answer int64 0 3 | choices listlengths 4 4 | question stringlengths 1 6.54k | subject stringclasses 1
value | __source_orig_idx__ int64 1 99.8k |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | [
"constitutional, because the traps constitute contraband in which Prentis could have no protected property interest. ",
"constitutional, because there is a rational basis for differentiating between the possession of snipe traps as interstate cargo by common carriers and the possession of snipe traps by private i... | Three states, East Winnetka, Midland, and West Hampton, are located next to one another in that order. The states of East Winnetka and West Hampton permit the hunting and trapping of snipe, but the state of Midland strictly forbids these activities in order to protect snipe, a rare species of animal, from extinction. The state of Midland has a state statute that provides, "Possession of snipe traps is prohibited. Any game warden finding a snipe trap within the state shall seize and destroy it." Snipe traps cost about $15 each. Prentis is a resident of West Hampton and an ardent snipe trapper. She drove her car to East Winnetka to purchase a new improved snipe trap from a manufacturer there. In the course of her trip back across Midland with the trap in her car, Prentis stopped in a Midland state park to camp for a few nights. While she was in that park, a Midland game warden saw the trap, which was visible on the front seat of her car. The warden seized the trap and destroyed it in accordance with the Midland statute after Prentis admitted that the seized item was a prohibited snipe trap. No federal statutes or federal administrative regulations apply.""For this question only, assume that Prentis demonstrates that common carriers are permitted to transport snipe traps as cargo across Midland for delivery to another state and that in practice the Midland statute is enforced only against private individuals transporting those traps in private vehicles. If Prentis challenges the application of the Midland statute to her on the basis only of a denial of equal protection, the application of the statute will probably be found | 466 | |
3 | [
"The federal rule preempts the Midland state statute, because the federal rule regulates the same subject matter: snipe traps. ",
"The federal rule preempts the Midland state statute, because the federal rule does not contain affirmative authorization for continued state regulation. ",
"The federal rule does no... | Three states, East Winnetka, Midland, and West Hampton, are located next to one another in that order. The states of East Winnetka and West Hampton permit the hunting and trapping of snipe, but the state of Midland strictly forbids these activities in order to protect snipe, a rare species of animal, from extinction. The state of Midland has a state statute that provides, "Possession of snipe traps is prohibited. Any game warden finding a snipe trap within the state shall seize and destroy it." Snipe traps cost about $15 each. Prentis is a resident of West Hampton and an ardent snipe trapper. She drove her car to East Winnetka to purchase a new improved snipe trap from a manufacturer there. In the course of her trip back across Midland with the trap in her car, Prentis stopped in a Midland state park to camp for a few nights. While she was in that park, a Midland game warden saw the trap, which was visible on the front seat of her car. The warden seized the trap and destroyed it in accordance with the Midland statute after Prentis admitted that the seized item was a prohibited snipe trap. No federal statutes or federal administrative regulations apply.""For this question only, assume that a valid federal administrative rule, adopted under a federal consumer product safety act, regulates the design of snipe traps. The rule was issued to prevent traps from causing injury to human beings, e.g., by pinching fingers while persons were setting the traps. No other federal law applies. Which of the following best states the effect of the federal rule on the Midland state statute? | 467 | |
0 | [
"the person who then held title to Brownacre in fee simple.",
"Burns, as purchaser of the dam under the bill of sale. ",
"the person who then owned the water rights as an incident thereto.",
"Hull, as the builder of the dam"
] | Orris had title to Brownacre in fee simple. Without Orris' knowledge, Hull entered Brownacre in 1950 and constructed an earthen dam across a watercourse. The earthen dam trapped water that Hull used to water a herd of cattle he owned. After 12 years of possession of Brownacre, Hull gave possession of Brownacre to Burns. At the same time, Hull also purported to transfer his cattle and all his interests in the dam and water to Burns by a document that was sufficient as a bill of sale to transfer personal property but was insufficient as a deed to transfer real property. One year later, Burns entered into a lease with Orris to lease Brownacre for a period of five years. After the end of the five-year term of the lease, Burns remained on Brownacre for an additional three years and then left Brownacre. At that time Orris conveyed Brownacre by a quitclaim deed to Powell. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 yearsAfter Orris's conveyance to Powell, title to the earthen dam was in | 469 | |
1 | [
"admitted, because it is a statement of Parker's then existing physical condition. ",
"admitted, because it is a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. ",
"excluded, because it is hearsay, not within any exception. ",
"excluded, because Parker is available as a witness"
] | An issue in Parker's action against Daves for causing Parker's back injury was whether Parker's condition had resulted principally from a similar occurrence five years before, with which Daves had no connection. Parker called Watts, his treating physician, who offered to testify that when she saw Parker after the latest occurrence, Parker told her that before the accident he had been working full time, without pain or limitation of motion, in a job that involved lifting heavy boxes. Watts's testimony should be | 470 | |
1 | [
"a proper attempt to introduce recorded recollection.",
"a proper attempt to refresh West's recollection.",
"an improper attempt to lead the witness.",
"an improper attempt to support West's credibility"
] | West, a witness in a contract case, testified on direct examination that four people attended a meeting. When asked to identify them, she gave the names of three but despite trying was unable to remember the name of the fourth person. The attorney who called her as a witness seeks to show her his handwritten notes of the part of his pretrial interview with her in which she provided all four names. The trial court is likely to consider the showing of the notes taken as | 471 | |
3 | [
"the court will impose a constructive trust to carry out the intent of the deceased son.",
"the presumption of delivery arising from the recording is not valid unless the grantee has knowledge at the time of the recording.",
"Simon's declaration was a constructive reconveyance of the land.",
"there was no eff... | While hospitalized, Marsh asked her attorney to draw a deed conveying her home to her son, Simon. While Marsh remained in the hospital, the deed was drawn, properly executed, and promptly and properly recorded. On being informed of the existence of the deed, Simon told his mother, "I want no part of the property; take the deed right back." Marsh recovered and left the hospital, but shortly thereafter, before any other relevant event, Simon died intestate. Marsh brought an appropriate action against Simon's heirs to determine title. If Marsh wins, it will be because | 472 | |
2 | [
"Yes, because Plannah's services under the contract are unique. ",
"Yes, because Plannah has personally completed two-thirds of the design work. ",
"No, because the Plannah-Threedee contract is one for personal services by Plannah. ",
"No, because Plannah effectively delegated his remaining duties under the P... | In a writing signed by both parties, Paul Plannah, a renowned architect, agreed for a fee of $25,000 to design and supervise construction of a new house for Phoebe Threedee, a famous sculptor, the fee to be paid upon completion of the house. Plannah and Threedee got along poorly, and, when the design plans were about two-thirds complete, they had a heated argument over the proper location of a marble staircase. Hoping to avoid such encounters, Plannah, without Threedee's knowledge, assigned to Donna Drafty, a newly licensed architect practicing solo, "all of my rights and duties under my design and construction supervision contract with Threedee." Drafty expressly promised Plannah to carry out the work to the best of Drafty's ability."For this question only, assume that Threedee, on learning of the assignment, refused to allow Drafty to proceed as architect and brought an action against Plannah to compel him to resume and complete performance of the contract. Is Threedee entitled to such relief? | 474 | |
0 | [
"I and II only",
"I and III only",
"II and III only",
"I, II, and II"
] | In a writing signed by both parties, Paul Plannah, a renowned architect, agreed for a fee of $25,000 to design and supervise construction of a new house for Phoebe Threedee, a famous sculptor, the fee to be paid upon completion of the house. Plannah and Threedee got along poorly, and, when the design plans were about two-thirds complete, they had a heated argument over the proper location of a marble staircase. Hoping to avoid such encounters, Plannah, without Threedee's knowledge, assigned to Donna Drafty, a newly licensed architect practicing solo, "all of my rights and duties under my design and construction supervision contract with Threedee." Drafty expressly promised Plannah to carry out the work to the best of Drafty's ability."". For this question only, assume that Threedee allowed Drafty to proceed with the design work but that Drafty without legal excuse abandoned the project shortly after construction began. Which of the following legal conclusions are correct? I. Plannah is liable to Threedee for legal damages, if any, caused by Drafty's default. II. Drafty is liable to Threedee for legal damages, if any, caused by Drafty's default. III. Threedee is indebted to Drafty, on a divisible contract theory, for a prorated portion of the agreed $25,000 architect's fee promised to Plannah. | 475 | |
0 | [
"A business in another state that supplies from that other state 95 percent of the goods and services bought by a corporation that has annual sales in Green of $20 million.",
"A corporation selling $300,000 worth of goods in Green but presently purchasing only $10,000 in goods and services in Green. ",
"The gov... | There is high and persistent unemployment in the industrialized state of Green. Its legislature therefore enacted a statute requiring every business with annual sales in Green of over $1 million to purchase each year goods and/or services in Green equal in value to at least half of its sales in Green Which of the following parties most clearly has standing to contest the constitutionality of this statute of Green in federal court? | 476 | |
3 | [
"entirely in Constance.",
"one-half in the heirs of Henry and one-half in the heirs of Audrey.",
"one-half in Constance, one-quarter in the heirs of Henry, and one-quarter in the heirs of Audrey. ",
"one-half in the heirs of Susan, one-quarter in the heirs of Henry, and one-quarter in the heirs of Audrey"
] | Constance owned Greenacre in fee simple. She executed two instruments in the proper form of deeds. The first instrument purported to convey an undivided one-half interest in Greenacre to Henry and his wife, Audrey, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The second instrument purported to convey an undivided one-half interest in Greenacre to Susan, the only child of Henry. Susan was 13 years old at the time. The common law joint tenancy is unmodified by statute. No actual consideration was paid for the deeds. Constance handed the two deeds to Henry. Henry promptly and properly recorded the deed to himself and Audrey and put the deed to his daughter, Susan, in a safe-deposit box without recording it. The same year, Henry, Audrey, and Susan were on a vacation when the plane in which they were flying went down, and all three were killed simultaneously. Henry, Audrey, and Susan died intestate. The applicable statute in the jurisdiction provides that "when title to property on its devolution depends on priority of death and there is insufficient evidence that the persons have died otherwise than simultaneously, the property of each person shall be disposed of as if he had survived." An appropriate action was instituted by the heirs of Henry, Audrey, and Susan. Constance, who is not an heir of any of the deceased, was a party to the action. The court should determine that title to Greenacre is | 477 | |
2 | [
"recover if Denton intended to place Prout in fear of physical harm.",
"recover, because Denton's conduct was extreme and outrageous. ",
"not recover if Denton took no action that threatened immediate physical harm to Prout.",
"not recover, because Prout's action removed any threat of harmful force"
] | When Denton heard that his neighbor, Prout, intended to sell his home to a minority purchaser, Denton told Prout that Prout and his wife and children would meet with "accidents" if he did so. Prout then called the prospective purchaser and told him that he was taking the house off the market.If Prout asserts a claim against Denton for assault, Prout will | 479 | |
0 | [
"$9,000 minus what it cost Hardsell to purchase the car from the manufacturer. ",
"$9,000 minus the wholesale price of an identical Doppelpferd in the local wholesale market among dealers. ",
"nominal damages only, because Hardsell resold the car to Karbuff without lowering the retail price. ",
"nothing, beca... | The German-made Doppelpferd, featuring sleek styling and remarkable fuel efficiency, is the most popular automobile in the United States. Its U.S. sales are booming, and the average retail markup in such sales is 30 percent. Hardsell Motors, Inc., a franchised Doppelpferd dealer in the United States, contracted with Shift to sell him a new Doppelpferd for $9,000 cash, the sale to be consummated after delivery to Hardsell of the car, which Hardsell ordered from the manufacturer specifically for Shift. The signed retail contractual document was a contract drafted by Hardsell's lawyer, and Shift did not question or object to any of its terms, including the price inserted by Hardsell. When the car arrived from Germany, Shift repudiated the contract. Hardsell at once sold the car for $9,000 cash to Karbuff, for whom Hardsell had also ordered from the manufacturer a Doppelpferd identical to Shift's. In an action against Shift for breach of contract, Hardsell will probably recover | 481 | |
3 | [
"it was impossible for the sale to have occurred.",
"she had strictly instructed her employees not to sell ammunition to minors.",
"Duncan lied about his age.",
"the clerk did not have the mental state needed for attempt."
