question
stringlengths 158
3.04k
| answer
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|
Paul, the Plaintiff in a personal injury action, called Wes as a witness to testify that Dan's car, in which Paul had been riding. ran a red light. Wes, however, testified that Dan's car did not run the light.
Paul then called Vic to testify that Dan's car did run the light. The trial judge should rule that Vic's testimony is
A:admissible because Paul was surprised by Wes's testimony
B:admissible because Vic's testimony was relevant to material issues
C:inadmissible because Paul cannot impeach his own witness
D:inadmissible because Paul is bound by the testimony of his own witness
|
#### B
|
Paul, the Plaintiff in a personal injury action, called Wes as a witness to testify that Dan's car, in which Paul had been riding. ran a red light. Wes, however, testified that Dan's car did not run the light.
On cross-examination of Vic, Dan's attorney asked if Vic was drunk at the time he witnessed the accident. and Vic responded, "No I have never in my life been drunk." Dan's attorney then sought to prove by Yank that Vic was drunk on New Year's Eve two years before the accident. The trialjudge should rule that Yank's testimony is
A:admissible to impeach Vic by showing that he had an imperfect recollection of recent events
B:admissible to show that Vic is not the kind of person on whom one should rely for ascertaining the truth
C:inadmissible because a witness cannot be impeached by proof of specific acts of misconduct
D:inadmissible because the question of whether Vic has ever been drunk is a collateral matter
|
#### D
|
Paul, the Plaintiff in a personal injury action, called Wes as a witness to testify that Dan's car, in which Paul had been riding. ran a red light. Wes, however, testified that Dan's car did not run the light.
Dan called Zemo as a witness and asked him if he knew Vic's reputation for veracity in the community where Vic resided. The trialjudge should rule that this question is
A:objectionable because collateral to the issues on trial
B:objectionable because character cannot be proven by generalities
C:unobjectionable because a foundation for impeachment of Vic.
D:unobjectionable because Zemo could be expected to know Vic personally if he knew his reputation
|
#### C
|
Jim watched a liquor store furtively for some time, planning to hold it up. He bought a realistic-looking toy gun for the job. One night, just before the store's closing time, he drove to the store, opened the front door and entered. He reached in his pocket for the toy gun, but then became frightened and began to move back toward the front door. However, the shopkeeper had seen the butt of the gun. Fearing a hold up, the shopkeeper produced a gun from under the counter, pointed it at Jim, and yelled, "Stop!" Jim ran to the door and the toy gun fell from his pocket. The shopkeeper fired. The shot missed Jim, but struck and killed a passerby outside the store. A statute in the jurisdiction defines burglary as "breaking and entering any building or structure with the intent to commit a felony or to steal therein." On a charge of burglary, Jim's best defense would be that
A:the intent required was not present
B:the liquor store was open to the public
C:he had a change of heart and withdrew before committing any crime inside the store
D:he was unsuccessful, and so at most could only be guilty of attempted burglary
|
#### B
|
A water pipe burst in the basement of Supermart, a grocery store, flooding the basement and damaging cases of canned goods on the floor. The Plumbing contractor's workmen, in repairing the leak, knocked over several stacks of canned goods in cases, denting the cans. After settling its claims against the landlord for the water leak and against the plumbing contractor for the damage done by his workmen, Supermart put the goods on special sale. Four weeks later Dotty was shopping in Supermart. Several tables in the market were covered with assorted canned foods, all of which were dirty and dented. A sign on each of the tables read: "Damaged Cans-Half Price." Dotty was having Guest for dinner that evening and purchased two dented cans of tuna, packed by Canco, from one of the tables displaying the damaged cans. Before Guest arrived, Dotty prepared a tuna casserole which she and Guest ate. Both became ill and the medical testimony established that the illness was caused by the tuna's being unfit for consumption. The tuna consumed by Dotty and Guest came from the case that was at the top of one of the stacks knocked over by the workmen. The tuna in undamaged cans from the same Canco shipment was fit for consumption.
