steel.",
"recover, because Innes was an invitee of a tenant in the building. ",
"not recover unless Paint Company was negligent.",
"not recover, because the glue came in a sealed package"
] | Innes worked as a secretary in an office in a building occupied partly by her employer and partly by Glass, a retail store. The two areas were separated by walls and were in no way connected, except that the air conditioning unit served both areas and there was a common return-air duct. Glass began remodeling, and its employees did the work, which included affixing a plastic surfacing material to counters. To fasten the plastic to the counters, the employees purchased glue, with the brand name Stick, that was manufactured by Steel, packaged in a sealed container by Steel, and retailed by Paint Company. In the course of the remodeling job, one of Glass' employees turned on the air conditioning and caused fumes from the glue to travel from Glass through the air conditioning unit and into Innes' office. The employees did not know that there was common ductwork for the air conditioners. Innes was permanently blinded by the fumes from the glue. The label on the container of glue read, "DANGER. Do not smoke near this product. Extremely flammable. Contains butanone, toluol, and hexane. Use with adequate ventilation. Keep out of the reach of children." The three chemicals listed on the label are very toxic and harmful to human eyes. Steel had received no reports of eye injuries during the 10 years that the product had been manufactured and sold."If Innes asserts a claim against Paint Company, the most likely result is that she will | 369 | |
3 | [
"recover, because a user of a product is held to the same standard as the manufacturer. ",
"recover, because the employees of Glass caused the fumes to enter her area of the building. ",
"not recover, because Glass used the glue for its intended purposes. ",
"not recover, because the employees of Glass had no... | Innes worked as a secretary in an office in a building occupied partly by her employer and partly by Glass, a retail store. The two areas were separated by walls and were in no way connected, except that the air conditioning unit served both areas and there was a common return-air duct. Glass began remodeling, and its employees did the work, which included affixing a plastic surfacing material to counters. To fasten the plastic to the counters, the employees purchased glue, with the brand name Stick, that was manufactured by Steel, packaged in a sealed container by Steel, and retailed by Paint Company. In the course of the remodeling job, one of Glass' employees turned on the air conditioning and caused fumes from the glue to travel from Glass through the air conditioning unit and into Innes' office. The employees did not know that there was common ductwork for the air conditioners. Innes was permanently blinded by the fumes from the glue. The label on the container of glue read, "DANGER. Do not smoke near this product. Extremely flammable. Contains butanone, toluol, and hexane. Use with adequate ventilation. Keep out of the reach of children." The three chemicals listed on the label are very toxic and harmful to human eyes. Steel had received no reports of eye injuries during the 10 years that the product had been manufactured and sold.". If Innes asserts a claim against Glass, the most likely result is that she will | 370 | |
2 | [
"admissible for impeachment only.",
"admissible as substantive evidence only.",
"admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence.",
"inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception."
] | In Polk's negligence action against Dell arising out of a multiple-car collision, Witt testified for Polk that Dell went through a red light. On cross-examination, Dell seeks to question Witt about her statement that the light was yellow, made in a deposition that Witt gave in a separate action between Adams and Baker. The transcript of the deposition is self-authenticating. On proper objection, the court should rule the inquiry | 373 | |
3 | [
"remainder to the children and to the grandchildren is void because Green could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time Green executed his will. 92",
"remainder to the children is valid, but the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren is void because Green could have subsequently married a... | In 1965 Hubert Green executed his will which in pertinent part provided, "I hereby give, devise, and bequeath Greenvale to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain the age of 30 years, but if any child dies under the age of 30 years survived by a child or children, such child or children shall take and receive the share which his, her, or their parent would have received had such parent lived to attain the age of 30 years." At the date of writing his will, Green was married to Susan, and they had two children, Allan and Beth. Susan died in 1970 and Hubert married Waverly in 1972. At his death in 1980, Green was survived by his wife, Waverly, and three children, Allan, Beth, and Carter. Carter, who was born in 1974, was his child by Waverly. In a jurisdiction which recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute, the result of the application of the rule is that the | 374 | |
3 | [
"recover, because the hospital accused Siddon of improper professional conduct. ",
"recover if Siddon did not take the narcotics.",
"not recover if narcotics disappeared during Siddon's shifts.",
"not recover if the hospital reasonably believed that Siddon took the narcotic"
] | Siddon worked as a private duty nurse and on occasion worked in Doctors' Hospital. The hospital called Registry, the private duty referral agency through which Siddon usually obtained employment, and asked that in the future she not be assigned to patients in Doctors' Hospital. Registry asked the hospital why it had made the request. Doctors' Hospital sent a letter to Registry giving as the reason for its request that significant amounts of narcotics had disappeared during Siddon's shift from the nursing stations at which she had worked. If Siddon asserts a claim based on defamation against Doctors' Hospital, Siddon will | 375 | |
2 | [
"Zeller has a cause of action against Baker, because Zeller has substantially performed his contract. ",
"Zeller is excused from performing his contract because of impossibility of performance.",
"Baker has a cause of action against Zeller for Zeller's failure to deliver 100 bushels of wheat.",
"Baker is obli... | Zeller contracted in writing to deliver to Baker 100 bushels of wheat on August 1 at $3.50 a bushel. Because his suppliers had not delivered enough wheat to him by that time, Zeller on August 1 had only 95 bushels of wheat with which to fulfill his contract with Baker. If Zeller tenders 95 bushels of wheat to Baker on August 1, and Baker refuses to accept or pay for any of the wheat, which of the following best states the legal relationship between Zeller and Baker? | 376 | |
3 | [
"$50 million, because the President could reasonably determine that this program is not as important to the general welfare as other programs. ",
"$50 million, because as chief executive the President has the constitutional authority to control the actions of all of his subordinates by executive order. ",
"$90 ... | A federal statute sets up a program of dental education. The statute provides that the Secretary of Health and Human Services "shall, on a current basis, spend all of the money appropriated for this purpose" and "shall distribute the appropriated funds" by a specified formula to state health departments that agree to participate in the program. In the current year Congress has appropriated $100 million for expenditure on this program. In order to ensure a budget surplus in the current fiscal year, the President issues an executive order directing the various cabinet secretaries to cut expenditures in this year by 10 percent in all categories. He also orders certain programs to be cut more drastically because he believes that "they are not as important to the general welfare as other programs." The President identifies the dental education program as such a program and orders it to be cut by 50 percent. Assume that no other federal statutes are relevant. To satisfy constitutional requirements, how much money must the Secretary of Health and Human Services distribute for the dental education program this year? | 377 | |
0 | [
"proper, because the conduct involved untruthfulness. ",
"proper provided that the conduct resulted in conviction of Wilson.",
"improper, because the impeachment involved a specific instance of misconduct. ",
"improper, because the claim form would be the best evidence"
] | Powers sued Debbs for battery. At trial, Powers's witness Wilson testified that Debbs had made an unprovoked attack on Powers. On cross-examination, Debbs asks Wilson about a false claim that Wilson once filed on an insurance policy. The question is | 378 | |
2 | [
"Byco could treat the notice as an anticipatory repudiation, and had a cause of action on May 10 for breach of the entire contract ",
"Byco could treat the notice as an anticipatory repudiation, and could sue to enjoin an actual breach by Selco on May 31. ",
"Byco had no cause of action for breach of contract, ... | On March 31, Selco and Byco entered into a written agreement in which Selco agreed to fabricate and sell to Byco 10,000 specially designed brake linings for a new type of power brake manufactured by Byco. The contract provided that Byco would pay half of the purchase price on May 15 in order to give Selco funds to "tool up" for the work; that Selco would deliver 5,000 brake linings on May 31; that Byco would pay the balance of the purchase price on June 15; and that Selco would deliver the balance of the brake linings on June 30. On May 10, Selco notified Byco that it doubted that it could perform because of problems encountered in modifying its production machines to produce the brake linings. On May 15, however, Selco assured Byco that the production difficulties had been overcome, and Byco paid Selco the first 50 percent installment of the purchase price. Selco did not deliver the first 5,000 brake linings on May 31, or at any time thereafter; on June 10, Selco notified Byco that it would not perform the contractWhich of the following correctly states Byco's rights and obligations immediately after receipt of Selco's notice on May 10? | 379 | |
3 | [
"Byco has a cause of action for total breach of contract because of Selco's repudiation, but that cause of action will be lost if Selco retracts its repudiation before Byco changes its position or manifests to Selco that Byco considers the repudiation final. ",