] | A statute in a jurisdiction makes it a crime to sell ammunition to a minor (defined as a person under the age of 18). The courts have interpreted this statute as creating a strict liability offense that does not require knowledge of the age of the purchaser and as creating vicarious liability. Duncan, who was 16 years old, but looked four or five years older, entered a store owned by Matthews and asked a clerk for a box of .22-caliber shells. Matthews had instructed her employees not to sell ammunition to minors. The clerk asked Duncan his age. Duncan said he was 20. The clerk then placed a box of shells on the counter and asked, "Anything else?" Duncan said that was all he wanted but then discovered he did not have enough money to pay for the shells, so the clerk put the box back onto the shelf. If Matthews, the owner of the store, is charged with attempting to violate the statute, her best argument would be that | 482 | |
1 | [
"Bob has no interest in Goldacre.",
"the right to take minerals is an incident of a defeasible fee simple.",
"the right to take minerals is an incident of the right to possession.",
"there was no showing that Andy acted in bad fait"
] | Otto conveyed Goldacre to "Andy, his heirs and assigns, but if Andy dies and is not survived by children by his present wife, Jane, then to Bob and his heirs and assigns." Shortly after taking possession, Andy discovered rich metal deposits on the land, opened a mining operation, and removed and sold a considerable quantity of valuable ore without giving Bob any notice of his action. Andy has no children. Andy, Jane, and Bob are all still living. Bob brought an action in equity for an accounting of the value of the ore removed and for an injunction against further removal. If the decision is for Andy, it will be because | 483 | |
3 | [
"deprived him of the equal protection of the laws because other religious ministers have not been charged under this statute.",
"denied him procedural due process because it placed upon Jones the burden of rebutting evidence, submitted by the state, of his bad faith in raising this money. ",
"denied him rights ... | A state statute makes fraud for personal financial gain a crime. Jones was convicted of violating this statute on three separate occasions. Following his most recent conviction, he professed to have undergone a religious conversion and proclaimed himself to be the divine minister of "St. Rockport," an alleged messiah who would shortly be making his appearance on earth. Jones solicited cash donations from the public to support his efforts to spread the word of St. Rockport and his coming appearance on earth. Following complaints by several contributors who claimed he defrauded them, Jones was again charged with fraud under this state statute. The charge was that Jones "should have known that his representations about St. Rockport were false and, therefore, that he made them solely to collect cash donations for his personal gain." A witness for the prosecution in Jones' trial stated that Jones had admitted that, at times, he had doubts about the existence of St. Rockport. Jones was the only religious minister prosecuted for fraud under this state statute. The strongest constitutional defense that Jones could assert would be that this prosecution | 484 | |
2 | [
"Yes, if Dwyer knew that the stove was defective. ",
"Yes, if Dwyer could have discovered the defect in the stove by a reasonable inspection. ",
"No, because Dwyer had no reason to anticipate Page's presence in the cabin. ",
"No, unless Page needed to use the cabin for her own protection."
] | While on a hiking trip during the late fall, Page arrived, toward the end of the day, at a clearing where several similar cabins were located, none of which was occupied. One of the cabins belonged to Levin, Page's friend, who had given Page permission to use it. Page entered one of the cabins, which she thought was Levin's, and prepared to spend the night. In fact the cabin was owned, not by Levin, but by Dwyer. When the night turned cold, Page started a fire in the stove. Unknown to Page, there was a defect in the stove that allowed carbon monoxide fumes to escape into the cabin. During the night the fumes caused serious injury to Page. If Page asserts a claim against Dwyer for her injury, will Page recover? | 487 | |
0 | [
"Howser will win, because Awl in legal effect committed a total breach of contract. ",
"Howser will win, because Gutter's contract price was $15,000 lower than the $90,000 demanded by Awl on February 1. ",
"Awl will win, because Howser did not tell him before April 1 about the contract with Gutter. ",
"Awl wi... | On January 1, Awl and Howser agreed in writing that Awl would build a house on Howser's lot according to Howser's plans and specifications for $60,000, the work to commence on April 1. Howser agreed to make an initial payment of $10,000 on April 1, and to pay the balance upon completion of the work. On February 1, Awl notified Howser that he (Awl) would lose money on the job at that price, and would not proceed with the work unless Howser would agree to increase the price to $90,000. Howser thereupon, without notifying Awl, agreed in writing with Gutter for Gutter, commencing April 1, to build the house for $75,000, which was the fair market cost of the work to be done. On April 1, both Awl and Gutter showed up at the building site to begin work, Awl telling Howser that he had decided to "take the loss" and would build the house for $60,000 as originally agreed. Howser dismissed Awl and allowed Gutter to begin work on the house.""In a contract action by Awl against Howser, which of the following would the court decide under the prevailing American view? | 488 | |
3 | [
"the difference between the fair market value of the completed house and Awl's original contract price.",
"$30,000, the difference between Awl's original contract price and the amount Awl demanded on February 1. ",
"$25,000, the difference between Awl's original contract price and the total amount Howser paid G... | On January 1, Awl and Howser agreed in writing that Awl would build a house on Howser's lot according to Howser's plans and specifications for $60,000, the work to commence on April 1. Howser agreed to make an initial payment of $10,000 on April 1, and to pay the balance upon completion of the work. On February 1, Awl notified Howser that he (Awl) would lose money on the job at that price, and would not proceed with the work unless Howser would agree to increase the price to $90,000. Howser thereupon, without notifying Awl, agreed in writing with Gutter for Gutter, commencing April 1, to build the house for $75,000, which was the fair market cost of the work to be done. On April 1, both Awl and Gutter showed up at the building site to begin work, Awl telling Howser that he had decided to "take the loss" and would build the house for $60,000 as originally agreed. Howser dismissed Awl and allowed Gutter to begin work on the house."For this question only, assume that Awl is liable to Howser for breach of contract and also assume the following additional facts: Gutter finished the house on schedule and then showed Howser that he (Gutter) had spent $85,000 on the job. Howser thereupon paid Gutter the full balance of their contract price plus an additional $10,000 so that Gutter would not lose money. In a contract action by Howser against Awl, Howser will recover | 489 | |
3 | [
"burglary only.",
"arson only.",
"burglary and attempted arson.",
"burglary and arson"
] | During the night, Murphy broke into a house with the intention of stealing a typewriter. On not finding a typewriter, she became angry, poured lighter fluid onto a couch, and set it on fire. The flames destroyed the couch and also burned a portion of the ceiling in the room. In a common law jurisdiction, Murphy is guilty of | 490 | |
1 | [
"constitutional, because a state has exclusive jurisdiction over all commercial transactions executed wholly within its borders. ",
"constitutional, because private contractors performing work under a federal contract are not immune in these circumstances from nondiscriminatory state taxation. ",
"unconstitutio... | Argus Corporation is privately owned and incorporated in the state of Kiowa. It contracted with the United States to construct a dam across the Big Sandy River in the state of Arapaho. The state of Arapaho imposed a gross receipts tax on all business conducted within the state. Arapaho sued Argus Corporation to collect that tax on the receipts Argus received under this federal contract. No federal statutes or administrative rules are applicable, and the contract between the United States and Argus Corporation does not mention state taxation. The court should hold the state tax, as applied here, to be | 491 | |
1 | [
"admissible as evidence of Wade's character.",
"admissible as evidence of Wade's possible bias in favor of Dexter.",
"inadmissible, because criminal conduct can be shown only by admission or a record of conviction. ",
"inadmissible, because bias must be shown on cross-examination and not by extrinsic evidence... | Parmott sued Dexter in an automobile collision case. At trial, Parmott wishes to show by extrinsic evidence that Wade, Dexter's primary witness, is Dexter's partner in a gambling operation. This evidence is | 492 | |
3 | [
"Martha owns the entire interest because Taylor and Scott did not make wills in reliance upon their oral agreement.",
"Martha owns the entire interest because she is entitled to reformation of the deed to reflect the verbal agreement.",
"Mark and Martha each own an undivided one-half interest because Taylor and... | Taylor and Scott, an unmarried couple, purchased a condominium as tenants in common and lived in the condominium for three years. Subsequently, they made a verbal agreement that, on the death of either of them, the survivor would own the entire condominium, and, as a result, they decided they did not need wills. Two years later, Taylor and Scott were involved in the same automobile accident. Taylor was killed immediately. Scott died one week later. Both died intestate. Taylor's sole heir is his brother, Mark. Scott's sole heir is her mother, Martha. Mark claimed one-half of the condominium, and Martha claimed all of it. The jurisdiction has no applicable statute except for the Statute of Frauds; nor does it recognize common law marriages. In an appropriate action by Martha claiming the entire ownership of the condominium, the court will find that | 493 | |
3 | [
"Yes, against Telco but not Rhodes. ",
"Yes, against Rhodes but not Telco. ",
"Yes, against Telco and Rhodes, each for one-half of his damages. ",
"Yes, against both Telco and Rhodes for the full amount of his damages"
] | Telco, a local telephone company, negligently allowed one of its telephone poles, located between a street and a sidewalk, to become termite-ridden. Rhodes, who was intoxicated and driving at an excessive rate of speed, lost control of her car and hit the weakened telephone pole. One week later, the pole fell and struck Walker, a pedestrian who was walking on the sidewalk. The pole fell because of the combination of the force of the impact and the pole's termite-ridden condition. If Walker asserts a claim against Telco and Rhodes, will Walker prevail? | 494 | |
1 | [
"denied, because failure of the police to advise Dirk of Vera's condition was harmless error since felony murder does not require intent to kill or injure. ",
"denied, because Dirk's waiver of his rights did not depend upon the nature of the charges that were later filed against him. ",
"granted, because Dirk c... | Dirk broke into Vera's house one night. As he started to stuff silverware into a sack, he was surprised by Vera, who had arrived home earlier than usual. Dirk struck Vera on the head with a candlestick and tied her up. He finished filling his sack and left. The police discovered Vera several hours later and rushed her to the hospital. Dirk was apprehended by the police early the following morning with the loot still in his possession. He was taken to police headquarters, given Miranda warnings, and asked if he wished to make a statement about the prior evening's events. The police did not mention that Vera had been seriously injured and was in the hospital. Dirk said he understood his rights and was willing to talk. He then admitted that he committed the burglary of Vera's house. The following day, Vera died from injuries caused by the blow to her head. If, at Dirk's trial for murder, Dirk moves to prevent introduction of the confession into evidence, his motion should most probably be | 495 | |
1 | [
"Yes, unless using bagged cement would substantially increase Silo's costs. ",
"Yes, if the cement dust interfered unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of Petrone's property. ",
"No, because Silo is not required to change its industrial methods to accommodate the needs of one individual. ",