If Dotty asserts a claim against Canco based on negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is
A:applicable, because the tuna was packed in a sealed can
B:applicable, because Canco as the packer is strictly liable
C:not applicable, because the case of tuna had been knocked over by the workmen
D:not applicable, because of the sign on the table from which Dotty purchased the tuna
|
#### C
|
A water pipe burst in the basement of Supermart, a grocery store, flooding the basement and damaging cases of canned goods on the floor. The Plumbing contractor's workmen, in repairing the leak, knocked over several stacks of canned goods in cases, denting the cans. After settling its claims against the landlord for the water leak and against the plumbing contractor for the damage done by his workmen, Supermart put the goods on special sale. Four weeks later Dotty was shopping in Supermart. Several tables in the market were covered with assorted canned foods, all of which were dirty and dented. A sign on each of the tables read: "Damaged Cans-Half Price." Dotty was having Guest for dinner that evening and purchased two dented cans of tuna, packed by Canco, from one of the tables displaying the damaged cans. Before Guest arrived, Dotty prepared a tuna casserole which she and Guest ate. Both became ill and the medical testimony established that the illness was caused by the tuna's being unfit for consumption. The tuna consumed by Dotty and Guest came from the case that was at the top of one of the stacks knocked over by the workmen. The tuna in undamaged cans from the same Canco shipment was fit for consumption.
If Guest asserts a claim against Dotty, Dotty most likely will
A:be held strictly liable in tort for serving spoiled tuna
B:be held liable only if she were negligent
C:not be held liable unless her conduct was in reckless disregard of the safety of Guest
D:not be held liable because Guest was a social visitor
|
#### B
|
A water pipe burst in the basement of Supermart, a grocery store, flooding the basement and damaging cases of canned goods on the floor. The Plumbing contractor's workmen, in repairing the leak, knocked over several stacks of canned goods in cases, denting the cans. After settling its claims against the landlord for the water leak and against the plumbing contractor for the damage done by his workmen, Supermart put the goods on special sale. Four weeks later Dotty was shopping in Supermart. Several tables in the market were covered with assorted canned foods, all of which were dirty and dented. A sign on each of the tables read: "Damaged Cans-Half Price." Dotty was having Guest for dinner that evening and purchased two dented cans of tuna, packed by Canco, from one of the tables displaying the damaged cans. Before Guest arrived, Dotty prepared a tuna casserole which she and Guest ate. Both became ill and the medical testimony established that the illness was caused by the tuna's being unfit for consumption. The tuna consumed by Dotty and Guest came from the case that was at the top of one of the stacks knocked over by the workmen. The tuna in undamaged cans from the same Canco shipment was fit for consumption.
If Guest asserts a claim against Supermart, the most likely result is that Guest will
A:recover on the theory of res ipsa loquitur
B:recover on the theory of strict liability in tort
C:not recover, because Supermart gave proper warning
D:not recover, because Guest was not the purchaser of the cans
|
#### B
|
Addle, who has been in the painting and contracting business for ten years and has a fine reputation, contracts to paint Boone's barn. Boone's barn is a standard red barn with loft. The contract has no provision regarding assignment.
If Addle assigns the contract to Coot, who has comparable experience and reputation, which of the following statements is correct?
A:Addle is in breach of contract.
B:Boone may refuse to accept performance by Coot.
C:Boone is required to accept performance by Coot.
D:There is a novation.
|
#### C
|
Addle, who has been in the painting and contracting business for ten years and has a fine reputation, contracts to paint Boone's barn. Boone's barn is a standard red barn with loft. The contract has no provision regarding assignment.
If Addle assigns the contract to Coot and thereafter Coot does not meet the contract specifications in painting Boone's barn. Boone
A:has a cause of action against Addle for damages
B:has a cause of action only against Coot for damages
C:has a cause of action against Addle for damages only after he has first exhausted his remedies against Coot
D:does not have a cause of action against Addle for damages because he waived his rights against Addle by permitting Coot to perform the work
|
#### A
|
Jackson and Brannick planned to break into a federal government office to steal food stamps. Jackson telephoned Crowley one night and asked whether Crowley wanted to buy some "hot" food stamps. Crowley, who understood that "hot" meant stolen, said: "Sure, bring them right over." Jackson and Brannick then successfully executed their scheme. That same night they delivered the food stamps to Crowley, who bought them for $500. Crowley did not ask when or by whom the stamps were stolen. All three were arrested. Jackson and Brannick entered guilty pleas in federal court to a charge of larceny in connection with the theft. Crowley was brought to trial in the state court on a charge of conspiracy to steal food stamps.