"Byco can bring suit to rescind the contract even if... | On March 31, Selco and Byco entered into a written agreement in which Selco agreed to fabricate and sell to Byco 10,000 specially designed brake linings for a new type of power brake manufactured by Byco. The contract provided that Byco would pay half of the purchase price on May 15 in order to give Selco funds to "tool up" for the work; that Selco would deliver 5,000 brake linings on May 31; that Byco would pay the balance of the purchase price on June 15; and that Selco would deliver the balance of the brake linings on June 30. On May 10, Selco notified Byco that it doubted that it could perform because of problems encountered in modifying its production machines to produce the brake linings. On May 15, however, Selco assured Byco that the production difficulties had been overcome, and Byco paid Selco the first 50 percent installment of the purchase price. Selco did not deliver the first 5,000 brake linings on May 31, or at any time thereafter; on June 10, Selco notified Byco that it would not perform the contractWhich of the following is NOT a correct statement of the parties' legal status immediately after Selco's notice on June 10? | 380 | |
1 | [
"A state does not have an interest that is sufficiently compelling to justify the exclusion from voting of an entire class of persons.",
"There are less restrictive means by which the state could assure that only actual residents of a community vote in its elections.",
"Most persons moving to a community to att... | A state statute provides that persons moving into a community to attend a college on a full-time basis may not vote in any elections for local or state officials that are held in that community. Instead, the statute provides that for voting purposes all such persons shall retain their residence in the communities from which they came. In the state the age of majority is 18. Which of the following is the strongest argument to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of this state statute? | 381 | |
2 | [
"granted, because once Dillon was convicted on any of the charges arising out of the robbery, the prosecution was constitutionally estopped from proceeding against Dillon on any charge stemming from the same transaction. ",
"granted, because the double jeopardy clause prohibits a subsequent trial on what is essen... | Dillon held up a gasoline station. During the robbery he shot and killed a customer who attempted to apprehend him. Dillon was prosecuted for premeditated murder and convicted. Thereafter, he was indicted for armed robbery of the station. Before the trial, his attorney moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that further proceedings were unconstitutional because of Dillon's prior conviction. The motion to dismiss should be | 383 | |
0 | [
"Yes, because as between Ellis and Toyco, Ellis was responsible for the design of Zappo. ",
"Yes, because Toyco and Ellis were joint tortfeasors. ",
"No, because Toyco, as the manufacturer, was strictly liable to Carla. ",
"No, if Toyco, by a reasonable inspection, could have discovered the defect in the desi... | Ellis, an electrical engineer, designed an electronic game known as Zappo. Ellis entered into a licensing agreement with Toyco under which Toyco agreed to manufacture Zappo according to Ellis's specifications and to market it and pay a royalty to Ellis. Carla, whose parents had purchased a Zappo game for her, was injured while playing the game. Carla recovered a judgment against Toyco on the basis of a finding that the Zappo game was defective because of Ellis's improper design. In a claim for indemnity against Ellis, will Toyco prevail? | 384 | |
2 | [
"admitted as a statement of recent perception.",
"admitted as a present sense impression.",
"excluded, because it is hearsay, not within any exception. ",
"excluded, because it is more prejudicial than probative"
] | While crossing Spruce Street, Pesko was hit by a car that she did not see. Pesko sued Dorry for her injuries. At trial, Pesko calls Williams, a police officer, to testify that, 10 minutes after the accident, a driver stopped him and said, "Officer, a few minutes ago I saw a hit-and-run accident on Spruce Street involving a blue convertible, which I followed to the drive-in restaurant at Oak and Third," and that a few seconds later Williams saw Dorry sitting alone in a blue convertible in the drive-in restaurant's parking lot. Williams' testimony about the driver's statement should be | 385 | |
3 | [
"Yes, because the oral agreement was supported by an independent consideration. ",
"Yes, because the evidence of the parties' negotiations is relevant to their contractual intent concerning maturity of the debt. ",
"No, because such evidence is barred by the preexisting duty rule. ",
"No, because such evidenc... | The Kernel Corporation, through its president, Demeter Gritz, requested from Vault Finance, Inc., a short-term loan of $100,000. On April 1, Gritz and Vault's loan officer agreed orally that Vault would make the loan on the following terms: (1) The loan would be repaid in full on or before the following July 1 and would carry interest at an annual rate of 15 percent (a lawful rate under the applicable usury law); and (2) Gritz would personally guarantee repayment. The loan was approved and made on April 5. The only document evidencing the loan was a memorandum, written and supplied by Vault and signed by Gritz for Kernel, that read in its entirety: "April 5 In consideration of a loan advanced on this date, Kernel Corporation hereby promises to pay Vault Finance, Inc., $100,000 on September 1. Kernel Corporation By /s/ Demeter Gritz Demeter Gritz, President" Kernel Corporation did not repay the loan on or before July 1, although it had sufficient funds to do so. On July 10, Vault sued Kernel as principal debtor and Gritz individually as guarantor for $100,000, plus 15 percent interest from April 5. "At the trial, can Vault prove Kernel's oral commitment to repay the loan on or before July 1? | 386 | |
3 | [
"Yes, because Gritz signed the memorandum. ",
"Yes, because, as president of the debtorcompany, Gritz is a third-party beneficiary of the loan. ",
"No, because there was no separate consideration for Gritz's promise. ",
"No, because such proof is barred by the Statute of Frauds"
] | The Kernel Corporation, through its president, Demeter Gritz, requested from Vault Finance, Inc., a short-term loan of $100,000. On April 1, Gritz and Vault's loan officer agreed orally that Vault would make the loan on the following terms: (1) The loan would be repaid in full on or before the following July 1 and would carry interest at an annual rate of 15 percent (a lawful rate under the applicable usury law); and (2) Gritz would personally guarantee repayment. The loan was approved and made on April 5. The only document evidencing the loan was a memorandum, written and supplied by Vault and signed by Gritz for Kernel, that read in its entirety: "April 5 In consideration of a loan advanced on this date, Kernel Corporation hereby promises to pay Vault Finance, Inc., $100,000 on September 1. Kernel Corporation By /s/ Demeter Gritz Demeter Gritz, President" Kernel Corporation did not repay the loan on or before July 1, although it had sufficient funds to do so. On July 10, Vault sued Kernel as principal debtor and Gritz individually as guarantor for $100,000, plus 15 percent interest from April 5. "At the trial, can Vault prove Gritz's oral promise to guarantee the loan? | 387 | |
3 | [
"guilty, because there was an agreement and the entry into the bedroom is sufficient for the overt act. ",
"guilty, because good motives are not a defense to criminal liability. ",
"not guilty, because he did not have a corrupt motive. ",
"not guilty, because he did not intend to steal"
] | Adams, Bennett, and Curtis are charged in a common law jurisdiction with conspiracy to commit larceny. The state introduced evidence that they agreed to go to Nelson's house to take stock certificates from a safe in Nelson's bedroom, that they went to the house, and that they were arrested as they entered Nelson's bedroom. Adams testified that he believed the stock certificates belonged to Curtis, that he thought Nelson was improperly keeping them from Curtis, and that he went along to aid in retrieving Curtis's property. Bennett testified that he suspected Adams and Curtis of being thieves and joined up with them in order to catch them. He also testified that he made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime and that the call caused the police to be waiting for them when they walked into Nelson's bedroom. Curtis did not testify.". If the jury believes Adams, it should find him | 388 | |
2 | [
"guilty, because there was an agreement and the entry into the bedroom is sufficient for the overt act. ",
"guilty, because he is not a police officer and thus cannot claim any privilege of apprehending criminals. ",
"not guilty, because he did not intend to steal. ",
"not guilty, because he prevented the the... | Adams, Bennett, and Curtis are charged in a common law jurisdiction with conspiracy to commit larceny. The state introduced evidence that they agreed to go to Nelson's house to take stock certificates from a safe in Nelson's bedroom, that they went to the house, and that they were arrested as they entered Nelson's bedroom. Adams testified that he believed the stock certificates belonged to Curtis, that he thought Nelson was improperly keeping them from Curtis, and that he went along to aid in retrieving Curtis's property. Bennett testified that he suspected Adams and Curtis of being thieves and joined up with them in order to catch them. He also testified that he made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime and that the call caused the police to be waiting for them when they walked into Nelson's bedroom. Curtis did not testify."If the jury believes Bennett, it should find him | 389 | |
3 | [
"guilty, because there was an agreement and the entry into the bedroom is sufficient for the overt act. ",
"guilty, because he intended to steal. ",
"not guilty, because a conviction would penalize him for exercising his right not to be a witness. ",
"not guilty, because Adams and Bennett did not intend to st... | Adams, Bennett, and Curtis are charged in a common law jurisdiction with conspiracy to commit larceny. The state introduced evidence that they agreed to go to Nelson's house to take stock certificates from a safe in Nelson's bedroom, that they went to the house, and that they were arrested as they entered Nelson's bedroom. Adams testified that he believed the stock certificates belonged to Curtis, that he thought Nelson was improperly keeping them from Curtis, and that he went along to aid in retrieving Curtis's property. Bennett testified that he suspected Adams and Curtis of being thieves and joined up with them in order to catch them. He also testified that he made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime and that the call caused the police to be waiting for them when they walked into Nelson's bedroom. Curtis did not testify."If the jury believes both Adams and Bennett, it should find Curtis | 390 | |
2 | [
"obtain an order for specific performance at a price of $75,000. ",
"obtain an order for specific performance at a price of $70,000. ",
"lose, because Perez did not contract to take subject to the easement to Electric Company. ",
"lose, because a high-voltage power line is a nuisance per se."