"No, if Silo's ... | In 1956, Silo Cement Company constructed a plant for manufacturing ready-mix concrete in Lakeville. At that time Silo was using bagged cement, which caused little or no dust. In 1970, Petrone bought a home approximately 1,800 feet from the Silo plant. One year ago, Silo stopped using bagged cement and began to receive cement in bulk shipments. Since then at least five truckloads of cement have passed Petrone's house daily. Cement blows off the trucks and into Petrone's house. When the cement arrives at the Silo plant, it is blown by forced air from the trucks into the storage bin. As a consequence cement dust fills the air surrounding the plant to a distance of 2,000 feet. Petrone's house is the only residence within 2,000 feet of the plant. If Petrone asserts a claim against Silo based on nuisance, will Petrone prevail? | 496 | |
2 | [
"successful on the grounds that failure to give Masters reasons and an opportunity for a hearing constituted a bill of attainder.",
"successful on the grounds that an agency's inconsistent practices, even if unintentional, deny adversely affected persons the equal protection of the laws. ",
"unsuccessful, becau... | On a wholly random basis, a state agency has given a few probationary employees who were not rehired at the end of their probationary periods a statement of reasons and an opportunity for a hearing; but the agency has very rarely done so. No statute or rule of the agency required such a statement of reasons or a hearing. The employment of Masters, a probationary employee, was terminated without a statement of reasons or an opportunity for a hearing. The agency did not even consider whether it should give him either. A suit by Masters requesting a statement of reasons and a hearing will probably be | 497 | |
0 | [
"upheld, because the information about hours billed is not within the privilege ",
"upheld, because an attorney has no right to invoke his clients' privilege without instructions from the clients. ",
"quashed, because an attorney is entitled to a right of privacy for the work product in his files. ",
"quashed... | Able, an attorney, sued Clinton, a client, for his fee, based on an agreed hourly rate. Clinton subpoenaed the attorney's time records for the days on which he purported to have worked for Clinton, in order to show that Able had billed an impossible number of hours to Clinton and others on those days. Clinton's subpoena provided that any information concerning the matters handled for other clients be deleted or masked. Able moved to quash the subpoena on the ground of attorney-client privilege. The subpoena should be | 498 | |
1 | [
"The option part of the agreement is unenforceable because it lacked a separate consideration.",
"The description of the property to be sold in the parties' written agreement is too indefinite to permit the remedy sought.",
"Quark's failure to have the five-acre parcel surveyed was failure of a condition preced... | Furrow leased in writing a 100-acre farm from Quark for five years at $2,000 per year, with an option to purchase "five acres of the land for $10,000 cash" at the end of the lease term. Before the lease was executed, Quark orally promised to have a five-acre parcel surveyed before the end of the lease term. Furrow took possession of the farm and paid the rent for five years. During the fifth year, having decided that he would exercise the purchase option, Furrow planted several fruit trees and built a large grain silo on the property. At the end of the term, Furrow tendered Quark $10,000 and demanded a conveyance, but Quark repudiated the option agreement and retook possession of the farm. He had never had the five-acre parcel surveyed.In an action by Furrow against Quark for specific performance of the option agreement, which of the following is Quark's best defense? | 499 | |
0 | [
"Quasi-contract, for benefits unofficiously and nongratuitously conferred upon Quark by Furrow. ",
"Tort, for conversion by Quark in retaking possession of the improvements. ",
"Breach of trust by Quark as trustee of a resulting trust of the improvements.",
"Breach by Quark of an implied-in-fact promise (mani... | Furrow leased in writing a 100-acre farm from Quark for five years at $2,000 per year, with an option to purchase "five acres of the land for $10,000 cash" at the end of the lease term. Before the lease was executed, Quark orally promised to have a five-acre parcel surveyed before the end of the lease term. Furrow took possession of the farm and paid the rent for five years. During the fifth year, having decided that he would exercise the purchase option, Furrow planted several fruit trees and built a large grain silo on the property. At the end of the term, Furrow tendered Quark $10,000 and demanded a conveyance, but Quark repudiated the option agreement and retook possession of the farm. He had never had the five-acre parcel surveyed.Assume for this question only that Quark is not liable to Furrow for breach of a land-sale contract. In an action by Furrow against Quark for the reasonable value of the improvements that Furrow added to the farm, which of the following theories would best support Furrow's claim? | 500 | |
3 | [
"The alien must demonstrate that there is no rational relationship between the citizenship requirement and any legitimate state interest.",
"The alien must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is not necessary to advance an important state interest.",
"The state must demonstrate that there is a rational... | A state statute provides that only citizens of the United States may be employed by that state. In an action brought in a federal court, a resident alien who was prevented from obtaining state employment as a garbage collector solely because of his alien status challenged the statute's constitutionality as applied to his circumstances. Which of the following statements concerning the burden of persuasion applicable to this suit is correct? | 502 | |
1 | [
"admissible as an ancient document.",
"admissible as a family record.",
"inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception. ",
"inadmissible, because there was no showing of firsthand knowledge by the one who wrote it"
] | In litigation over the estate of Baggs, who died intestate, Payton, who is 18 years old, claimed to be Baggs's niece and entitled, therefore, to a share of his large estate. In support of her claim, Payton offered in evidence a Bible, properly identified as having belonged to Baggs's family, in the front of which was a list of family births, marriages, and deaths. The list recorded Payton's birth to Baggs's oldest sister. To prove that Payton is Baggs's niece, the Bible listing is | 503 | |
2 | [
"lack of the requisite mental element.",
"lack of the requisite act element.",
"insanity.",
"belief that the situation justified his actions"
] | Smythe was charged with the murder of his wife. In his defense, he testified that at the time he killed her, he believed that his wife was planning to destroy the world by detonating a massive explosive device that she had developed and built in the basement of their home. He further testified that he had tried many times to dissuade his wife from her plan and had tried to destroy devices that she stored in the basement. She had, he testified, foiled his efforts by on two occasions signing papers for his hospitalization, which lasted for a brief period each time. He said that he had concluded that the only way to prevent her scheme was to kill her and that he had become so obsessed with the importance of doing so that he could think of nothing else. One day when he saw her open the door to the basement he lunged at her and pushed her down the steps to her death. The best defense raised by Smythe's testimony is | 504 | |
3 | [
"Yes, because Josephs was mistaken in the facts on which he based his opinion of Norris's competence. ",
"Yes, because the statement of Josephs reflected adversely on Norris's professional competence. ",
"No, if Norris authorized Hospital to make inquiry of her former employer. ",
"No, if Josephs had reasonab... | After being notified by Dr. Josephs that Nurse Norris's employment with his office was terminated, Norris applied for a position with Hospital. In her application, Norris listed her former employment with Josephs. Josephs, in response to a telephone inquiry from Hospital, stated that "Norris lacked professional competence." Although Josephs believed that to be a fair assessment of Norris, his adverse rating was based on one episode of malpractice for which he blamed Norris but which in fact was chargeable to another doctor. Because of the adverse comment on her qualifications provided by Josephs, Norris was not employed by Hospital. If Norris asserts a claim based on defamation against Josephs, will Norris prevail? | 505 | |
2 | [
"the call related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.",
"the call was received at a number assigned to Pullen by the telephone company.",
"after hearing Denison speak in chambers, Pullen recognized Denison's voice as that of the person on the telephone. ",
"self-identification is sufficient ... | Pullen used aluminum brackets in her business. On the telephone listed as hers in the telephone book, Pullen received a call in which the caller said, "This is John Denison of Denison Hardware Company. We have a special on aluminum brackets this week at 30 percent off." Pullen ordered brackets from the caller. When the brackets were never delivered, Pullen sued Denison for breach of contract. At trial, Denison, who denies having made the telephone call, objects to Pullen's testimony concerning it. When asked, Pullen testifies that, aside from the telephone call, she had never heard Denison speak until she met him in the judge's chambers before the trial and that, in her opinion, the voice on the telephone was Denison's. The strongest argument for admission of Pullen's testimony concerning the telephone call is that | 506 | |
1 | [
"The general welfare clause of Article I, § 8. ",
"The federal property clause of Article IV, § 3. ",
"The commerce clause of Article I, § 8. ",
"The supremacy clause of Article VI"
] | The High National Grasslands is owned by the United States and is located in the center of a large western state. Acting pursuant to a federal statute authorizing such action, the United States Bureau of Land Management leased the grazing rights in the High National Grasslands to ranchers located nearby. Grazingland Company owns a vast amount of rangeland adjacent to the High National Grasslands and leases its land for livestock-grazing purposes to the same ranchers, but at prices higher than those charged by the Bureau. Grazingland Company sued the Bureau in an appropriate federal district court to restrain the Bureau from competing with that company by leasing the High National Grasslands. Which of the following constitutional provisions may most easily and directly be used to justify the federal statute authorizing this leasing program of the Bureau of Land Management? | 507 | |
2 | [
"laches.",
"an accord and satisfaction.",
"a novation.",
"an attornment"
] | Ann leased commercial property to Brenda for a period of 10 years. The lease contained the following provision: "No subleasing or assignment will be permitted unless with the written consent of the lessor." One year later, Brenda assigned all interest in the lease to Carolyn, who assumed and agreed to perform the lessee's obligations under the terms of the lease. Ann learned of the assignment and wrote to Brenda that she had no objection to the assignment to Carolyn and agreed to accept rent from Carolyn instead of Brenda Thereafter, Carolyn paid rent to Ann for a period of five years. Carolyn then defaulted and went into bankruptcy. In an appropriate action, Ann sued Brenda for rent due. If Ann loses, it will be because there was | 508 | |
0 | [
"Structo wins, because nonoccurrence of the condition requiring Bilevel's certificate of final approval was excused by Bilevel's bad-faith refusal to issue the certificate. ",
"Structo wins, but, because all contractual conditions have not occurred, her recovery is limited to restitution of the benefit conferred ... | On January 2, Hugh Homey and Sue Structo entered into a written contract in which Structo agreed to build on Homey's lot a new house for Homey, according to plans and specifications furnished by Homey's architect, Barbara Bilevel, at a contract price of $200,000. The contract provided for specified progress payments and a final payment of $40,000 upon Homey's acceptance of the house and issuance of a certificate of final approval by the architect. Further, under a "liquidated damages" clause in the agreement, Structo promised to pay Homey $500 for each day's delay in completing the house after the following October 1. Homey, however, told Structo on January 2, before the contract was signed, that he would be on an around-the-world vacation trip most of the summer and fall and would not return to occupy the house until November 1."For this question only, assume the following facts. Structo completed the house on October 14 and, when Homey returned on November 1, requested the final payment of $40,000 and issuance of a certificate of final approval by the architect, Bilevel. Homey, however, refused to pay any part of the final installment after Bilevel told him, "Structo did a great job and I find no defects worth mentioning; but Structo's contract price was at least $40,000 too high, especially in view of the big drop in housing values within the past 10 months. I will withhold the final certificate, and you just hold on to your money." If Structo sues Homey for the $40,000 final payment after Bilevel's refusal to issue a final certificate, which of the following will the court probably decide? | 510 | |