On the evidence stated, Crowley should be found
A:guilty, because, when a new confederate enters a conspiracy already in progress, he becomes a party to it
B:guilty, because he knowingly and willingly aided and abetted the conspiracy and is chargeable as a principal
C:not guilty, because, although Crowley knew the stamps were stolen, he neither helped to plan nor participated or assisted in the theft
D:not guilty, because Jackson and Brannick had not been convicted of or charged with conspiracy, and Crowley cannot be guilty of conspiracy by himself
|
#### C
|
Jackson and Brannick planned to break into a federal government office to steal food stamps. Jackson telephoned Crowley one night and asked whether Crowley wanted to buy some "hot" food stamps. Crowley, who understood that "hot" meant stolen, said: "Sure, bring them right over." Jackson and Brannick then successfully executed their scheme. That same night they delivered the food stamps to Crowley, who bought them for $500. Crowley did not ask when or by whom the stamps were stolen. All three were arrested. Jackson and Brannick entered guilty pleas in federal court to a charge of larceny in connection with the theft. Crowley was brought to trial in the state court on a charge of conspiracy to steal food stamps.
If Jackson and Brannick are charged with conspiracy to steal the stamps in the state court, they should, on the evidence stated, be found
A:not guilty, because the charge of conspiracy is a lesser included offense in the charge of larceny
B:not guilty, because to charge them with conspiracy after their conviction of larceny would constitute double jeopardy
C:not guilty, because the state prosecution is barred by the prosecution in the federal court
D:guilty, because they planned and conspired to steal the stamps
|
#### D
|
Owens contracted to sell a tract of land, Overlea, to Painter by general warranty deed. However, at the closing Painter did not carefully examine the deed and accepted a quitclaim deed without covenants of title. Painter later attempted to sell Overlea to Thompson, who refused to perform because Owens had conveyed an easement for a highway across Overlea before Painter bought the property. Painter sued Owens for damages. Which of the following arguments will most likely succeed in Owen's defense?
A:The existence of the easement does not violate the contract.
B:The mere existence of an easement which is not being used does not give rise to a cause of action.
C:Painter's cause of action must be based on the deed and not on the contract.
D:The proper remedy is rescission of the deed.
|
#### C
|
Rider, a bus passenger, sued Transit Company for injuries to his back from an accident caused by Transit's negligence. Transit denies that Rider received any injury in the accident.
Rider's counsel seeks to introduce an affidavit he obtained in preparation for trial from Dr. Bond, who has since died. The affidavit avers that Dr. Bond examined Rider two days after the Transit Company accident and found him suffering from a recently incurred back injury. The judge should rule the affidavit
A:admissible as a statement of present bodily condition made to a physician
B:admissible as prior recorded testimony
C:inadmissible, because it is irrelevant
D:inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception
|
#### D
|
Rider, a bus passenger, sued Transit Company for injuries to his back from an accident caused by Transit's negligence. Transit denies that Rider received any injury in the accident.
Transit Company calls Observer to testify that right after the accident, Rider told hin that he had recently suffered a recurrence of an old back injury. The judge should rule Observer's testimony
A:admissible as an admission of a party opponent
B:admissible as a spontaneous declaration
C:inadmissible, because it is irrelevant
D:inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception
|
#### A
|
Johnston bought 100 bolts of standard blue wool, No. I quality, from McHugh. The sale contract provided that Johnston would make payment prior to inspection. The 100 bolts were shipped, and Johnston paid McHugh. Upon inspection, however, Johnston discovered that the wool was No. 2 quality. Johnston thereupon tendered back the Wool to Mc Hugh and demanded return of his payment. Mc Hugh refused on the ground that there is no difference between No. 1 quality wool and No. 2 quality wool.
Which of the following statements regarding the contract provision for preinspection payment is correct?
A:It constitutes an acceptance of the goods.
B:It constitutes a waiver of the buyer's remedy of private sale in the case of nonconforming goods.
C:It does not impair a buyer's right of inspection or his remedies.
D:It is invalid.
|
#### C
|
Johnston bought 100 bolts of standard blue wool, No. I quality, from McHugh. The sale contract provided that Johnston would make payment prior to inspection. The 100 bolts were shipped, and Johnston paid McHugh. Upon inspection, however, Johnston discovered that the wool was No. 2 quality. Johnston thereupon tendered back the Wool to Mc Hugh and demanded return of his payment. Mc Hugh refused on the ground that there is no difference between No. 1 quality wool and No. 2 quality wool.