] | O'Neal entered into a written contract to sell her house and six acres known as Meadowacre to Perez for $75,000. Delivery of the deed and payment of the purchase price were to be made six months after the contract. The contract provided that Meadowacre was to be conveyed "subject to easements, covenants, and restrictions of record." The contract was not recorded. After the contract was signed but before the deed was delivered, Electric Company decided to run a high-voltage power line in the area and required an easement through a portion of Meadowacre. O'Neal, by deed, granted an easement to Electric Company in consideration of $5,000; the deed was duly recorded. The power line would be a series of towers with several high-voltage lines that would be clearly visible from the house on Meadowacre but would in no way interfere with the house. When Perez caused the title to Meadowacre to be searched, the deed of easement to Electric Company was found. O'Neal appeared at the time and place scheduled for the closing and proffered an appropriate deed to Perez and demanded the purchase price. Perez refused to pay or accept the deed. In an appropriate action for specific performance against Perez, O'Neal demanded $75,000. In this action, O'Neal should | 391 | |
3 | [
"admissible as an admission by a partyopponent.",
"admissible as a statement against pecuniary interest.",
"inadmissible, because Danver's statement is lay opinion on a legal issue. ",
"inadmissible, because Danver's statement was made in an effort to settle the claim."
] | Pratt sued Danvers for injuries suffered by Pratt when their automobiles collided. At trial Pratt offers into evidence a properly authenticated letter from Danvers that says, "your claim seems too high, but, because I might have been a little negligent, I'm prepared to offer you half of what you ask." The letter is | 392 | |
3 | [
"Transferred intent.",
"Felony murder, with assault with a deadly weapon as the underlying felony. ",
"Intentional killing, since he knew that the children were there and he deliberately drove his car at them. ",
"Commission of an act highly dangerous to life, without an intent to kill but with disregard of t... | Dobbs, while intoxicated, drove his car through a playground crowded with children just to watch the children run to get out of his way. His car struck one of the children, killing her instantly. Which of the following is the best theory for finding Dobbs guilty of murder? | 393 | |
0 | [
"proper if the court finds that the probative value for impeachment outweighs the prejudice to Darden.",
"proper, because the prosecutor is entitled to make this inquiry as a matter of right. ",
"improper, because burglary does not involve dishonesty or false statement. 97 ",
"improper, because the conviction... | Darden was prosecuted for armed robbery. At trial, Darden testified in his own behalf, denying that he had committed the robbery. On crossexamination, the prosecutor intends to ask Darden whether he was convicted of burglary six years earlier The question concerning the burglary conviction is | 394 | |
1 | [
"grant money damages only to Bard.",
"grant specific performance to Bard.",
"grant Bard only the right to retain the $10,000. ",
"require Bard to refund the $10,000 to Cutter"
] | Osif owned Broadacres in fee simple. For a consideration of $5,000, Osif gave Bard a written option to purchase Broadacres for $300,000. The option was assignable. For a consideration of $10,000, Bard subsequently gave an option to Cutter to purchase Broadacres for $325,000. Cutter exercised his option. Bard thereupon exercised his option. Bard paid the agreed price of $300,000 and took title to Broadacres by deed from Osif. Thereafter, Cutter refused to consummate his purchase. Bard brought an appropriate action against Cutter for specific performance, or, if that should be denied, then for damages. Cutter counterclaimed for return of the $10,000. In this action the court will | 395 | |
2 | [
"The obligation of contracts clause.",
"The general welfare clause of Article I, §8. ",
"The Thirteenth Amendment.",
"The Fourteenth Amendment"
] | Congress enacts a statute punishing "each and every conspiracy entered into by any two or more persons for the purpose of denying persons housing, employment, or education, solely because of their race." Under which of the following constitutional provisions is the authority of Congress to pass such a statute most clearly and easily justifiable? | 396 | |
1 | [
"Yes, provided she first identifies the data on which her opinion is based. ",
"Yes, because an expert may base her opinion on facts made known to her at the trial. ",
"No, because she has no personal knowledge of Peel's condition. ",
"No, because permanence of injury is an issue to be decided by the jury."
] | In Peel's personal injury action, Wilson, a physician who had no previous knowledge of the matter, sat in court and heard all the evidence about Peel's symptoms and conditions. Wilson is called to give her opinion whether Peel's injuries are permanent. May Wilson so testify? | 397 | |
0 | [
"under several of its enumerated powers, Congress may legislate to preserve the monopoly of the national government over the conduct of United States foreign affairs. ",
"the President's inherent power to negotiate for the United States with foreign countries authorizes the President, even in the absence of statu... | A federal criminal law makes it a crime for any citizen of the United States not specifically authorized by the President to negotiate with a foreign government for the purpose of influencing the foreign government in relation to a dispute with the United States. The strongest constitutional ground for the validity of this law is that | 398 | |
2 | [
"Arthur, because during the past 30 years Arthur has exercised the type of occupancy ordinarily considered sufficient to satisfy the adverse possession requirements. ",
"Arthur, because the acts of the parties indicate Celia's intention to renounce her right to inheritance. ",
"Celia, because there is no eviden... | Arthur and Celia, brother and sister, both of legal age, inherited Goodacre, their childhood home, from their father. They thereby became tenants in common. Goodacre had never been used as anything except a residence. Arthur had been residing on Goodacre with his father at the time his father died. Celia had been residing in a distant city. After their father's funeral, Arthur continued to live on Goodacre, but Celia returned to her own residence. There was no discussion between Arthur and Celia concerning their common ownership, nor had there ever been any administration of their father's estate. Arthur paid all taxes, insurance, and other carrying charges on Goodacre. He paid no rent or other compensation to Celia, nor did Celia request any such payment. Thirty years later, a series of disputes arose between Arthur and Celia for the first time concerning their respective rights to Goodacre. The jurisdiction where the land is located recognizes the usual common law types of cotenancies, and there is no applicable legislation on the subject. If Arthur claims the entire title to Goodacre in fee simple and brings an action against Celia to quiet title in himself, and if the state where the land is located has an ordinary 20-year adverse possession statute, the decision should be for | 399 | |
0 | [
"Yes, because the operation of the storage facility was an abnormally dangerous activity. ",
"Yes, because the intrusion of the smoke onto Farber's farm amounted to a trespass. ",
"No, if the explosion was caused by internal corrosion that reasonable inspection procedures would not have disclosed. ",
"No, if ... | Gasco owns a storage facility where flammable gases are stored in liquified form under high pressure in large spherical tanks. The facility was constructed for Gasco by Acme Company, a firm that specializes in the construction of such facilities. After the facility had been in use for five years, an explosion in the facility started a large fire that blanketed the surrounding countryside with a high concentration of oily smoke and soot. Farber owns a large truck farm near the facility. His entire lettuce crop was destroyed by oil deposits left by the smoke.If Farber asserts a claim against Gasco for the loss of his lettuce crop and is unable to show any negligence on the part of Gasco, will Farber prevail? | 400 | |
3 | [
"No, if Acme did not design the storage facility. ",
"No, because Acme was an independent contractor. ",
"Yes, because the operation of the storage facility was an abnormally dangerous activity. ",
"Yes, if the explosion resulted from a defect of which Acme was aware"
] | Gasco owns a storage facility where flammable gases are stored in liquified form under high pressure in large spherical tanks. The facility was constructed for Gasco by Acme Company, a firm that specializes in the construction of such facilities. After the facility had been in use for five years, an explosion in the facility started a large fire that blanketed the surrounding countryside with a high concentration of oily smoke and soot. Farber owns a large truck farm near the facility. His entire lettuce crop was destroyed by oil deposits left by the smoke.If Farber asserts a claim against Acme Company for the loss of his lettuce crop, will Farber prevail? | 401 | |
2 | [
"valid, because aliens are not per se \"a discrete and insular minority\" specially protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. ",
"valid, because the line drawn by the state for extending aid was reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. 99 ",