2 | [
"Yes, because Article III vests federal courts with jurisdiction over cases involving the obligation of contracts. ",
"Yes, because it is an action affecting interstate commerce. ",
"No, because this suit is not within the jurisdiction of an Article III court. ",
"No, because there is no case or controversy w... | Zall, a resident of the state of Paxico, brought suit in federal district court against Motors, Inc., a Paxico corporation. Zall seeks recovery of $12,000 actual and $12,000 punitive damages arising from Motors's sale to him of a defective automobile. Zall's suit is based only on a common law contract theory. From a constitutional standpoint, should the federal district court hear this suit on its merits? | 512 | |
0 | [
"admitted, because specific instances of conduct may be proved when character is directly in issue. ",
"admitted, because Pack's action constituted a felony. ",
"excluded, because character must be shown by reputation or opinion. ",
"excluded, because its relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of... | Pack sued Donlon for slander, alleging that Donlon had publicly accused Pack of being a thief. In his answer, Donlon admitted making the accusation, but alleged that it was a true statement. At trial, Donlon offers evidence that Pack stole a ring worth $10,000 from a jewelry store. Evidence concerning this theft should be | 513 | |
0 | [
"murder.",
"voluntary manslaughter.",
"involuntary manslaughter.",
"assault with a dangerous weapon"
] | Rimm and Hill were fooling around with a pistol in Hill's den. Rimm aimed the pistol in Hill's direction and fired three shots slightly to Hill's right. One shot ricocheted off the wall and struck Hill in the back, killing him instantly. The most serious crime of which Rimm can be convicted is | 514 | |
1 | [
"any right implied to expand the original use of the right-of-way creates an interest that violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.",
"the original installation by United Utility defined the scope of the easement.",
"Oaks did not expressly agree to the location of the right-of-way.",
"the assertion of the righ... | Oaks, the owner of Blackacre, conveyed a rightof-way to United Utility "for the underground transportation of gas by pipeline, the location of right-of-way to be mutually agreed upon by Oaks and United Utility." United Utility then installed a six-inch pipeline at a location selected by it and not objected to by Oaks. Two years later, United Utility advised Oaks of its intention to install an additional six-inch pipeline parallel to and three feet laterally from the original pipeline. In an appropriate action, Oaks sought a declaration that United Utility has no right to install the second pipeline. If Oaks prevails, it will be because | 515 | |
3 | [
"constitutional, because it is a necessary and proper means of ensuring that the rules issued by this agency are actually consistent with the will of Congress. ",
"constitutional, because discretionary money grants authorized by statute are privileges, not rights, and therefore Congress has greater freedom to int... | A statute authorizes a specified federal administrative agency to issue rules governing the distribution of federal grant funds for scientific research. The statute provides that, in issuing those rules, the agency must follow procedures and substantive standards contained in the statute. In a severable provision, the statute also provides that otherwise valid rules issued by the agency under authority delegated to it by this statute may be set aside by a majority vote of a designated standing joint committee of Congress. The provision of this statute relating to the power of the designated standing joint committee of Congress is | 516 | |
1 | [
"admissible as a present sense impression.",
"admissible to impeach Minter.",
"inadmissible, because Perez may not impeach his own witness. ",
"inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception"
] | Perez sued Dawson for damages arising out of an automobile collision. At trial, Perez called Minter, an eyewitness to the collision. Perez expected Minter to testify that she had observed Dawson's automobile for five seconds prior to the collision and estimated Dawson's speed at the time of the collision to have been 50 miles per hour. Instead, Minter testified that she estimated Dawson's speed to have been 25 miles per hour. Without finally excusing Minter as a witness, Perez then called Wallingford, a police officer, to testify that Minter had told him during his investigation at the accident scene that Dawson "was doing at least 50." Wallingford's testimony is | 517 | |
1 | [
"Sally fulfilled the duty to disclose defects by disclosure to Bill.",
"the contract's \"as is\" provision controls the rights of the parties. ",
"Bill became the agent of both Paul and Sally and thus knowledge of the defects was imputed to Paul.",
"the seller of a used dwelling that has been viewed by the bu... | Five years ago, Sally acquired Blackacre, improved with a 15-year-old dwelling. This year Sally listed Blackacre for sale with Bill, a licensed real estate broker. Sally informed Bill of several defects in the house that were not readily discoverable by a reasonable inspection, including a leaky basement, an inadequate water supply, and a roof that leaked. Paul responded to Bill's advertisement, was taken by Bill to view Blackacre, and decided to buy it. Bill saw to it that the contract specified the property to be "as is" but neither Bill nor Sally pointed out the defects to Paul, who did not ask about the condition of the dwelling. After closing and taking possession, Paul discovered the defects, had them repaired, and demanded that Sally reimburse him for the cost of the repairs. Sally refused, and Paul brought an appropriate action against Sally for damages. If Sally wins, it will be because | 521 | |
2 | [
"Zuma's claim should be denied, because, as the party in default, he is deemed to have lost any right to restitution of a benefit conferred on Hydro-King. ",
"Zuma's claim should be denied, because, but for his repudiation, Hydro-King would have made a profit on two boat sales instead of one. ",
"Zuma's claim s... | Hydro-King, Inc., a high-volume pleasure boat retailer, entered into a written contract with Zuma, signed by both parties, to sell Zuma a power boat for $12,000. The manufacturer's price of the boat delivered to Hydro-King was $9,500. As the contract provided, Zuma paid Hydro-King $4,000 in advance and promised to pay the full balance upon delivery of the boat. The contract contained no provision for liquidated damages. Prior to the agreed delivery date, Zuma notified Hydro-King that he would be financially unable to conclude the purchase; and Hydro-King thereupon resold the same boat that Zuma had ordered to a third person for $12,000 cash. If Zuma sues Hydro-King for restitution of the $4,000 advance payment, which of the following should the court decide? | 522 | |
0 | [
"regulate commerce among the states.",
"enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.",
"provide for the general welfare.",
"promote science and the useful arts"
] | A federal statute prohibits the sale or resale, in any place in this country, of any product intended for human consumption or ingestion into the human body that contains designated chemicals known to cause cancer, unless the product is clearly labeled as dangerous. The constitutionality of this federal statute may most easily be justified on the basis of the power of Congress to | 523 | |
0 | [
"arson.",
"fraud.",
"conspiracy.",
"burglary"
] | Shore decided to destroy his dilapidated building in order to collect the insurance money. He hired Parsons to burn down the building. Parsons broke into the building and carefully searched it to make sure no one was inside. He failed, however, to see a vagrant asleep in an office closet. He started a fire. The building was destroyed, and the vagrant died from burns a week later. Two days after the fire, Shore filed an insurance claim in which he stated that he had no information about the cause of the fire. If Shore is guilty of felony murder, it is because the vagrant's death occurred in connection with the felony of | 524 | |
0 | [
"Dalton was released from prison 12 years ago.",
"Dalton was put on probation rather than imprisoned.",
"It was for a misdemeanor rather than a felony.",
"It is on appeal"
] | Dalton is on trial for burglary. During crossexamination of Dalton, the prosecutor wants to inquire about Dalton's earlier conviction for falsifying a credit application. Which of the following facts concerning the conviction would be the best reason for the trial court's refusing to allow such examination? | 525 | |
3 | [
"No, because parents are not personally liable for their child's intentional torts. ",
"Yes, if Camden was old enough to be liable for battery. ",
"Yes, because Camden was in Dent's custody. ",
"No, unless Dent knew or had reason to know that Camden had a propensity to attack younger children. "
] | Dent operates a residential rehabilitation center for emotionally disturbed and ungovernable children who have been committed to his custody by their parents or by juvenile authorities. The center's purpose is to modify the behavior of the children through a teaching program carried out in a family-like environment. Though the children are not permitted to leave the center without Dent's permission, there are no bars or guards to prevent them from doing so. It has been held in the state where the center is located that persons having custody of children have the same duties and responsibilities that they would have if they were the parents of the children. Camden, aged 12, who had been in Dent's custody for six months, left the center without permission. Dent became aware of Camden's absence almost immediately, but made no attempt to locate him or secure his return, though reports reached him that Camden had been seen in the vicinity. Thirtysix hours after Camden left the center, Camden committed a brutal assault upon Pell, a fiveyear-old child, causing Pell to suffer extensive permanent injury. If an action is brought against Dent on behalf of Pell to recover damages for Pell's injuries, will Pell prevail? | 526 | |
3 | [
"her only protection lies in instituting an action for partition to compel the sale of the life estate of Wilma and to obtain the value of her own one-third interest in remainder.",
"she could obtain appropriate relief to compel Wilma personally to pay the sums due because the income is more than adequate to cove... | Orin owned in fee simple Blueacre, a farm of 300 acres. He died and by will duly admitted to probate devised Blueacre to his surviving widow, Wilma, for life with remainder in fee simple to his three children, Cindy, Clara, and Carter. All three children survived Orin. At the time of Orin's death, there existed a mortgage on Blueacre that Orin had given 10 years before to secure a loan for the purchase of the farm. At his death, there remained unpaid $40,000 in principal, payable in installments of $4,000 per year for the next 10 years. In addition, there was due interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum, payable annually with the installment of principal. Wilma took possession and out of a gross income of $50,000 per year realized $25,000 net after paying all expenses and charges except the installment of principal and interest due on the mortgage. Carter and Cindy wanted the three children, including Clara, to each contribute one-third of the amounts needed to pay the mortgage installments. Clara objected, contending that Wilma should pay all of these amounts out of the profits she had made in operation of the farm. When foreclosure of the mortgage seemed imminent, Clara sought legal advice. If Clara obtained sound advice relating to her rights, she was told that | 527 | |
1 | [
"Yes, because the oral agreement required approval by a third party. ",
"Yes, because the evidence shows that the writing was intended to take effect only if the approval occurred ",
"No, because the parol evidence rule bars evidence of a prior oral agreement even if the latter is consistent with the terms of a... | Ohner and Planner signed a detailed writing in which Planner, a landscape architect, agreed to landscape and replant Ohner's residential property in accordance with a design prepared by Planner and incorporated in the writing. Ohner agreed to pay $10,000 for the work upon its completion. Ohner's spouse was not a party to the agreement, and had no ownership interest in the premises.For this question only, assume the following facts. Shortly before the agreement was signed, Ohner and Planner orally agreed that the writing would not become binding on either party unless Ohner's spouse should approve the landscaping design. If Ohner's spouse disapproves the design and Ohner refuses to allow Planner to proceed with the work, is evidence of the oral agreement admissible in Planner's action against Ohner for breach of contract? | 528 | |
2 | [
"Substantial performance.",
"Promissory estoppel.",
"Irrevocable waiver of condition.",
"Unjust enrichment."