What is Johnston's remedy because the wool was nonconforming?
A:Specific performance
B:Damages measured by the difference between the value of the goods delivered and the value of conforming goods
C:Damages measured by the price paid plus the difference between the contract price and the cost of buying substitute goods
D:None, since he waived his remedies by agreeing to pay before inspection
|
#### C
|
Johnston bought 100 bolts of standard blue wool, No. I quality, from McHugh. The sale contract provided that Johnston would make payment prior to inspection. The 100 bolts were shipped, and Johnston paid McHugh. Upon inspection, however, Johnston discovered that the wool was No. 2 quality. Johnston thereupon tendered back the Wool to Mc Hugh and demanded return of his payment. Mc Hugh refused on the ground that there is no difference between No. 1 quality wool and No. 2 quality wool.
Can Johnston resell the wool?
A:Yes, in a private sale.
B:Yes, in a private sale but only after giving Mc Hugh reasonable notice of his intention to resell.
C:Yes, but only at a public sale.
D:No.
|
#### B
|
Lord leased a warehouse building and the lot on which it stood to Taylor for a term of ten years. The lease contained a clause prohibiting Taylor from subletting his interest. Can Taylor assign his interest under the lease?
A:Yes, because restraints on alier ation of land are strictly construed.
B:Yes, because disabling restraints on alienation of land are invalid.
C:No, because the term "subletting" includes "assignment" when the term is employed in a lease.
D:No. because, even in the absence of an express prohibition on assignment, a tenant may not assign without the landlord's permission.
|
#### A
|
Diner, a drive-in hamburger and ice cream stand, recently opened for business in the suburban town of Little City. Diner's business hours are from 9:00 a.m. to midnight. It is in an area that for fifteen years has been zoned for small retail businesses, apartment buildings, and one- and two-family residences. The zoning code specifies that "small retail businesses" include "businesses where food and drink are dispensed for consumption on the premises." Diner was the first drive-in in Little City. For seven years Mr. and Mrs. Householder have owned and lived in their single-family residence, which is across the street from Diner. On opening day a brass band played in the parking lot of Diner until midnight, and the noise of cars and the unusual activity as a result of the new business prevented the Householders from getting to sleep until well after midnight, long after their usual time. Diner is heavily patronized during the day and night by high school students. The noise of cars, the lights of the cars, the lights illuminating the parking lot at Diner, and the noise from the loudspeaker of the ordering system prevented the Householders from sleeping before midnight. Paper cups, napkins, and other items from the drive-in are regularly blown into the Householders' front yard by the prevailing wind. The traffic to and from Diner is so heavy on the street in front of their house that the Householders are afraid to allow their small children to play in the front yard. The Householders have asserted a claim against Diner based on private nuisance. The most likely effect of the fact that Householders were in the area before Diner is that it
A:requires that the Householders' interest be given priority
B:is irrelevant because of the zoning ordinance
C:is irrelevant because conforming economic uses are given priority
D:is some, but not controlling, evidence
|
#### D
|
Jack and Paul planned to hold up a bank. They drove to the bank in Jack's car. Jack entered while Paul remained as lookout in the car. After a few moments, Paul panicked and drove off. Jack looked over the various tellers, approached one and wispered nervously, "Just hand over the cash. Don't look around, don't make a false move-or it's your life." The teller looked at the fidgeting Jack, laughed, flipped him a dollar bill and said, "Go on, beat it." Flustered, Jack grabbed the dollar and left. Soon after leaving the scene, Paul was stopped by the police for speeding. Noting his nervous condition, the police asked Paul if they might search the car. Paul agreed. The search turned up heroin concealed in the lid of the trunk.
Paul's best defense to a charge of robbery would be that
A:Jack alone entered the bank
B:Paul withdrew before commission of the crime when he fled the scene
C:Paul had no knowledge of what Jack whispered to the teller
D:the teller was not placed in fear by Jack
|
#### D
|
Jack and Paul planned to hold up a bank. They drove to the bank in Jack's car. Jack entered while Paul remained as lookout in the car. After a few moments, Paul panicked and drove off. Jack looked over the various tellers, approached one and wispered nervously, "Just hand over the cash. Don't look around, don't make a false move-or it's your life." The teller looked at the fidgeting Jack, laughed, flipped him a dollar bill and said, "Go on, beat it." Flustered, Jack grabbed the dollar and left. Soon after leaving the scene, Paul was stopped by the police for speeding. Noting his nervous condition, the police asked Paul if they might search the car. Paul agreed. The search turned up heroin concealed in the lid of the trunk.