"invalid, because the justifications for this restriction are i... | Pursuant to a state statute, Clovis applied for tuition assistance to attend the Institute of Liberal Arts. He was qualified for such assistance in every way except that he was a resident alien who did not intend to become a United States citizen. The state's restriction of such grants to United States citizens or resident aliens seeking such citizenship is probably | 403 | |
3 | [
"Yes, because Vintage's performance was to run to Claret rather than to Bouquet. ",
"Yes, because Bouquet and Vintage could reasonably foresee that Claret would change his position in reliance on the contract. ",
"No, because Bouquet and Vintage did not expressly agree that Claret would have enforceable rights ... | A written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $1,000,000 in Vintage for its capital expansion and, in return, that Vintage, from grapes grown in its famous vineyards, would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under the label "Premium VintageBouquet." The contract included provisions that the parties would share equally the profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by Vintage only through Claret, a wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither Bouquet nor Vintage had previously dealt with Claret. Claret learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility. "If Vintage refuses to distribute the wine through Claret and Claret then sues Vintage for breach of contract, is it likely that Claret will prevail? | 404 | |
2 | [
"the Bouquet-Vintage contract did not expressly authorize an assignment of rights.",
"Bouquet and Vintage are partners, not simply debtor and creditor. ",
"Amicusbank is not an assignee of Bouquet's rights under the BouquetVintage contract.",
"Amicusbank is not an intended thirdparty beneficiary of the Bouque... | A written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $1,000,000 in Vintage for its capital expansion and, in return, that Vintage, from grapes grown in its famous vineyards, would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under the label "Premium VintageBouquet." The contract included provisions that the parties would share equally the profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by Vintage only through Claret, a wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither Bouquet nor Vintage had previously dealt with Claret. Claret learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility. "For this question only, assume the following facts. Amicusbank lent Bouquet $200,000 and Bouquet executed a written instrument providing that Amicusbank "is entitled to collect the debt from my share of the profits, if any, under the Vintage-Bouquet contract." Amicusbank gave prompt notice of this transaction to Vintage. If Vintage thereafter refuses to account for any profits to Amicusbank and Amicusbank sues Vintage for Bouquet's share of profits then realized, Vintage's strongest argument in defense is that | 405 | |
0 | [
"Yes, because the Vintage-Agribiz transaction created a significant risk of diminishing the profits in which Bouquet would share under his contract with Vintage. ",
"Yes, because the Bouquet-Vintage contract did not contain a provision authorizing a delegation of Vintage's duties. ",
"No, because Vintage remain... | A written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $1,000,000 in Vintage for its capital expansion and, in return, that Vintage, from grapes grown in its famous vineyards, would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under the label "Premium VintageBouquet." The contract included provisions that the parties would share equally the profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by Vintage only through Claret, a wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither Bouquet nor Vintage had previously dealt with Claret. Claret learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility. ""For this question only, assume the following facts. Soon after making its contract with Bouquet, Vintage, without Bouquet's knowledge or assent, sold its vineyards but not its winery to Agribiz, a large agricultural corporation. Under the terms of this sale, Agribiz agreed to sell to Vintage all grapes grown on the land for five years. Agribiz's employees have no experience in wine grape production, and Agribiz has no reputation in the wine industry as a grape producer or otherwise. The Bouquet-Vintage contract was silent on the matter of Vintage's selling any or all of its business assets. If Bouquet seeks an appropriate judicial remedy against Vintage for entering into the VintageAgribiz transaction, is Bouquet likely to prevail? | 406 | |
3 | [
"A city ordinance providing for a fine of not more than $200 for shoplifting.",
"A federal statute making it a felony to possess heroin.",
"A state statute making it a felony to fail to register a firearm.",
"A state statute making the sale of adulterated milk a misdemeanor"
] | Which of the following is most likely to be found to be a strict liability offense? | 407 | |
2 | [
"Yes, because Dugan owed the child the highest degree of care. ",
"Yes, because a tw0-year-old is incapable of contributory negligence. ",
"No, unless Dugan or his employees failed to exercise reasonable care to assure Bobby's safety. ",
"No, if Mary Weld assumed the risk by leaving Bobby in the nursery"
] | When Mary Weld visited Dugan's Alleys to participate in the weekly bowling league competition held there, she brought her twoyear-old son, Bobby, along and left him in a nursery provided by Dugan for the convenience of his customers. The children in the nursery were normally supervised by three attendants, but at this particular time, as Mary Weld knew, there was only one attendant present to care for about 20 children of assorted ages. About 30 minutes later, while the attendant was looking the other way, Bobby suddenly started to cry. The attendant found him lying on his back, picked him up, and called his mother. It was later discovered that Bobby had suffered a skull fracture. If a claim is asserted against Dugan on Bobby's behalf, will Bobby prevail? | 409 | |
1 | [
"Yes, because Congress has the power to regulate property for the general welfare. ",
"Yes, because Congress could determine that in inseverable aggregates bicycle thefts affect interstate commerce. ",
"No, because most stolen bicycles remain within the state in which they were stolen. ",
"No, because the reg... | Congress passes an act requiring that all owners of bicycles in the United States register them with a federal bicycle registry. The purpose of the law is to provide reliable evidence of ownership to reduce bicycle theft. No fee is charged for the registration. Although most stolen bicycles are kept or resold by the thieves in the same cities in which the bicycles were stolen, an increasing number of bicycles are being taken to cities in other states for resale. Is this act of Congress constitutional? | 410 | |
1 | [
"acquitted, because he did not complete the crime and he has not been charged with attempt. ",
"acquitted, because what he intended to do when he broke in was not a crime. ",
"convicted, because he had the necessary mental state and committed the act of breaking and entering. ",
"convicted, because factual im... | Donaldson broke into Professor Ruiz's office in order to look at examination questions. The questions were locked in a drawer, and Donaldson could not find them. Donaldson believed that looking at examination questions was a crime, but in this belief he was mistaken. Charged with burglary, Donaldson should be | 411 | |
3 | [
"admissible, provided that the hoax involved untruthfulness. ",
"admissible, provided that the hoax resulted in conviction of Fisher. ",
"inadmissible, because it is merely cumulative impeachment. ",
"inadmissible, because it is extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of misconduc"
] | In a tort action, Fisher testified against Dawes. Dawes then called Jones, who testified that Fisher had a bad reputation for veracity. Dawes then also called Weld to testify that Fisher once perpetrated a hoax on the police. Weld's testimony is | 413 | |
3 | [
"Placek should have judgment for $50,000 each against Astin and Garrison; Astin should recover nothing from Garrison. ",
"Placek should have judgment for $100,000 against Garrison only. ",
"Placek should have judgment for $100,000 against Astin and Garrison jointly, and Astin should have judgment against Garris... | Astin left her car at Garrison's Garage to have repair work done. After completing the repairs, Garrison took the car out for a test drive and was involved in an accident that caused damages to Placek. A statute imposes liability on the owner of an automobile for injuries to a third party that are caused by the negligence of any person driving the automobile with the owner's consent. The statute applies to situations of this kind, even if the owner did not specifically authorize the mechanic to test drive the car. Placek sued Astin and Garrison jointly for damages arising from the accident. In that action, Astin crossclaims to recover from Garrison the amount of any payment Astin may be required to make to Placek. The trier of fact has determined that the accident was caused solely by negligent driving on Garrison's part, and that Placek's damages were $100,000. In this action, the proper outcome will be that | 414 | |
0 | [
"A contingent remainder.",
"A vested remainder subject to divestment.",
"A springing use.",
"None."