] | Ohner and Planner signed a detailed writing in which Planner, a landscape architect, agreed to landscape and replant Ohner's residential property in accordance with a design prepared by Planner and incorporated in the writing. Ohner agreed to pay $10,000 for the work upon its completion. Ohner's spouse was not a party to the agreement, and had no ownership interest in the premises.For this question only, assume the following facts. At Ohner's insistence, the written OhnerPlanner agreement contained a provision that neither party would be bound unless Ohner's law partner, an avid student of landscaping, should approve Planner's design. Before Planner commenced the work, Ohner's law partner, in the presence of both Ohner and Planner, expressly disapproved the landscaping design. Nevertheless, Ohner ordered Planner to proceed with the work, and Planner reluctantly did so. When Planner's performance was 40 percent complete, Ohner repudiated his duty, if any, to pay the contract price or any part thereof. If Planner now sues Ohner for damages for breach of contract, which of the following concepts best supports Planner's claim? | 529 | |
0 | [
"When Congress exercises power vested in it by the Fourteenth Amendment and/or the commerce clause, Congress may enact appropriate remedial legislation expressly subjecting the states to private suits for damages in federal court. ",
"When Congress exercises power vested in it by any provision of the Constitution... | A federal statute enacted pursuant to the powers of Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and to regulate commerce among the states prohibits any state from requiring any of its employees to retire from state employment solely because of their age. The statute expressly authorizes employees required by a state to retire from state employment solely because of their age to sue the state government in federal district court for any damages resulting from that state action. On the basis of this federal statute, Retiree sues State X in federal district court. State X moves to dismiss the suit on the ground that Congress lacks authority to authorize such suits against a state. Which of the following is the strongest argument that Retiree can offer in opposition to the state's motion to dismiss this suit? | 530 | |
2 | [
"granted, because, if there was no probable cause, the grand jury should not consider the evidence. ",
"granted, because the employee was acting as a police agent and his seizure of the glass without a warrant was unconstitutional. ",
"denied, because motions based on the exclusionary rule are premature in gran... | Suspecting that Scott had slain his wife, police detectives persuaded one of Scott's employees to remove a drinking glass from Scott's office so that it could be used for fingerprint comparisons with a knife found near the body. The fingerprints matched. The prosecutor announced that he would present comparisons and evidence to the grand jury. Scott's lawyer immediately filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the fingerprint comparisons to bar its consideration by the grand jury, contending that the evidence was illegally acquired. The motion should be | 531 | |
1 | [
"admissible as an excited utterance.",
"admissible to impeach Deetz and as evidence that he did not act in self-defense.",
"inadmissible, because of Deetz's privilege against self-incrimination. ",
"inadmissible, because it tends to exculpate without corroboration"
] | Deetz was prosecuted for homicide. He testified that he shot in self-defense. In rebuttal, Officer Watts testified that he came to the scene in response to a telephone call from Deetz. Watts offers to testify that he asked, "What is the problem here, sir?" and Deetz replied, "I was cleaning my gun and it went off accidentally." The offered testimony is | 532 | |
3 | [
"Yes, because Walker was injured by an artificial condition of the premises while using an adjacent public way. ",
"Yes, because such an accident does not ordinarily happen in the absence of negligence. ",
"No, if Landco is in no better position than Walker to explain the accident. ",
"No, because there is no... | Landco owns and operates a 12-story apartment building containing 72 apartments, 70 of which are rented. Walker has brought an action against Landco alleging that while he was walking along a public sidewalk adjacent to Landco's apartment building a flowerpot fell from above and struck him on the shoulder, causing extensive injuries. The action is to recover damages for those injuries. If Walker proves the foregoing facts and offers no other evidence explaining the accident, will his claim survive a motion for directed verdict offered by the defense? | 533 | |
1 | [
"Peterson owns both the note and the mortgage.",
"XYZ Bank owns both the note and the mortgage.",
"Peterson owns the note and XYZ Bank owns the mortgage.",
"XYZ Bank owns the note and Peterson owns the mortgag"
] | Rohan executed and delivered a promissory note and a mortgage securing the note to Acme Mortgage Company, which was named as payee in the note and as mortgagee in the mortgage. The note included a statement that the indebtedness evidenced by the note was "subject to the terms of a contract between the maker and the payee of the note executed on the same day" and that the note was "secured by a mortgage of even date." The mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. Subsequently, Acme sold the Rohan note and mortgage to XYZ Bank and delivered to XYZ Bank a written assignment of the Rohan note and mortgage. The assignment was promptly and properly recorded. Acme retained possession of both the note and the mortgage in order to act as collecting agent. Later, being short of funds, Acme sold the note and mortgage to Peterson at a substantial discount. Acme executed a written assignment of the note and mortgage to Peterson and delivered to him the note, the mortgage, and the assignment. Peterson paid value for the assignment without actual knowledge of the prior assignment to XYZ Bank and promptly and properly recorded his assignment. The principal of the note was not then due, and there had been no default in payment of either interest or principal. If the issue of ownership of the Rohan note and mortgage is subsequently raised in an appropriate action by XYZ Bank to foreclose, the court should hold that | 534 | |
3 | [
"Orchard's shipment of the peaches was a counteroffer and Fruitko can refuse to accept them.",
"Orchard's shipment of the peaches was a counteroffer but, since peaches are perishable, Fruitko, if it does not want to accept them, must reship the peaches to Orchard in order to mitigate Orchard's losses. ",
"Fruit... | Fruitko, Inc., ordered from Orchard, Inc., 500 bushels of No. 1 Royal Fuzz peaches, at a specified price, "for prompt shipment." Orchard promptly shipped 500 bushels, but by mistake shipped No. 2 Royal Fuzz peaches instead of No. 1. The error in shipment was caused by the negligence of Orchard's shipping clerk. Which of the following best states Fruitko's rights and duties upon delivery of the peaches? | 535 | |
0 | [
"No, because a state must comply with valid federal laws that regulate matters affecting interstate commerce. ",
"No, because some of the tires come from vehicles that are used by the state solely in its commercial activities. ",
"Yes, because some of the tires come from vehicles that are used by the state in t... | A federal law provides that all motor vehicle tires discarded in this country must be disposed of in facilities licensed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Pursuant to this federal law and all proper federal procedural requirements, that agency has adopted very strict standards for the licensing of such facilities. As a result, the cost of disposing of tires in licensed facilities is substantial. The state of East Dakota has a very large fleet of motor vehicles, including police cars and trucks used to support state-owned commercial activities. East Dakota disposes of used tires from both kinds of state motor vehicles in a state-owned and stateoperated facility. This state facility is unlicensed, but its operation in actual practice meets most of the standards imposed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency on facilities it licenses to dispose of tires. Consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent, may the state of East Dakota continue to dispose of its used tires in this manner? | 536 | |
0 | [
"they did not intend to kill or to harm Kathy.",
"they were pursuing a constitutionally protected religious belief.",
"Kathy's death was not proximately caused by their conduct.",
"they neither premeditated nor deliberated"
] | Kathy, a two-year-old, became ill with meningitis. Jim and Joan, her parents, were members of a group who believed fervently that if they prayed enough, God would not permit their child to die. Accordingly, they did not seek medical aid for Kathy and refused all offers of such aid. They prayed continuously. Kathy died of the illness within a week. Jim and Joan are charged with murder in a common law jurisdiction. Their best defense to the charge is that | 537 | |
3 | [
"admissible to prove a pertinent trait of Decker's character and Decker's action in conformity therewith.",
"admissible to prove Decker's intent and identity.",
"inadmissible, because character must be proved by reputation or opinion and may not be proved by specific acts. ",
"inadmissible, because its probat... | Decker, charged with armed robbery of a store, denied that he was the person who had robbed the store. In presenting the state's case, the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that Decker had robbed two other stores in the past year. This evidence is | 538 | |
1 | [
"an abnormally dangerous activity.",
"a private nuisance.",
"negligence.",
"a trespass"
] | Palmco owns and operates a beachfront hotel. Under a contract with City to restore a public beach, Dredgeco placed a large and unavoidably dangerous stone-crushing machine on City land near Palmco's hotel. The machine creates a continuous and intense noise that is so disturbing to the hotel guests that they have canceled their hotel reservations in large numbers, resulting in a substantial loss to Palmco. Palmco's best chance to recover damages for its financial losses from Dredgeco is under the theory that the operation of the stone-crushing machine constitutes | 539 | |
2 | [
"He received no consideration for his conditional promise to Tertius.",
"His conditional promise to Tertius was not to be performed in less than a year from the time it was made.",
"His conditional promise to Tertius was not made for the primary purpose of benefiting himself (Pater).",
"The loan by Tertius wa... | Pater and his adult daughter, Carmen, encountered Tertius, an old family friend, on the street. Carmen said to Tertius, "How about lending me $1,000 to buy a used car? I'll pay you back with interest one year from today." Pater added, "And if she doesn't pay it back as promised, I will." Tertius thereupon wrote out and handed to Carmen his personal check, payable to her, for $1,000, and Carmen subsequently used the funds to buy a used car. When the debt became due, both Carmen and Pater refused to repay it, or any part of it. In an action by Tertius against Pater to recover $1,000 plus interest, which of the following statements would summarize Pater's best defense? | 541 | |
3 | [
"constitutional, because it is reasonably related to the protection of the reputation of the fabric industry located in the state of Orange. ",
"constitutional, because it is a legitimate means of protecting the safety of the public. ",
"unconstitutional, because it denies to Fabric Mill the equal protection of... | After several well-publicized deaths caused by fires in products made from highly flammable fabrics, the state of Orange enacted a statute prohibiting "the manufacture or assembly of any product in this state which contains any fabric that has not been tested and approved for flame retardancy by the Zetest Testing Company." The Zetest Testing Company is a privately owned and operated business located in Orange. For many years, Fabric Mill, located in the state of Orange, has had its fabric tested for flame retardancy by the Alpha Testing Company, located in the state of Green. Alpha Testing Company is a reliable organization that uses a process for testing and approving fabrics for flame retardancy identical in all respects to that used by the Zetest Testing Company. Because Fabric Mill wishes to continue to have its fabric tested solely by Alpha Testing Company, Fabric Mill files an action in Orange state court challenging the constitutionality of the Orange statute as applied to its circumstances. In this suit, the court should hold the statute to be | 542 | |
2 | [
"The judge did not rule on his motion to dismiss before accepting the guilty plea.",
"The judge did not determine that Miller had robbed and killed the victim.",
"The judge did not determine whether Miller understood that he had a right to jury trial.",