The prosecution's best argument to sustain the validity of the search of Jack's car would be that
A:the search was reasonable under the circumstances, including Paul's nervous condition
B:the search was incident to a valid arrest
C:Paul had, under the circumstances, sufficient standing and authority to consent to the search
D:exigent circumstances, including the inherent mobility of a car, justified the search
|
#### C
|
Pace sues Def Company for injuries suffered when Pace's car collided with Def Company's truck. Def's general manager prepared a report of the accident at the request of the company's attorney in preparation for the trial, and delivered the report to the attorney. Pace demands that the report be produced. Will production of the report be required?
A:Yes, because business reports are not generally privileged.
B:No, because it is a privileged communication from client to the attorney.
C:No, because such reports contain hearsay.
D:No, because such reports are self-serving.
|
#### B
|
The following facts concern a tract of land in a state which follows general United States law. Each instrument is in proper form, recorded, marital property rights were waived when necessary, and each person named was adult and competent at the time of the named transaction. 1. In 1940 Oleg, the owner, conveyed his interest in fee simple "to my brothers Bob and Bill, their heirs and assigns as joint tenants with right of survivorship." 2. In 1950 Bob died, devising his interest to his only child, "Charles, for life, and then to Charles's son, Sam, for life, and then to Sam's children, their heirs and assigns." 3. In 1970 Bill died, devising his interest "to my friend, Frank, his heirs and assigns." 4. In 1972 Frank conveyed by quitclaim deed "to Paul, his heirs and assigns whatever right, title and interest I own." Paul has never married. Paul has contracted to convey marketable record title in the land to Patrick. Can Paul do so?
A:Yes, without joinder of any other person in the conveyance.
B:Yes, if Charles, Sam, and Sam's only child (Gene, aged 25) will join in the conveyance.
C:No, regardless of who joins in the conveyance, because Sam may have additional children whose interests cannot be defeated.
D:No, regardless of who joins in the conveyance, because a title acquired by quitclaim deed is impliedly unmerchantable.
|
#### A
|
Peter was rowing a boat on a mountain lake when a storm suddenly arose. Fearful that the boat might sink, Peter rowed to a boat dock on shore and tied the boat to the dock. The shore property and dock were the private property of Owner. While the boat was tied at the dock, Owner came down and ordered Peter to remove the boat, because the action of the waves was causing the boat to rub against a bumper on the dock. When Peter refused, Owner untied the boat and cast it adrift. The boat sank. Peter was wearing a pair of swimming trunks nothing else. He had a pair of shoes and a parka in the boat, but they were lost when Owner set it adrift. Peter was staying at a cabin one mile from Owner's property. The only land routes back were a short rocky trail that was dangerous during the storm, and a 15-mile road around the lake. The storm continued with heavy rain and hail, and Peter having informed Owner of the location of his cabin, asked Owner to take him back there in Owner's car. Owner said, " You got here by yourself and you'll have to get back home yourself." After one hour the storm stopped, and Peter walked home over the trail.
A necessary element in determining if Peter is liable for a trespass is whether
A:Owner had clearly posted his property with a sign indicating that it was private property
B:Peter knew that the property belonged to a private person
C:Peter had reasonable grounds to believe the property belonged to a private person
D:Peter had reasonable grounds to believe his boat might be swamped and sink
|
#### D
|
Peter was rowing a boat on a mountain lake when a storm suddenly arose. Fearful that the boat might sink, Peter rowed to a boat dock on shore and tied the boat to the dock. The shore property and dock were the private property of Owner. While the boat was tied at the dock, Owner came down and ordered Peter to remove the boat, because the action of the waves was causing the boat to rub against a bumper on the dock. When Peter refused, Owner untied the boat and cast it adrift. The boat sank. Peter was wearing a pair of swimming trunks nothing else. He had a pair of shoes and a parka in the boat, but they were lost when Owner set it adrift. Peter was staying at a cabin one mile from Owner's property. The only land routes back were a short rocky trail that was dangerous during the storm, and a 15-mile road around the lake. The storm continued with heavy rain and hail, and Peter having informed Owner of the location of his cabin, asked Owner to take him back there in Owner's car. Owner said, " You got here by yourself and you'll have to get back home yourself." After one hour the storm stopped, and Peter walked home over the trail.