] | Martinez, a widower, owns in fee simple a ranch, Ranchacre. Martinez has one child, Enrique, who is married. Enrique has one child, Ana Maria, who is also married but has no children. In an effort to dispose of Ranchacre to his descendants and to honor a request by Ana Maria that she be skipped in any disposition, Martinez conveys Ranchacre to his son, Enrique, for life with the remainder to Ana Maria's children in fee simple. What interest, if any, is created in favor of Ana Maria's unborn children at the time of the conveyance? | 415 | |
0 | [
"Yes, because the ties were nonconforming goods. ",
"Yes, because Kravat did not notify Clothier that the ties were shipped as an accommodation to Clothier. ",
"No, because Kravat could accept Clothier's offer by prompt shipment of either conforming or nonconforming goods. ",
"No, because Clothier waived his ... | On June 1, Kravat, a manufacturer of men's neckties, received the following order from Clothier: "Ship 500 two-inch ties, assorted stripes, your catalogue No. V34. Delivery by July l." On June 1, Kravat shipped 500 three-inch ties that arrived at Clothier's place of business on June 3. Clothier immediately telegraphed Kravat: "Reject your shipment. Order was for two-inch ties." Clothier, however, did not ship the ties back to Kravat. Kravat replied by telegram: "Will deliver proper ties before July 1." Clothier received this telegram on June 4, but did not reply to it. On June 30, Kravat tendered 500 two-inch ties in assorted stripes, designated in his catalogue as item No. V34; but Clothier refused to accept them.Did Clothier properly reject the ties delivered on June 3? | 416 | |
2 | [
"Yes, because Kravat's shipping the threeinch ties on June 1 was a present breach of contract. ",
"Yes, because Kravat's shipping the threeinch ties on June 1 was an anticipatory repudiation. ",
"No, because Kravat cured the June 1 defective delivery by his tender of conforming goods on June 30. ",
"No, becau... | On June 1, Kravat, a manufacturer of men's neckties, received the following order from Clothier: "Ship 500 two-inch ties, assorted stripes, your catalogue No. V34. Delivery by July l." On June 1, Kravat shipped 500 three-inch ties that arrived at Clothier's place of business on June 3. Clothier immediately telegraphed Kravat: "Reject your shipment. Order was for two-inch ties." Clothier, however, did not ship the ties back to Kravat. Kravat replied by telegram: "Will deliver proper ties before July 1." Clothier received this telegram on June 4, but did not reply to it. On June 30, Kravat tendered 500 two-inch ties in assorted stripes, designated in his catalogue as item No. V34; but Clothier refused to accept them.Did Clothier properly reject the ties tendered on June 30? | 417 | |
0 | [
"the part of his loss that would have been prevented if the collision had not occurred.",
"the value of his house before the fire.",
"nothing if Dever had nothing to do with causing the fire.",
"nothing, because Dever's conduct did not create an apparent danger to Peters"
] | Dever drove his car into an intersection and collided with a fire engine that had entered the intersection from Dever's right. The accident was caused by negligence on Dever's part. As a result of the accident, the fire engine was delayed in reaching Peters' house, which was entirely consumed by fire. Peters' house was located about ten blocks from the scene of the accident. If Peters asserts a claim against Dever, Peters will recover | 419 | |
0 | [
"not recover if Hammond reasonably believed his statement to be true.",
"not recover if the board granted Miller's application.",
"recover, because Hammond's statement was false. ",
"recover, because Hammond appeared before the board voluntarily"
] | Miller applied to the state liquor board for transfer of the license of Miller's Bar and Grill to a new site. The board held a hearing on the application. At that hearing, Hammond appeared without being subpoenaed and stated that Miller had underworld connections. Although Hammond did not know this information to be true, he had heard rumors about Miller's character and had noticed several underworld figures going in and out of Miller's Bar and Grill. In fact, Miller had no underworld connections. In a claim against Hammond based on defamation, Miller will | 420 | |
3 | [
"Santos, because any suit against Perrine concerning the setback would be frivolous. ",
"Santos, because the setback violation falls within the doctrine de minimis non curat lex. ",
"Perrine, because any variation, however small, amounts to a breach of contract. ",
"Perrine, because the fact that Perrine may ... | Santos agreed to sell and Perrine agreed to buy a described lot on which a single-family residence had been built. Under the contract, Santos agreed to convey marketable title subject only to conditions, covenants, and restrictions of record and all applicable zoning laws and ordinances. The lot was subject to a 10-foot sideline setback originally set forth in the developer's duly recorded subdivision plot. The applicable zoning ordinance zones the property for single-family units and requires an 8.5-foot sideline setback. Prior to closing, a survey of the property was made. It revealed that a portion of Santos's house was 8.4 feet from the sideline. Perrine refused to consummate the transaction on the ground that Santos's title is not marketable. In an appropriate action, Santos seeks specific performance. Who will prevail in such an action? | 421 | |
1 | [
"Young honestly believed that the device would cure arthritis, but his belief was unreasonable. ",
"Brown honestly believed that the device would cure arthritis, but her belief was unreasonable. ",
"Young was playing a practical joke on Brown and intended to return the money.",
"Brown was an undercover police... | Young, believing that Brown suffered from arthritis, told her that for $100 he could cure her with a device he had invented. The device was a large box with a series of electric light bulbs along the sides. Brown, after examining the device, agreed to take the treatment, which consisted of placing her hands inside the box for several ten-minute periods. Brown gave Young $100 and went through the treatment. Young is charged with obtaining money by false pretenses. Each of the following, if true, will absolve Young of guilt for obtaining money by false pretenses EXCEPT: | 422 | |
3 | [
"The commerce clause of Article I, § 8. ",
"The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV.",
"The enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.",
"The property clause of Article IV, § 3"
] | Congress enacted a law prohibiting the killing, capture, or removal of any form of wildlife upon or from any federally owned land. Which of the following is the most easily justifiable source of national authority for this federal law? | 423 | |
0 | [
"The choice is Wanda's.",
"The choice is David's.",
"Wanda is permitted to testify only if both Wanda and David agree.",
"Wanda is compelled to testify even if both Wanda and David objec"
] | David is being tried in federal court for criminal conspiracy with John to violate federal narcotics law. At trial, the prosecutor calls David's new wife, Wanda, and asks her to testify about a meeting between David and John that she observed before she married David. Which of the following is the most accurate statement of the applicable rule concerning whether Wanda may testify? | 424 | |
1 | [
"Yes, because he has a license, which is a property right protected by the due process clause. ",
"Yes, because he has a profit à prendre, which is a property right protected by the due process clause. ",
"No, because he has a license, and licenses are not property rights protected by the due process clause. "... | Opus, the owner of Stoneacre, entered into a written agreement with Miner. Under this written agreement, which was acknowledged and duly recorded, Miner, for a five-year period, was given the privilege to enter on Stoneacre to remove sand, gravel, and stone in whatever quantities Miner desired. Miner was to make monthly payments to Opus on the basis of the amount of sand, gravel, and stone removed during the previous month. Under the terms of the agreement, Miner's privilege was exclusive against all others except Opus, who reserved the right to use Stoneacre to any purpose whatsoever, including the removal of sand, gravel, and stone. One year after the agreement was entered into, the state brought a condemnation action to take Stoneacre for a highway interchange. In the condemnation action, is Miner entitled to compensation? | 425 | |
3 | [
"intoxication.",
"lack of malice aforethought.",
"self-defense.",
"insanity"
] | Dan was an alcoholic who frequently experienced auditory hallucinations that commanded him to engage in bizarre and sometimes violent behavior. He generally obeyed these commands. The hallucinations appeared more frequently when he was intoxicated, but he sometimes experienced them when he had not been drinking. After Dan had been drinking continuously for a three-day period, an elderly woman began to reproach him about his drunken condition, slapping him on the face and shoulders as she did so. Dan believed that he was being unmercifully attacked and heard the hallucinatory voice telling him to strangle his assailant. He did so, and the woman died. If Dan is charged with second-degree murder, Dan's best chance of acquittal would be to rely on a defense of | 426 | |
3 | [
"Yes, because Prodigal was a third-party intended beneficiary of the original MaterVault deposit agreement. ",
"Yes, because Prodigal was a constructive assignee of Mater's claim, as depositor, to the savings account. ",
"No, because Prodigal never obtained possession of the passbook. ",
"No, because Prodigal... | Mater, a wealthy widow, wishing to make a substantial and potentially enduring gift to her beloved adult stepson Prodigal, established with Vault Savings and Loan Association a passbook savings account by an initial deposit of $10,000.For this question only, assume the following facts. The passbook was issued solely in Prodigal's name; but Mater retained possession of it and Prodigal was not then informed of the savings account. Subsequently, Mater became disgusted with Prodigal's behavior and decided to give the same savings account solely to her beloved adult daughter Distaff. As permitted by the rules of Vault Savings and Loan, Mater effected this change by agreement with Vault. This time she left possession of the passbook with Vault. Shortly thereafter, Prodigal learned of the original savings account in his name and the subsequent switch to Distaff's name. If Prodigal now sues Vault Savings and Loan for $10,000 plus accrued interest, will the action succeed? | 427 | |
2 | [
"The estate prevails, because Mater's gift to Prodigal was revocable and was terminated by her death. ",
"The estate prevails, because Mater's gift to Prodigal was revocable and was terminated by her express revocation. ",