"The judge did not determine whether the prosecutor's fi... | Miller was indicted in a state court in January 1985 for a robbery and murder that occurred in December 1982. He retained counsel, who filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Miller had been prejudiced by a 25-month delay in obtaining the indictment. Thereafter, Miller, with his counsel, appeared in court for arraignment and stated that he wished to plead guilty. The presiding judge asked Miller whether he understood the nature of the charges, possible defenses, and maximum allowable sentences. Miller replied that he did, and the judge reviewed all of those matters with him. He then asked Miller whether he understood that he did not have to plead guilty. When Miller responded that he knew that, the judge accepted the plea and sentenced Miller to 25 years. Six months later, Miller filed a motion to set aside his guilty plea on each of the following grounds. Which of these grounds provides a constitutional basis for relief? | 543 | |
2 | [
"admissible, because it is an admission of liability by a party opponent. ",
"admissible, because it is within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. ",
"inadmissible to prove liability, because it is an offer to pay medical expenses. ",
"inadmissible, provided that Dyer kept his promise to pay ... | Paul sued Dyer for personal injuries sustained when Dyer's car hit Paul, a pedestrian. Immediately after the accident, Dyer got out of his car, raced over to Paul, and said, "Don't worry I'll pay your hospital bill." Paul's testimony concerning Dyer's statement is | 544 | |
3 | [
"Will the court recognize that the plaintiffs have suffered a present legal injury?",
"Can the plaintiffs prove the amount of their damages?",
"Can the plaintiffs prove that any harm they may suffer was caused by this exposure?",
"Can the plaintiffs prevail without presenting evidence of specific negligence o... | As a result of an accident at the NPP nuclear power plant, a quantity of radioactive vapor escaped from the facility, and two members of the public were exposed to excessive doses of radiation. According to qualified medical opinion, that exposure will double the chance that these two persons will ultimately develop cancer. However, any cancer that might be caused by this exposure will not be detectable for at least 10 years. If the two exposed persons do develop cancer, it will not be possible to determine whether it was caused by this exposure or would have developed in any event. If the exposed persons assert a claim for damages against NPP shortly after the escape of the radiation, which of the following questions will NOT present a substantial issue? | 545 | |
1 | [
"Dora is liable, because she removed necessary support for Pam's lot. ",
"Dora cannot be held liable simply upon proof that support was removed, but may be held liable if negligence is proved. ",
"Once land is improved with a building, the owner cannot invoke the common law right of lateral support. ",
"Dora'... | Pam and Dora own adjoining lots in the central portion of a city. Each of their lots had an office building. Dora decided to raze the existing building on her lot and to erect a building of greater height, and she received all governmental approvals required to pursue her project. There is no applicable statute or ordinance (other than those dealing with various approvals for zoning, building, etc.)"After Dora had torn down the existing building, she proceeded to excavate deeper. Dora used shoring that met all local, state, and federal safety regulations, and the shoring was placed in accordance with those standards. Pam notified Dora that cracks were developing in the building situated on Pam's lot. Dora took the view that any subsidence suffered by Pam was due to the weight of Pam's building, and correctly asserted that none would have occurred had Pam's soil been in its natural state. Dora continued to excavate. The building on Pam's lot suffered extensive damage, requiring the expenditure of $750,000 to remedy the defects. Which of the following is the best comment concerning Pam's action to recover damages from Dora? | 546 | |
3 | [
"Pam is entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring Dora to restore conditions to those existing with the prior building insofar as the shadow is concerned.",
"The court should award permanent damages, in lieu of an injunction, equal to the present value of all rents lost and loss on rents for the reasonable lif... | Pam and Dora own adjoining lots in the central portion of a city. Each of their lots had an office building. Dora decided to raze the existing building on her lot and to erect a building of greater height, and she received all governmental approvals required to pursue her project. There is no applicable statute or ordinance (other than those dealing with various approvals for zoning, building, etc.)"Assume that no problems with subsidence or other misadventures occurred during construction of Dora's new building. However, when it was completed, Pam discovered that the shadow created by the new higher building placed her building in such deep shade that her ability to lease space was diminished and that the rent she could charge and the occupancy rate were substantially lower. Assume that these facts are proved in an appropriate action Pam instituted against Dora for all and any relief available. Which of the following is the most appropriate comment concerning this lawsuit? | 547 | |
0 | [
"Yes, because the statements demonstrate that the building inspector has an attitude toward a certain class of persons that interferes with the proper performance of the obligations of his job. ",
"Yes, because the building inspector is a government employee and a person holding such a position may not make publi... | A city ordinance makes the city building inspector responsible for ensuring that all buildings in that city are kept up to building code standards and requires the inspector to refer for prosecution all known building code violations. Another ordinance provides that the city building inspector may be discharged for "good cause." The building inspector took a newspaper reporter through a number of run-down buildings in a slum neighborhood. After using various epithets and slurs to describe the occupants of these buildings, the building inspector stated to the reporter: "I do not even try to get these buildings up to code or to have their owners prosecuted for code violations because if these buildings are repaired, the people who live in them will just wreck them again." The reporter published these statements in a story in the local newspaper. The building inspector admitted he made the statements. On the basis of these statements, the city council discharged the building inspector. Is the action of the city council constitutional? | 548 | |
3 | [
"kidnapping.",
"attempted kidnapping.",
"kidnapping or attempted kidnapping but not both.",
"neither kidnapping nor attempted kidnapping"
] | John asked Doris to spend a weekend with him at his apartment and promised her that they would get married on the following Monday. Doris agreed and also promised John that she would not tell anyone of their plans. Unknown to Doris, John had no intention of marrying her. After Doris came to his apartment, John told Doris he was going for cigarettes. He called Doris's father and told him that he had his daughter and would kill her if he did not receive $100,000. John was arrested on Sunday afternoon when he went to pick up the $100,000. Doris was still at the apartment and knew nothing of John's attempt to get the money. John is guilty of | 549 | |
3 | [
"inadmissible, because the evidence is barred by the parol evidence rule. ",
"inadmissible, because the express terms of the agreement control when those terms are inconsistent with the course of performance. ",
"admissible, because the evidence supports an agreement that is not within the relevant statute of f... | After extensive negotiations, Tune Corporation, a radio manufacturer, and Bill's Comex, Inc., a retailer, entered into a final written agreement in which Tune agreed to sell and Bill's agreed to buy all of its requirements of radios, estimated at 20 units per month, during the period January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1990, at a price of $50 per unit. A dispute arose in late December 1990, when Bill's returned 25 undefective radios to Tune for full credit after Tune had refused to extend the contract for a second three-year period. In an action by Tune against Bill's for damages due to return of the 25 radios, Tune introduces the written agreement, which expressly permitted the buyer to return defective radios for credit but was silent as to return of undefective radios for credit. Bill's seeks to introduce evidence that during the three years of the agreement it had returned, for various reasons, 125 undefective radios, for which Tune had granted full credit. Tune objects to the admissibility of this evidence. "The trial court will probably rule that the evidence proffered by Bill's is | 551 | |
1 | [
"Tune's deposit of the check and its return to Bill's after payment estopped Tune thereafter to assert that Bill's owed any additional amount.",
"By depositing the check without protest and with knowledge of its wording, Tune discharged any remaining duty to pay on the part of Bill's. ",
"By depositing the chec... | After extensive negotiations, Tune Corporation, a radio manufacturer, and Bill's Comex, Inc., a retailer, entered into a final written agreement in which Tune agreed to sell and Bill's agreed to buy all of its requirements of radios, estimated at 20 units per month, during the period January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1990, at a price of $50 per unit. A dispute arose in late December 1990, when Bill's returned 25 undefective radios to Tune for full credit after Tune had refused to extend the contract for a second three-year period. In an action by Tune against Bill's for damages due to return of the 25 radios, Tune introduces the written agreement, which expressly permitted the buyer to return defective radios for credit but was silent as to return of undefective radios for credit. Bill's seeks to introduce evidence that during the three years of the agreement it had returned, for various reasons, 125 undefective radios, for which Tune had granted full credit. Tune objects to the admissibility of this evidence. "For this question only, assume the following facts. When Bill's returned the 25 radios in question, it included with the shipment a check payable to Tune for the balance admittedly due on all other merchandise sold and delivered to Bill's. The check was conspicuously marked, "Payment in full for all goods sold to Bill's to date." Tune's credit manager, reading this check notation and knowing that Bill's had also returned the 25 radios for full credit, deposited the check without protest in Tune's local bank account. The canceled check was returned to Bill's a week later. Which of the following defenses would best serve Bill's? | 552 | |
2 | [
"Yes, because it was Thomas, not Dant who collided with Page's car and caused Page's injuries. ",
"Yes, if Page could have safely passed the disabled vehicles in the traffic lane that remained open. ",
"No, because a jury could find that Page's injury arose from a risk that was a continuing consequence of Dant'... | While driving at a speed in excess of the statutory limit, Dant negligently collided with another car, and the disabled vehicles blocked two of the highway's three northbound lanes. When Page approached the scene two minutes later, he slowed his car to see if he could help those involved in the collision. As he slowed, he was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Thomas. Page, who sustained damage to his car and was seriously injured, brought an action against Dant to recover damages. The jurisdiction adheres to the traditional common law rules pertaining to contributory negligence. If Dant moves to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, should the motion be granted? | 553 | |
3 | [
"Able, because the conveyance created a fee simple subject to divestment in Able. ",
"Able, because Owen's conveyance terminated Baker's tenancy. ",
"Baker, because Owen's permission to occupy preceded Owen's conveyance to Able. ",
"Baker, because Baker is a tenant of Owen, not of Able"
] | Owen owned Greenacre in fee simple. The small house on Greenacre was occupied, with Owen's oral permission, rent-free, by Able, Owen's son, and Baker, a college classmate of Able. Able was then 21 years old. Owen, by properly executed instrument, conveyed Greenacre to "my beloved son, Able, his heirs and assigns, upon the condition precedent that he earn a college degree by the time he reaches the age of 30. If, for any reason, he does not meet this condition, then Greenacre shall become the sole property of my beloved daughter, Anna, her heirs and assigns." At the time of the conveyance, Able and Baker attended a college located several blocks from Greenacre. Neither had earned a college degree. One week after the delivery of the deed to Able, Able recorded the deed and immediately told Baker that he, Able, was going to begin charging Baker rent since "I am now your landlord." There is no applicable statute. Able and Baker did not reach agreement, and Able served the appropriate notice to terminate whatever tenancy Baker had. Able then sought, in an appropriate action, to oust Baker. Who should prevail? | 554 | |