If Peter asserts a claim against Owner for loss of the boat, the most likely result is that Owner will
A:have no defense under the circumstances
B:prevail because Peter was a trespasser ab initio
C:prevail because the boat might have damaged the dock
D:prevail because Peter became a trespasser when he refused to remove the boat
|
#### A
|
Park brought an action against Dan for injuries received in an automobile accident, alleging negligence in that Dan was speeding and inattentive. Park calls White to testify that Dan had a reputation in the community of being a reckless driver and was known as "dare-devil Dan." White's testimony is
A:admissible as habit evidence
B:admissible because it tends to prove that Dan was negligent at the time of this collision
C:inadmissible because Dan has not offered testimony of his own good character
D:inadmissible to show negligence
|
#### D
|
Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs twenty miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen-Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or beforenoon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand. Sincerely, [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified. Sincerely, [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10. Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $1,050 a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November I I and said: " I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me yours for $950?" Slicker replied: "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:55 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until 12:15 p.m. Duffer than rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's.
In Duffer's letter of October 8, what was the legal effect of the language: "This offer is not subject to countermand"?
A:Under the Uniform Commercial Code the offer was irrevocable until noon, November 12.
B:Such language prevented an effective acceptance by Slicker prior to noon, November 12.
C:At common law, such language created a binding option in Slicker's favor.
D:Such language did not affect the offeror's power of revocation of the offer.
|
#### D
|
Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs twenty miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen-Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or beforenoon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand. Sincerely, [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified. Sincerely, [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10. Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $1,050 a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November I I and said: " I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me yours for $950?" Slicker replied: "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:55 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until 12:15 p.m. Duffer than rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's.
In a lawsuit by Slicker against Duffer for breach of contract, what would the court probably decide regarding Slicker's letter of October 9?
A:The letter bound both parties to a unilateral contract as soon as Slicker mailed it.
B:Mailing of the letter by Slicker did not, of itself, prevent a subsequent, effective revocation by Duffer of his offer.
C:The letter bound both parties to a bilateral contract, but only when received by Duffer on November 10.
D:Regardless of whether Duffer's offer had proposed a unilateral or a bilateral contract, the letter was an effective acceptance upon receipt, if not upon dispatch.
|
#### B
|
Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs twenty miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen-Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or beforenoon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand. Sincerely, [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified. Sincerely, [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10. Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $1,050 a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November I I and said: " I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me yours for $950?" Slicker replied: "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:55 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until 12:15 p.m. Duffer than rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's.
What is the probable legal effect of Koolcat's conversation with Slicker and report that he (Koolcat) had sold his Sujocki to Duffer on November 10?
A:This report had no legal effect because Duffer's offer was irrevocable until November 12.
B:Unless a contract had already been formed between Slicker and Duffer. Koolcat's report to Slicker operated to terminate Slicker's power of accepting Duffer's offer.
C:This report had no legal effect because the offer had been made by a prospective buyer (Duffer) rather than a prospective seller.
D:Koolcat's conversation with Slicker on November II terminated Duffer's original offer and operated as an offer by Koolcat to buy Slicker's Sujocki for $950.
|
#### B
|
In a suit attacking the validity of a deed executed fifteen years ago, Plaintiff alleges mental incompetency of Joe, the grantor, and offers in evidence a properly authenticated affidavit of Harry, Joe's brother. The affidavit, which was executed shortly after the deed, stated that Harry had observed Joe closely over a period of weeks, that Joe had engaged in instances of unusual behavior (which were described), and that Joe's appearance had changed from one of neatness and alertness to one of disorder and absentmindedness. The judge should rule Harry's affidavit
A:inadmissible as opinion
B:inadmissible as hearsay, not within any exception
C:admissible as an official document
D:admissible as an ancient document
|
#### B
|
"A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law." This quotation is basically a statement of the
A:M'Naghten Rule
B:right and wrong plus irresistible impulse test
C:Durham Rule
D:Model Penal Code provision
|
#### D
|
Oscar, the owner in fee simple, laid out a subdivision of 325 lots on 150 acres of land. He obtained governmental approval (as required by applicable ordinances) and, between 1968 and 1970, he sold 140 of the lots, inserting in each of the 140 deeds the following provision: "The Grantee, for himself and his heirs, assigns and successors, covenants and agrees that the premises conveyed herein shall have erected thereon one single-family dwelling and that no other structure (other than a detached garage normally incident to a single-family dwelling) shall be erected or maintained; and, further, that no use shall ever be made or permitted to be made than occupancy by a single family for residential purposes only." Because of difficulty encountered in selling the remaining lots for single family use, in January, 1971, Oscar advertised the remaining lots with prom inent emphasis: " These lots are not subject to any restrictions and purchasers will find them adaptable to a wide range of uses."