"Prodigal prevails, because he took Mater's claim to the savings account by a gratuitous ... | Mater, a wealthy widow, wishing to make a substantial and potentially enduring gift to her beloved adult stepson Prodigal, established with Vault Savings and Loan Association a passbook savings account by an initial deposit of $10,000."For this question only, assume the following facts. The passbook was issued by Vault to Mater solely in her own name. That same day, disinterested witnesses being present, she handed the passbook to Prodigal and said, "As a token of my love and affection for you, I give you this $10,000 savings account." Shortly thereafter, she changed her mind and wrote Prodigal, "I hereby revoke my gift to you of the $10,000 savings account with Vault Savings and Loan Association. Please return my passbook immediately. Signed: Mater." Prodigal received the letter but ignored it, and Mater died unexpectedly a few days later. In litigation between Prodigal and Mater's estate, which of the following is a correct statement of the parties' rights with respect to the money on deposit with Vault? | 428 | |
0 | [
"admitted, because it is relevant to the weight to be given to Wall's testimony. ",
"admitted, because specific acts bearing on truthfulness may be inquired about on cross-examination. ",
"excluded, because the court has determined that Wall is qualified to testify as an expert. ",
"excluded, because Wall's c... | In a civil suit by Pine against Decker, Decker called Wall, a chemist, as an expert witness and asked him a number of questions about his education and experience in chemistry. Over Pine's objection that Wall was not shown to be qualified in chemistry, the trial court permitted Wall to testify as to his opinion in response to a hypothetical question. On cross-examination, Pine asked Wall if he had failed two chemistry courses while doing his graduate work. The answer should be | 429 | |
3 | [
"constitutional, because disagreements over federal grant-in-aid funds necessarily involve federal questions within the judicial power of the United States. ",
"constitutional, because the spending of federal monies necessarily includes the authority to provide for the effective settlement of disputes involving t... | Congress enacts a law providing that all disagreements between the United States and a state over federal grant-in-aid funds shall be settled by the filing of a suit in the federal district court in the affected state. "The judgment of that federal court shall be transmitted to the head of the federal agency dispensing such funds who, if satisfied that the judgment is fair and lawful, shall execute the judgment according to its terms." This law is | 430 | |
2 | [
"Statement 1 only.",
"Statement 2 only.",
"Statements 1 and 2 only.",
"Statements 2 and 3 onl"
] | Purvis purchased a used car from Daley, a used car dealer. Knowing that they were false, Daley made the following statements to Purvis prior to the sale: Statement 1. This car has never been involved in an accident. Statement 2. This car gets 25 miles to the gallon on the open highway. Statement 3. This is as smooth-riding a car as you can get. If Purvis asserts a claim against Daley based on deceit, which of the false statements made by Daley would support Purvis' claim? | 431 | |
0 | [
"A non-expert who, in preparation for trial, has familiarized himself with Drake's usual signature testifies that, in his opinion, the questioned signature is genuine. ",
"The jury, without the assistance of an expert, compares the questioned signature with an admittedly authentic sample of Drake's handwriting. "... | In a contract suit by Perez against Drake, each of the following is an accepted method of authenticating Drake's signature on a document offered by Perez EXCEPT: | 432 | |
1 | [
"Yes, because the instrument is recorded. ",
"Yes, because Barton's right to purchase will vest or fail within the period prescribed by the Rule Against Perpetuities. ",
"No, because Barton's right to purchase is a restraint on the owner's power to make a testamentary disposition. ",
"No, because Barton's rig... | For a valuable consideration, Amato, the owner of Riveracre, signed and gave to Barton a duly executed instrument that provided as follows: "The grantor may or may not sell Riveracre during her lifetime, but at her death, or if she earlier decides to sell, the property will be offered to Barton at $500 per acre. Barton shall exercise this right, if at all, within 60 days of receipt of said offer to sell." Barton recorded the instrument. The instrument was not valid as a will. Is Barton's right under the instrument valid? | 433 | |
0 | [
"Robbery from James Green.",
"Larceny from James Green.",
"Assault on James and Mary Green.",
"Assault on Mary Green"
] | James and Mary Green were walking to their car one evening after having seen a movie. As they were passing a dark alleyway, Daves leaped out brandishing a gun. He pushed Mary against the wall of a nearby building, held the gun to her head, and demanded money from James. James handed over his cash. Daves grabbed the cash and ran away. Which of the following, listed in descending order of seriousness, is the most serious crime for which Daves may be convicted? | 434 | |
2 | [
"guilty, because in firing the shot Balcom was trying to help her. ",
"guilty, because she and Balcom were acting in concert in a dangerous undertaking. ",
"not guilty, because she had no idea that Balcom was armed and she did not plan to use force. ",
"not guilty, because she was exercising selfhelp and did ... | Dunbar and Balcom went into a drugstore, where Dunbar reached into the cash register and took out $200. Stone, the owner of the store, came out of a back room, saw what had happened, and told Dunbar to put the money back. Balcom then took a revolver from under his coat and shot and killed Stone. Dunbar claims that Stone owed her $200 and that she went to the drugstore to try to collect the debt. She said that she asked Balcom to come along just in case Stone made trouble but that she did not plan on using any force and did not know that Balcom was armed. If Dunbar is prosecuted for murder on the basis of being an accessory to Balcom in committing a murder and the jury believes her claim, she should be found | 436 | |
2 | [
"Suit dismissed, because Dunn does not have standing to bring this action. ",
"Suit dismissed, because there is no adversity between Dunn and the defendants. ",
"Suit dismissed, because it presents a nonjustifiable political question. ",
"Suit decided on the merits"
] | The President of the United States recognizes the country of Ruritania and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government through the Secretary of State. Ruritania is governed by a repressive totalitarian government. In an appropriate federal court, Dunn brings a suit against the President and Secretary of State to set aside this action on the ground that it is inconsistent with the principles of our constitutional form of government. Dunn has a lucrative contract with the United States Department of Commerce to provide commercial information about Ruritania. The contract expressly terminates, however, "when the President recognizes the country of Ruritania and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government." Which of the following is the most proper disposition of the Dunn suit by the federal court? | 437 | |
3 | [
"Nothing, because neither company discharged enough pesticide to cause harm to Landesmann's cattle. ",
"Nothing, unless Landesmann can establish how much pesticide each plant discharged. ",
"One-half of Landesmann's damages from each company.",
"The entire amount of Landesmann's damages, jointly and severally... | Acorp and Beeco are companies that each manufacture pesticide X. Their plants are located along the same river. During a specific 24-hour period, each plant discharged pesticide into the river. Both plants were operated negligently and such negligence caused the discharge of the pesticide into the river. Landesmann operated a cattle ranch downstream from the plants of Acorp and Beeco. Landesmann's cattle drank from the river and were poisoned by the pesticide. The amount of the discharge from either plant alone would not have been sufficient to cause any harm to Landesmann's cattle. If Landesmann asserts a claim against Acorp and Beeco, what, if anything, will Landesmann recover? | 438 | |
1 | [
"inadmissible, because it is not the best evidence. ",
"inadmissible, because it is impeachment on a collateral question. ",
"admissible as evidence of a regularly conducted activity.",
"admissible as tending to impeach Walters' credibility"
] | Paulsen sued Daly for nonpayment of a personal loan to Daly, as evidenced by Daly's promissory note to Paulsen. Paulsen called Walters to testify that he knows Daly's handwriting and that the signature on the note is Daly's. On direct examination, to identify himself, Walters gave his name and address and testified that he had been employed by a roofing company for seven years. During presentation of Daly's case, Daly called Wilson to testify that she is the roofing company's personnel manager and that she had determined, by examining the company's employment records, that Walters had worked there only three years. The trial judge should rule that Wilson's testimony is | 439 | |
0 | [
"Yes, if the brake failed because of a defect present when the bicycle left the factory of Cycle Company. ",
"Yes, because the brake failed while Roth was riding the bicycle. ",
"No, if Roth contributed to his own injury by speeding up. ",
"No, if Bike Shop carefully inspected the bicycle before selling it. "... | Cycle Company manufactured a bicycle that it sold to Bike Shop, a retail bicycle dealer, which in turn sold it to Roth. Shortly thereafter, while Roth was riding the bicycle along a city street, he saw a traffic light facing him turn from green to yellow. He sped up, hoping to cross the intersection before the light turned red. However, Roth quickly realized that he could not do so and applied the brake, which failed. To avoid the traffic that was then crossing in front of him, Roth turned sharply to his right and onto the sidewalk, where he struck Perez, a pedestrian. Both Perez and Roth sustained injuries."If Roth asserts a claim against Bike Shop based on strict liability in tort, will Roth prevail? | 441 | |
3 | [
"sustain the motion, because Fido on October 15 stated its willingness, and gave assurance of its ability, to perform the contract in January. ",
"sustain the motion, because Toy Store's lawsuit is premature in any case until after November 15. ",
"deny the motion, because Toy Store's complaint alleges an actio... | On October 1, Toy Store, Inc., entered into a written contract with Fido Factory, Inc., for the purchase at $20 per unit of 1,000 mechanical dogs, to be specially manufactured by Fido according to Toy Store's specifications. Fido promised to deliver all of the dogs "not later than November 15, for the Yule shopping season," and Toy Store promised to pay the full $20,000 price upon delivery. In order to obtain operating funds, Fido as borrower entered into a written loan agreement on October 5 with the High Finance Company. In relevant part, this agreement recited, "Fido Factory hereby transfers and assigns to High Finance its (Fido Factory's) October 1 mechanical dog contract with Toy Store, as security for a 50-day loan of $15,000, the advance and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged by Fido Factory." No copy of this agreement, or statement relating to it, was filed in an office of public record. On October 15, Fido notified Toy Store, "We regret to advise that our master shaft burned out last night because our night supervisor let the lubricant level get too low. We have just fired the supervisor, but the shaft cannot be repaired or replaced until about January 1. We can guarantee delivery of your order, however, not later than January 20." Toy Store rejected this proposal as unacceptable and immediately contracted with the only other available manufacturer to obtain the 1,000 dogs at $30 per unit by November 15. "For this question only, assume that on November 1, Toy Store sues Fido for damages and alleges the above facts, except those relating to the Fido-High Finance loan agreement. Upon Fido's motion to dismiss the complaint, the court should | 444 | |