2 | [
"Yes, because the Bypast-Craven agreement was a bargained-for exchange. ",
"Yes, because the law encourages the settlement of disputed claims. ",
"No, because Bypast did not bring the will contest in good faith. ",
"No, because an agreement to oust the court of its jurisdiction to decide a will contest is con... | Testator, whose nephew Bypast was his only heir, died leaving a will that gave his entire estate to charity. Bypast, knowing full well that Testator was of sound mind all of his life, and having no evidence to the contrary, nevertheless filed a suit contesting Testator's will on the ground that Testator was incompetent when the will was signed. Craven, Testator's executor, offered Bypast $5,000 to settle the suit, and Bypast agreed. If Craven then repudiates the agreement and the foregoing facts are proved or admitted in Bypast's suit against Craven for breach of contract, is Bypast entitled to recover under the prevailing view? | 555 | |
3 | [
"constitutional, because it is authorized by the Article I power of Congress to enact all laws that are \"necessary and proper\" to implement the general welfare. ",
"constitutional, because Article III provides that the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is subject to such exceptions and such regula... | The National AIDS Prevention and Control Act is a new comprehensive federal statute that was enacted to deal with the public health crisis caused by the AIDS virus. Congress and the President were concerned that inconsistent lower court rulings with respect to the constitutionality, interpretation, and application of the statute might adversely affect or delay its enforcement and, thereby, jeopardize the public health. As a result, they included a provision in the statute providing that all legal challenges concerning those matters were to be initiated only by filing suit directly in the United States Supreme Court. The provision authorizing direct review of the constitutionality, interpretation, or application of this statute only in the United States Supreme Court is | 556 | |
1 | [
"guilty, because he should have inquired as to the ages of the children. ",
"guilty, because he hired the children. ",
"not guilty, because in law the Woolen Company, not Grouse, is the employer of the children. ",
"not guilty, because he believed he was following company policy and was not aware of the viola... | Morten was the general manager and chief executive officer of the Woolen Company, a knitting mill. Morten delegated all operational decision making to Grouse, the supervising manager of the mill. The child labor laws in the jurisdiction provide, "It is a violation of the law for one to employ a person under the age of 17 years for full-time labor." Without Morten's knowledge, Grouse hired a number of 15- and 16- year-olds to work at the mill full time. He did not ask their ages and they did not disclose them. Grouse could have discovered their ages easily by asking for identification, but he did not do so because he was not aware of the law and believed that company policy was to hire young people.If the statute is interpreted to create strict liability and Grouse is charged with violating it, Grouse is | 557 | |
3 | [
"correct, because it is a violation of due process to punish without a voluntary act. ",
"correct, because criminal liability is personal and the Woolen Company is the employer of the children, not Morten. ",
"incorrect, because regulatory offenses are not subject to due process limitations. ",
"incorrect, be... | Morten was the general manager and chief executive officer of the Woolen Company, a knitting mill. Morten delegated all operational decision making to Grouse, the supervising manager of the mill. The child labor laws in the jurisdiction provide, "It is a violation of the law for one to employ a person under the age of 17 years for full-time labor." Without Morten's knowledge, Grouse hired a number of 15- and 16- year-olds to work at the mill full time. He did not ask their ages and they did not disclose them. Grouse could have discovered their ages easily by asking for identification, but he did not do so because he was not aware of the law and believed that company policy was to hire young people.If the statute is interpreted to create strict liability and Morten is convicted of violating it, his contention that his conviction would violate the federal Constitution is | 558 | |
2 | [
"affirmed, because the jury found on the evidence that Dooley could not foresee that the ball would pass through the fence. ",
"affirmed, if there was evidence that Dooley was mentally ill and that his act was the product of his mental illness. ",
"reversed and the case remanded, if a jury could find on the evi... | Dooley was a pitcher for the City Robins, a professional baseball team. While Dooley was throwing warm-up pitches on the sidelines during a game, he was continuously heckled by some spectators seated in the stands above the dugout behind a wire mesh fence. On several occasions, Dooley turned and looked directly at the hecklers with a scowl on his face, but the heckling continued. Dooley wound up as though he was preparing to pitch in the direction of his catcher; however, the ball traveled from his hand, at high speed, at a 90-degree angle from the line to the catcher and directly toward the hecklers in the stands. The ball passed through the wire mesh fence and struck Patricia, one of the hecklers. Patricia brought an action for damages against Dooley and the City Robins, based upon negligence and battery. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the battery count. The jury found for the defendants on the negligence count because the jury determined that Dooley could not foresee that the ball would pass through the wire mesh fence. Patricia has appealed the judgments on the battery counts, contending that the trial court erred in directing verdicts for Dooley and the City Robins.""On appeal, the judgment entered on the directed verdict in Dooley's favor on the battery claim should be | 560 | |
0 | [
"reversed and the case remanded, because a jury could find the City Robins vicariously liable for a battery committed by Dooley in the course of his employment. ",
"reversed and the case remanded, only if a jury could find negligence on the part of the Robins team management. ",
"affirmed, because an employer i... | Dooley was a pitcher for the City Robins, a professional baseball team. While Dooley was throwing warm-up pitches on the sidelines during a game, he was continuously heckled by some spectators seated in the stands above the dugout behind a wire mesh fence. On several occasions, Dooley turned and looked directly at the hecklers with a scowl on his face, but the heckling continued. Dooley wound up as though he was preparing to pitch in the direction of his catcher; however, the ball traveled from his hand, at high speed, at a 90-degree angle from the line to the catcher and directly toward the hecklers in the stands. The ball passed through the wire mesh fence and struck Patricia, one of the hecklers. Patricia brought an action for damages against Dooley and the City Robins, based upon negligence and battery. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the battery count. The jury found for the defendants on the negligence count because the jury determined that Dooley could not foresee that the ball would pass through the wire mesh fence. Patricia has appealed the judgments on the battery counts, contending that the trial court erred in directing verdicts for Dooley and the City Robins."For this question only, assume that, on appeal, the court holds that the question of whether Dooley committed a battery is a jury issue. The judgment entered on the directed verdict in favor of the City Robins should then be | 561 | |
1 | [
"deprives them of their property or liberty without due process of law.",
"imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce",
"deprives them of a privilege or immunity of national citizenship.",
"denies them the equal protection of the laws"
] | Small retailers located in the state of Yellow are concerned about the loss of business to certain large retailers located nearby in bordering states. In an effort to deal with this concern, the legislature of Yellow enacted a statute requiring all manufacturers and wholesalers who sell goods to retailers in Yellow to do so at prices that are no higher than the lowest prices at which they sell them to retailers in any of the states that border Yellow. Several manufacturers and wholesalers who are located in states bordering Yellow and who sell their goods to retailers in those states and in Yellow bring an action in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of this statute. Which of the following arguments offered by these plaintiffs is likely to be most persuasive in light of applicable precedent? The state statute | 562 | |
2 | [
"In a libel action, a copy of a newspaper purporting to be published by Defendant Newspaper Publishing Company. ",
"In a case involving contaminated food, a can label purporting to identify the canner as Defendant Company. ",
"In a defamation case, a document purporting to be a memorandum from the Defendant Com... | Which of the following items of evidence is LEAST likely to be admitted without a supporting witness? | 564 | |
2 | [
"Yes, because the regulation of pollution is a legitimate state police power concern. ",
"Yes, because the regulation of pollution is a joint concern of the federal government and the state and, therefore, both of them may regulate conduct causing pollution. ",
"No, because the operations of the federal governm... | A federally owned and operated office building in the state of West Dakota is heated with a new pollution-free heating system. However, in the coldest season of the year, this new system is sometimes insufficient to supply adequate heat to the building. The appropriation statute providing the money for construction of the new heating system permitted use of the old pollution-generating system when necessary to supply additional heat. When the old heating system operates (only about two days in any year), the smokestack of the building emits smoke that exceeds the state of West Dakota's pollution-control standards. May the operators of the federal office building be prosecuted successfully by West Dakota authorities for violating that state's pollutioncontrol standards? | 565 | |
1 | [
"Yes, because neither the July 15 agreement nor the August 1 agreement was required to be in writing. ",
"Yes, because the August 1 agreement operated as a waiver of the August 15 delivery term. ",
"No, because there was no consideration to support the August 1 agreement. ",
"No, because the parol evidence ru... | On July 15, in a writing signed by both parties, Fixtures, Inc., agreed to deliver to Druggist on August 15 five storage cabinets from inventory for a total price of $5,000 to be paid on delivery. On August 1, the two parties orally agreed to postpone the delivery date to August 20. On August 20, Fixtures tendered the cabinets to Druggist, who refused to accept or pay for them on the ground that they were not tendered on August 15, even though they otherwise met the contract specifications. Assuming that all appropriate defenses are seasonably raised, will Fixtures succeed in an action against Druggist for breach of contract? | 567 | |
3 | [
"Both Albert and Beth are guilty of attempting to sell cocaine.",
"Neither Albert nor Beth is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine.",
"Albert is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is not. ",
"Albert is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is."
] | Beth wanted to make some money, so she decided to sell cocaine. She asked Albert, who was reputed to have access to illegal drugs, to supply her with cocaine so she could resell it. Albert agreed and sold Beth a bag of white powder. Beth then repackaged the white powder into smaller containers and sold one to Carol, an undercover police officer, who promptly arrested Beth. Beth immediately confessed and said that Albert was her supplier. Upon examination, the white powder was found not to be cocaine or any type of illegal substance. If Albert knew the white powder was not cocaine but Beth believed it was, which of the following is correct? | 568 | |
1 | [
"Yes, for the actual damage to the saw. ",
"Yes, for the value of the saw before Neighbor borrowed it. ",
"No, because when the saw broke Neighbor was using it to benefit Homeowner. ",
"No, because Neighbor did not intend to keep the saw."