0 | [
"nothing, because the October 5 assignment by Fido to High Finance of Fido's contract with Toy Store was only an assignment for security. ",
"nothing, because no record of the October 5 transaction between Fido and High Finance was publicly filed. ",
"$10,000 in damages, because Toy Store was a third-party inte... | On October 1, Toy Store, Inc., entered into a written contract with Fido Factory, Inc., for the purchase at $20 per unit of 1,000 mechanical dogs, to be specially manufactured by Fido according to Toy Store's specifications. Fido promised to deliver all of the dogs "not later than November 15, for the Yule shopping season," and Toy Store promised to pay the full $20,000 price upon delivery. In order to obtain operating funds, Fido as borrower entered into a written loan agreement on October 5 with the High Finance Company. In relevant part, this agreement recited, "Fido Factory hereby transfers and assigns to High Finance its (Fido Factory's) October 1 mechanical dog contract with Toy Store, as security for a 50-day loan of $15,000, the advance and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged by Fido Factory." No copy of this agreement, or statement relating to it, was filed in an office of public record. On October 15, Fido notified Toy Store, "We regret to advise that our master shaft burned out last night because our night supervisor let the lubricant level get too low. We have just fired the supervisor, but the shaft cannot be repaired or replaced until about January 1. We can guarantee delivery of your order, however, not later than January 20." Toy Store rejected this proposal as unacceptable and immediately contracted with the only other available manufacturer to obtain the 1,000 dogs at $30 per unit by November 15. ". For this question only, assume that by November 16, Fido, without legal excuse, has delivered no dogs, and that Toy Store has brought an action against Fido. In an action brought on November 16 by Toy Store against High Finance Company on account of Fido's default, Toy Store can recover | 445 | |
3 | [
"Yes, because the undesignated parcel is not a lot to which the subdivision building restrictions apply. ",
"Yes, because the undesignated parcel is not part of the subdivision. ",
"No, because the undesignated parcel has never been approved by the proper governmental authority. ",
"No, because the map leaves... | A 10-lot subdivision was approved by the proper governmental authority. The authority's action was pursuant to a map filed by Diaz, which included an undesignated parcel in addition to the 10 numbered lots. The undesignated parcel is differently shaped and somewhat larger than any one of the numbered lots. Subdivision building restrictions were imposed on "all the lots shown on said map." Diaz contracts to sell the unnumbered lot, described by metes and bounds, to Butts. Is title to the parcel marketable? | 446 | |
0 | [
"The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to Zeller is necessary to vindicate an important state interest.",
"The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to Zeller is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.",
"Zell... | A state statute requires the permanent removal from parental custody of any child who has suffered "child abuse." That term is defined to include "corporal punishment of any sort." Zeller very gently spanks his six-year-old son on the buttocks whenever he believes that spanking is necessary to enforce discipline on him. Such a spanking occurs not more than once a month and has never physically harmed the child. The state files suit under the statute to terminate Zeller's parental rights solely because of these spankings. Zeller defends only on the ground that the statute in question is unconstitutional as applied to his admitted conduct. In light of the nature of the rights involved, which of the following is the most probable burden of persuasion on this constitutional issue? | 447 | |
1 | [
"Compliance with the petition signature requirement is burdensome.",
"The objectives of the statute could be satisfactorily achieved by less burdensome means.",
"Because of the petition signature requirement, very few independent candidates have ever succeeded in getting on the ballot. ",
"The motivation for ... | According to a statute of the state of Kiowa, a candidate for state office may have his name placed on the official election ballot only if he files with the appropriate state official a petition containing a specified number of voter signatures. Roderick failed to get his name placed on the state ballot as an independent candidate for governor because he failed to file a petition with the number of voter signatures required by state statute. In a suit against the appropriate state officials in federal district court, Roderick sought an injunction against the petition signature requirement on the ground that it was unconstitutional. Which of the following, if established, constitutes the strongest argument for Roderick? | 448 | |
2 | [
"Nothing",
"$250, the reasonable value of the set ",
"$300, the amount Ohm promised to pay in his letter of July 1 ",
"$400, the original sale price"
] | In March, when Ohm was 17, Stereo delivered to Ohm a television set. At that time Ohm agreed in writing to pay $400 for the set on July 1 when he would reach his 18th birthday. Eighteen is the applicable statutory age of majority, and on that date Ohm was to receive the proceeds of a trust. On July 1, when the reasonable value of the television set was $250, Ohm sent Stereo a signed letter stating, "I'll only pay you $300; that is all the set is worth." In an action against Ohm for money damages on July 2, what is the maximum amount that Stereo will be entitled to recover? | 449 | |
2 | [
"inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception. ",
"inadmissible, because it is a violation of Dray's right of confrontation. ",
"admissible as prior identification by the witness.",
"admissible as past recollection recorded"
] | Dray was prosecuted for bank robbery. At trial, the bank teller, Wall, was unable to identify Dray, now bearded, as the bank robber. The prosecutor then showed Wall a group of photographs, and Wall testified that she had previously told the prosecutor that the middle picture (concededly a picture of Dray before he grew a beard) was a picture of the bank robber. Wall's testimony is | 450 | |
1 | [
"Arson.",
"Manslaughter.",
"Attempted rape.",
"Burglary"
] | Which of the following is LEAST likely to be the underlying felony in a prosecution for felony murder? | 451 | |
1 | [
"recover unless Morris was negligently driving when the truck overturned.",
"recover, because Dixon's knowledge of the dangerous propensity of the trailer does not relieve Trailco of liability. ",
"not recover, because there was no privity of contract between Morris and Trailco. ",
"not recover if Dixon was n... | Morris was driving north on an interstate highway at about 50 miles per hour when a tractor-trailer rig, owned and driven by Dixon, passed her. The tractor was pulling a refrigerated meat trailer fully loaded with beef carcasses hanging freely from the trailer ceiling. When Dixon cut back in front of Morris, the shifting weight of the beef caused the trailer to overturn. Morris was unable to avoid a collision with the overturned trailer and was injured. The trailer had been manufactured by Trailco. A number of truckers had complained to Trailco that the design of the trailer, which allowed the load to swing freely, was dangerous. Dixon knew of the dangerous propensity of the trailer. A restraining device that could be installed in the trailer would prevent the load from shifting and was available at nominal cost. Dixon knew of the restraining device but had not installed it"If Morris asserts a claim based on strict liability tort against Trailco, she will | 452 | |
0 | [
"prevail if the use of a restraining device would have prevented the trailer from overturning.",
"prevail, because Dixon is strictly liable to Morris for injuries resulting from defects in the trailer. ",
"not prevail unless Dixon was driving in a negligent manner at the time Morris was injured.",
"not prevai... | Morris was driving north on an interstate highway at about 50 miles per hour when a tractor-trailer rig, owned and driven by Dixon, passed her. The tractor was pulling a refrigerated meat trailer fully loaded with beef carcasses hanging freely from the trailer ceiling. When Dixon cut back in front of Morris, the shifting weight of the beef caused the trailer to overturn. Morris was unable to avoid a collision with the overturned trailer and was injured. The trailer had been manufactured by Trailco. A number of truckers had complained to Trailco that the design of the trailer, which allowed the load to swing freely, was dangerous. Dixon knew of the dangerous propensity of the trailer. A restraining device that could be installed in the trailer would prevent the load from shifting and was available at nominal cost. Dixon knew of the restraining device but had not installed it"If Morris asserts a claim for her injuries against Dixon, she will | 453 | |
0 | [
"the covenant does not touch and concern the land.",
"the mixture of types of residential units is viewed as preventing one common development scheme.",
"the covenant is a restraint on alienation.",
"there is no privity of estate between Page and Gaint"
] | Fernwood Realty Company developed a residential development, known as the Fernwood Development, which included single-family dwellings, townhouses, and high-rise apartments for a total of 25,000 dwelling units. Included in the deed to each unit was a covenant under which the grantee and the grantee's "heirs and assigns" agreed to purchase electrical power from only a plant Fernwood promised to build and maintain within the development. Fernwood constructed the plant and the necessary power 111 lines. The plant did not supply power outside the development. An appropriate and fair formula was used to determine price. After constructing and selling 12,500 of the units, Fernwood sold its interest in the development to Gaint Realty Investors. Gaint operated the power plant and constructed and sold the remaining 12,500 units. Each conveyance from Gaint contained the same covenant relating to electrical power that Fernwood had included in the 12,500 conveyances it had made. Page bought a dwelling unit from Olm, who had purchased it from Fernwood. Subsequently, Page, whose lot was along the boundary of the Fernwood Development, ceased buying electrical power from Gaint and began purchasing power from General Power Company, which provided such service in the area surrounding the Fernwood Development. Both General Power and Gaint have governmental authorization to provide electrical services to the area. Gaint instituted an appropriate action against Page to enjoin her from obtaining electrical power from General Power. If judgment is for Page, it most likely will be because | 454 | |