] | Neighbor, who lived next door to Homeowner, went into Homeowner's garage without permission and borrowed Homeowner's chain saw. Neighbor used the saw to clear broken branches from the trees on Neighbor's own property. After he had finished, Neighbor noticed several broken branches on Homeowner's trees that were in danger of falling on Homeowner's roof. While Neighbor was cutting Homeowner's branches, the saw broke. In a suit for conversion by Homeowner against Neighbor, will Homeowner recover? | 569 | |
2 | [
"Benton, because a successor in title to the trustee takes title subject to the grantor's trust. ",
"Benton, because equitable interests are not subject to the recording act. ",
"Patricia, because, as a bona fide purchaser, she took free of the trust encumbering Ted's title. ",
"Patricia, because no trust was... | Susan owned Goldacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. By warranty deed, she conveyed Goldacre in fee simple to Ted for a recited consideration of "$10 and other valuable consideration." The deed was promptly and properly recorded. One week later, Susan and Ted executed a written document that stated that the conveyance of Goldacre was for the purpose of establishing a trust for the benefit of Benton, a child of Susan's. Ted expressly accepted the trust and signed the document with Susan. This written agreement was not authenticated to be eligible for recordation and there never was an attempt to record it. Ted entered into possession of Goldacre and distributed the net income from Goldacre to Benton at appropriate intervals. Five years later, Ted conveyed Goldacre in fee simple to Patricia by warranty deed. Patricia paid the fair market value of Goldacre, had no knowledge of the written agreement between Susan and Ted, and entered into possession of Goldacre. Benton made demand upon Patricia for distribution of income at the next usual time Ted would have distributed. Patricia refused. Benton brought an appropriate action against Patricia for a decree requiring her to perform the trust Ted had theretofore recognized. In such action, judgment should be for | 571 | |
2 | [
"prohibited, because the statement is protected by the attorney-client privilege. ",
"prohibited, because the statement is protected by the client's privilege against self-incrimination. ",
"required, because the statement was in furtherance of crime or fraud. ",
"required, because the attorney-client privile... | In a federal investigation of Defendant for tax fraud, the grand jury seeks to obtain a letter written January 15 by Defendant to her attorney in which she stated: "Please prepare a deed giving my ranch to University but, in order to get around the tax law, I want it back-dated to December 15." The attorney refuses to produce the letter on the ground of privilege. Production of the letter should be | 572 | |
1 | [
"constitutional, because a dead individual is not a person protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ",
"constitutional, because it is a generally applicable statute and is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. ",
"unconstitutional, because it is not necessary to vindicate a c... | A generally applicable state statute requires an autopsy by the county coroner in all cases of death that are not obviously of natural causes. The purpose of this law is to ensure the discovery and prosecution of all illegal activity resulting in death. In the 50 years since its enactment, the statute has been consistently enforced. Mr. and Mrs. Long are sincere practicing members of a religion that maintains it is essential for a deceased person's body to be buried promptly and without any invasive procedures, including an autopsy. When the Longs' son died of mysterious causes and an autopsy was scheduled, the Longs filed an action in state court challenging the constitutionality of the state statute, and seeking an injunction prohibiting the county coroner from performing an autopsy on their son's body. In this action, the Longs claimed only that the application of this statute in the circumstances of their son's death would violate their right to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Assume that no federal statutes are applicable. As applied to the Longs' case, the court should rule that the state's autopsy statute is | 574 | |
2 | [
"nothing, because it received a price on resale equal to the contract price that Materboard had agreed to pay. ",
"nothing, because Ram failed to give Materboard proper notice of Ram's intention to resell. ",
"Ram's anticipated profit on the sale to Materboard plus incidental damages, if any, because Ram lost t... | By the terms of a written contract signed by both parties on January 15, M.B. Ram, Inc., agreed to sell a specific ICB personal computer to Marilyn Materboard for $3,000, and Materboard agreed to pick up and pay for the computer at Ram's store on February 1. Materboard unjustifiably repudiated on February 1. Without notifying Materboard, Ram subsequently sold at private sale the same specific computer to Byte, who paid the same price ($3,000) in cash. The ICB is a popular product. Ram can buy from the manufacturer more units than it can sell at retail. If Ram sues Materboard for breach of contract, Ram will probably recover | 575 | |
3 | [
"the recording of the deed granting the easement prior to the foreclosure action protects Anna's rights.",
"the easement provides access from Blackacre to a public street.",
"Anna's easement is appurtenant to Blackacre and thus cannot be separated from Blackacre.",
"visible use of the easement by Anna put Ban... | Anna owned Blackacre, which was improved with a dwelling. Beth owned Whiteacre, an adjoining unimproved lot suitable for constructing a dwelling. Beth executed and delivered a deed granting to Anna an easement over the westerly 15 feet of Whiteacre for convenient ingress and egress to a public street, although Anna's lot did abut another public street. Anna did not then record Beth's deed. After Anna constructed and started using a driveway within the described 15-foot strip in a clearly visible manner, Beth borrowed $10,000 cash from Bank and gave Bank a mortgage on Whiteacre. The mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. Anna then recorded Beth's deed granting the easement. Beth subsequently defaulted on her loan payments to Bank. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." In an appropriate foreclosure action as to Whiteacre, brought against Anna and Beth, Bank seeks, among other things, to have Anna's easement declared subordinate to Bank's mortgage, so that the easement will be terminated by completion of the foreclosure. If Anna's easement is NOT terminated, it will be because | 576 | |
3 | [
"none of the items.",
"only the refrigerator.",
"all items except the carpet.",
"all of the items."
] | A little more than five years ago, Len completed construction of a single-family home located on Homeacre, a lot that Len owned. Five years ago, Len and Tina entered into a valid five-year written lease of Homeacre that included the following language: "This house is rented as is, without certain necessary or useful items. The parties agree that Tina may acquire and install such items as she wishes at her expense, and that she may remove them if she wishes at the termination of this lease." Tina decided that the house needed, and she paid cash to have installed, standardsized combination screen/storm windows, a freestanding refrigerator to fit a kitchen alcove built for that purpose, a built-in electric stove and oven to fit a kitchen counter opening left for that purpose, and carpeting to cover the plywood living room floor. Last month, by legal description of the land, Len conveyed Homeacre to Pete for $100,000. Pete knew of Tina's soon-expiring tenancy, but did not examine the written lease. As the lease expiration date approached, Pete learned that Tina planned to vacate on schedule, and learned for the first time that Tina claimed and planned to remove all of the above-listed items that she had installed. Pete promptly brought an appropriate action to enjoin Tina from removing those items. The court should decide that Tina may remove | 577 | |
3 | [
"No, because only producers in Blue will pay the tax and, therefore, it is not uniform among the states and denies alpha producers the equal protection of the laws. ",
"No, because it is likely to have an adverse effect on the freshwater commercial fishing industry and Congress has a responsibility under the clau... | The mineral alpha is added to bodies of fresh water to prevent the spread of certain freshwater parasites. The presence of those parasites threatens the health of the organisms living in rivers and streams throughout the country and imperils the freshwater commercial fishing industry. Alpha is currently mined only in the state of Blue. In order to raise needed revenue, Congress recently enacted a statute providing for the imposition of a $100 tax on each ton of alpha mined in the United States. Because it will raise the cost of alpha, this tax is likely to reduce the amount of alpha added to freshwater rivers and streams and, therefore, is likely to have an adverse effect on the interstate freshwater commercial fishing industry. The alpha producers in Blue have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging this tax solely on constitutional grounds. Is this tax constitutional? | 578 | |
0 | [
"admitted only if elicited from Expert Witness on cross-examination.",
"admitted only if the false testimony is established by clear and convincing extrinsic evidence.",
"excluded, because it is impeachment on a collateral issue. ",
"excluded, because it is improper character evidence. "
] | Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of a commercial contract in which Defendant had agreed to sell Plaintiff all of Plaintiff's requirements for widgets. Plaintiff called Expert Witness to testify as to damages. Defendant seeks to show that Expert Witness had provided false testimony as a witness in his own divorce proceedings. This evidence should be | 579 | |
1 | [
"Olivia, because Grant's deed to Bonnie before Grant satisfied Olivia's conditions was void, as Bonnie had paid only nominal consideration. ",
"Olivia, because her deed to Grant was not delivered. ",
"Bonnie, because Grant has satisfied Olivia's oral conditions. ",
"Bonnie, because the deed to her was recorde... | Olivia, owner in fee simple of Richacre, a large parcel of vacant land, executed a deed purporting to convey Richacre to her nephew, Grant. She told Grant, who was then 19, about the deed and said that she would give it to him when he reached 21 and had received his undergraduate college degree. Shortly afterward Grant searched Olivia's desk, found and removed the deed, and recorded it. A month later, Grant executed an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed purporting to convey Richacre to his fiancée, Bonnie. He delivered the deed to Bonnie, pointing out that the deed recited that it was given in exchange for "$1 and other good and valuable consideration," and that to make it valid Bonnie must pay him $1. Bonnie, impressed and grateful, did so. Together, they went to the recording office and recorded the deed. Bonnie assumed Grant had owned Richacre, and knew nothing about Grant's dealing with Olivia. Neither Olivia's deed to Grant nor Grant's deed to Bonnie said anything about any conditions. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." Two years passed. Grant turned 21, then graduated from college. At the graduation party, Olivia was chatting with Bonnie and for the first time learned the foregoing facts. The age of majority in the jurisdiction is 18 years. Olivia brought an appropriate action against Bonnie to quiet title to Richacre. The court will decide for | 582 | |
3 | [
"Yes, if Dever intended to strike Perry with his elbow. ",
"Yes, if Dever intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Perry. ",
"No, because Perry impliedly consented to rough play. ",
"No, unless Dever intentionally used force that exceeded the players' consent. "
] | Perry suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game at a public park. The injury occurred when Perry and Dever, on opposing teams, each tried to obtain possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard after a missed shot at the basket. During that encounter, Perry was struck and injured by Dever's elbow. Perry now seeks compensation from Dever. At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by opposing players, and that Perry had been one of those making liberal use of such tactics. In this action, will Perry prevail? | 583 | |
0 | [
"unconstitutional, because they would deny other potential employees or potential contractors the equal protection of the laws. ",
"unconstitutional, because they would impermissibly impair the right to contract of other potential employees or potential contractors. ",
"constitutional, because they would assure... | Water District is an independent municipal water-supply district incorporated under the applicable laws of the state of Green. The district was created solely to supply water to an entirely new community in a recently developed area of Green. That new community is racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse, and the community has never engaged in any discrimination against members of minority groups. The five-member, elected governing board of the newly created Water District contains two persons who are members of racial minority groups. At its first meeting, the governing board of Water District adopted a rule unqualifiedly setting aside 25% of all positions on the staff of the District and 25% of all contracts to be awarded by the District to members of racial minority groups. The purpose of the rule was "to help redress the historical discrimination against these groups in this country and to help them achieve economic parity with other groups in our society." Assume that no federal statute applies. A suit by appropriate parties challenges the constitutionality of these set-asides. In this suit, the most appropriate ruling on the basis of applicable United States Supreme Court precedent would be that the set-asides are | 584 | |
0 | [
"No, because Farmer has no duty under the contract to pay anything to Painter until all three barns have been painted. ",
"No, because Painter waived her right, if any, to payment on a per-barn basis by failing to demand $2,000 upon completion of the first barn. ",
"Yes, because the contract is divisible. ",
... | In a single writing, Painter contracted with Farmer to paint three identical barns on her rural estate for $2,000 each. The contract provided for Farmer's payment of $6,000 upon Painter's completion of the work on all three barns. Painter did not ask for any payment when the first barn was completely painted, but she demanded $4,000 after painting the second barn. Is Farmer obligated to make the $4,000 payment? | 585 | |
2 | [
"Nothing, because payment was expressly conditioned on completion of all three barns. ",
"Painter's expenditures plus anticipated \"profit\" in painting the first two barns, up to a maximum recovery of $4,000. ",
"The reasonable value of Painter's services in painting the two barns, less Farmer's damages, if an... | In a single writing, Painter contracted with Farmer to paint three identical barns on her rural estate for $2,000 each. The contract provided for Farmer's payment of $6,000 upon Painter's completion of the work on all three barns. Painter did not ask for any payment when the first barn was completely painted, but she demanded $4,000 after painting the second barn. Assume that Farmer rightfully refused Painter's demand for payment. If Painter immediately terminates the contract without painting the third barn, what is Painter entitled to recover from Farmer? | 586 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.