0 | [
"constitutional, because it creates a limited administrative power to implement the statute. ",
"constitutional, because inherent executive powers permit such action even without statutory authorization. ",
"unconstitutional as an undue delegation of legislative power to the executive.",
"unconstitutional, be... | Congress passes an Energy Conservation Act. The act requires all users of energy in this country to reduce their consumption by a specified percentage, to be set by a presidential executive order. The act sets forth specific standards the President must use in setting the percentage and detailed procedures to be followed. The provision that allows the President to set the exact percentage is probably | 455 | |
2 | [
"Luis, because his quitclaim deed did not transfer his after-acquired title. ",
"Luis, because José took nothing under Ortega's will. ",
"José, because Luis had effectively conveyed his interest to José. ",
"José, because the doctrine of after-acquired title applies to a devise by will"
] | Ortega owned Blackacre in fee simple and by his will specifically devised Blackacre as follows: "To my daughter, Eugenia, her heirs and assigns, but if Eugenia dies survived by a husband and a child or children, then to Eugenia's husband during his lifetime with remainder to Eugenia's children, their heirs and assigns. Specifically provided, however, that if Eugenia dies survived by a husband and no child, Blackacre is specifically devised to my nephew, Luis, his heirs and assigns." While Ortega's will was in probate, Luis quitclaimed all interest in Blackacre to Eugenia's husband, José. Three years later, Eugenia died, survived by José but no children. Eugenia left a will devising her interest in Blackacre to José. The only applicable statute provides that any interest in land is freely alienable. Luis instituted an appropriate action against José to establish title to Blackacre. Judgment should be for | 456 | |
2 | [
"granted, because Barber was effectively in custody and entitled to receive Miranda warnings at the beginning of the discussion. ",
"granted, because Barber's rights to counsel and to due process were violated by the interrogation at police headquarters. ",
"denied, because his statement was freely and voluntar... | Alford was a suspect in a homicide committed during a robbery of a liquor store. Barber was a friend of Alford. Police telephoned Barber and asked if he would help locate Alford. Barber agreed and met the police officers at headquarters later that night. After a discussion during which police asked questions about Alford and the homicide, Barber said that he wanted to get something "off his chest" and advised the officers that he was in on the robbery but that Alford had shot the owner of the store without his permission or prior knowledge. The officers then for the first time gave Barber his Miranda warnings. Barber was indicted for felony murder. He moved to prevent the introduction of his statement into evidence. His motion should be | 458 | |
0 | [
"this law is a necessary and proper means of protecting United States property.",
"the animals are moving in the stream of interstate commerce.",
"the police powers of the federal government encompass protection of wild animals.",
"shooting wild animals is a privilege, not a right"
] | The federal government has complete jurisdiction over certain parkland located within the state of Plains. To conserve the wildlife that inhabits that land, the federal government enacts a statute forbidding all hunting of animals in the federal park. That statute also forbids the hunting of animals that have left the federal park and have entered the state of Plains. Hanson has a hunting license from the state of Plains authorizing him to hunt deer anywhere in the state. On land within the state of Plains located adjacent to the federal park, Hanson shoots a deer he knows has recently left the federal land. Hanson is prosecuted for violating the federal hunting law. The strongest ground supporting the constitutionality of the federal law forbidding the hunting of wild animals that wander off federal property is that | 459 | |
3 | [
"Yes, if Kane's remarks were heard by any of Poe's neighbors. ",
"Yes, because Kane's conduct was extreme and outrageous. ",
"No, unless Kane knew that Poe owed no money to Store. ",
"No, unless Poe suffered some special damage"
] | Poe ordered some merchandise from Store. When the merchandise was delivered, Poe decided that it was not what he had ordered, and he returned it for credit. Store refused to credit Poe's account, continued to bill him, and, after 90 days, turned the account over to Kane, a bill collector, for collection. Kane called at Poe's house at 7 p.m. on a summer evening while many of Poe's neighbors were seated on their porches. When Poe opened the door, Kane, who was standing just outside the door, raised an electrically amplified bullhorn to his mouth. In a voice that could be heard a block away, Kane called Poe a "deadbeat" and asked him when he intended to pay his bill to Store. Poe, greatly angered, slammed the door shut. The door struck the bullhorn and jammed it forcibly against Kane's face. As a consequence, Kane lost his front teeth."If Poe asserts a claim based on defamation against Kane, will Poe prevail? | 460 | |
0 | [
"Yes, because Kane's conduct was extreme and outrageous. ",
"Yes, because Kane was intruding on Poe's property. ",
"No, unless Poe suffered physical harm. ",
"No, if Poe still owed Store for the merchandise."
] | Poe ordered some merchandise from Store. When the merchandise was delivered, Poe decided that it was not what he had ordered, and he returned it for credit. Store refused to credit Poe's account, continued to bill him, and, after 90 days, turned the account over to Kane, a bill collector, for collection. Kane called at Poe's house at 7 p.m. on a summer evening while many of Poe's neighbors were seated on their porches. When Poe opened the door, Kane, who was standing just outside the door, raised an electrically amplified bullhorn to his mouth. In a voice that could be heard a block away, Kane called Poe a "deadbeat" and asked him when he intended to pay his bill to Store. Poe, greatly angered, slammed the door shut. The door struck the bullhorn and jammed it forcibly against Kane's face. As a consequence, Kane lost his front teeth.""If Poe asserts a claim based on intentional . If Poe asserts a claim based on intentional infliction of emotional distress against Kane, will Poe prevail? | 461 | |
1 | [
"Yes, because Poe had not first asked Kane to leave the property. ",
"Yes, if Poe knew that the door was substantially certain to strike the bullhorn. ",
"No, if Kane's conduct triggered Poe's response. ",
"No, because Kane was an intruder on Poe's propert"
] | Poe ordered some merchandise from Store. When the merchandise was delivered, Poe decided that it was not what he had ordered, and he returned it for credit. Store refused to credit Poe's account, continued to bill him, and, after 90 days, turned the account over to Kane, a bill collector, for collection. Kane called at Poe's house at 7 p.m. on a summer evening while many of Poe's neighbors were seated on their porches. When Poe opened the door, Kane, who was standing just outside the door, raised an electrically amplified bullhorn to his mouth. In a voice that could be heard a block away, Kane called Poe a "deadbeat" and asked him when he intended to pay his bill to Store. Poe, greatly angered, slammed the door shut. The door struck the bullhorn and jammed it forcibly against Kane's face. As a consequence, Kane lost his front teeth."If Kane asserts a claim of battery against Poe, will Kane prevail? | 462 | |
3 | [
"both parties were merchants.",
"Eureka had at least 24 LBVCs in stock when Gourmet's check and memo were received.",
"Gourmet's check and memo were mailed within three months after his receipt of Eureka's letter.",
"Gourmet's check and memo were mailed within a reasonable time after his receipt of Eureka's l... | Eureka, Inc., inventor of the LBVC, a laser-beam vegetable chopper, ran a television ad that described the chopper and said, "The LBVC is yours for only $49.99 if you send your check or money order to Box 007, Greenville. Not available in stores." Gourmet, who owned a retail specialty shop, wrote Eureka, "What's your best firm price for two dozen LBVCs?" Eureka sent a written reply that said in its entirety, "We quote you for prompt acceptance $39.99 per unit for 24 LBVCs." Gourmet subsequently mailed a check to Eureka in the appropriate amount, with a memo enclosed saying, "I accept your offer for 24 LBVCs."A contract would arise from these communications only if | 463 | |
2 | [
"Eureka, as inventor of the LBVC, was not a merchant. ",
"the invoice restriction was a material alteration of preexisting terms.",
"Eureka's written reply that quoted $39.99 per LBVC but did not contain a restriction on retail sales, was not an offer that Gourmet accepted by ordering 24 LBVCs. ",
"Gourmet wa... | Eureka, Inc., inventor of the LBVC, a laser-beam vegetable chopper, ran a television ad that described the chopper and said, "The LBVC is yours for only $49.99 if you send your check or money order to Box 007, Greenville. Not available in stores." Gourmet, who owned a retail specialty shop, wrote Eureka, "What's your best firm price for two dozen LBVCs?" Eureka sent a written reply that said in its entirety, "We quote you for prompt acceptance $39.99 per unit for 24 LBVCs." Gourmet subsequently mailed a check to Eureka in the appropriate amount, with a memo enclosed saying, "I accept your offer for 24 LBVCs."For this question only, assume the following facts: Eureka shipped 24 LBVCs to Gourmet after receiving his check and memo, and with the shipment sent Gourmet an invoice that conspicuously stated, among other things, the following lawful provision: "These items shall not be offered for resale at retail." Gourmet received and read but disregarded the invoice restriction and displayed the 24 LBVCs for resale. Eureka has a cause of action against Gourmet for breach of contract only if | 464 | |
3 | [
"granted, because a search warrant should have been secured for seizure of the records. ",
"granted, because the records covered such an extensive period of time that their seizure unreasonably invaded Downs's right of privacy. ",
"denied, because the potential destructibility of the records, coupled with the p... | Downs was indicted in state court for bribing a public official. During the course of the investigation, police had demanded and received from Downs's bank the records of Downs's checking account for the preceding two years. The records contained incriminating evidence. On the basis of a claim of violation of his constitutional rights, Downs moves to prevent the introduction of the records in evidence. His motion should be | 465 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.