Payne had purchased one of the 140 lots and brought suit against Oscar to establish that the remaining 185 lots, as well as the 140 sold previously, can be used only for residential purposes by single families. Assuming that procedural requirements have been met to permit adjudication of the issue Payne has tendered, which of the following is the most appropriate comment?
A:Oscar should win because the provision binds only the grantee.
B:The outcome turns on whether a common development scheme had been established for the entire subdivision.
C:The outcome turns on whether there are sufficient land areas devoted to multiple-family uses within the municipality to afford reasonable opportunity for all economic classes to move into the area so as to satisfy the standards of equal protection of the law.
D:Payne should win under an application of the doctrine which requires construction of deeds to resolve any doubt against the grantor.
|
#### B
|
Oscar, the owner in fee simple, laid out a subdivision of 325 lots on 150 acres of land. He obtained governmental approval (as required by applicable ordinances) and, between 1968 and 1970, he sold 140 of the lots, inserting in each of the 140 deeds the following provision: "The Grantee, for himself and his heirs, assigns and successors, covenants and agrees that the premises conveyed herein shall have erected thereon one single-family dwelling and that no other structure (other than a detached garage normally incident to a single-family dwelling) shall be erected or maintained; and, further, that no use shall ever be made or permitted to be made than occupancy by a single family for residential purposes only." Because of difficulty encountered in selling the remaining lots for single family use, in January, 1971, Oscar advertised the remaining lots with prom inent emphasis: " These lots are not subject to any restrictions and purchasers will find them adaptable to a wide range of uses."
Suppose that Oscar sold 50 lots during 1971 without inserting in the deeds any provisions relating to structures or uses. Doyle purchased one of the 50 lots and proposes to erect a service station and to conduct a retail business for the sale of gasoline, etc. Pringle purchased a lot from Boyer. Boyer had purchased from Oscar in 1968 and the deed had the provision that is quoted in the fact situation. Pringle brings suit to prevent Doyle from erecting the service station and from conducting a retail business. In the litigation between Pringle and Doyle, which of the following constitutes the best defense for Doyle?
A:Oscar's difficulty in selling with provisions relating to use establishes a change in circumstances which renders any restrictions which may once have existed unenforceable.
B:Enforcement of the restriction, in view of the change of circumstances, would be an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
C:Since the proof (as stated) does not establish a danger of monetary loss tO Pringle, Pringle has failed to establish one of the necessary elements in a cause of action to prevent Doyle from using his lot for business purposes.
D:The facts do not establish a common building or development scheme forte entire subdivision.
|
#### D
|
Adam and Bailey. brothers, operated an illicit still. They customarily sold to anyone unless they suspected the person of being a revenue agent or an informant. One day when Adam was at the still alone, he was approached by Mitchell, who asked to buy a gallon of liquor. Mitchell was in fact a revenue officer. After Adam had sold him the liquor, Mitchell revealed his identity. Adam grabbed one of the rifles that the brothers kept handy in case of trouble with the law, and shot and wounded Mitchell. Other officers, hiding nearby, overpowered and arrested Adam. Shortly thereafter, Bailey came on the scene. The officers in hiding had been waiting for him. One of them approached him and asked to buy liquor. Bailey was suspicious and refused to sell. The officers nevertheless arrested him. Adam and Bailey were charged with conspiracy to violate revenue laws, illegal selling of liquor, and battery of the officer. On the charge of battery, which statement concerning Adam and Bailey is true?
A:Neither is guilty.
B:Both are guilty.
C:Adam is guilty but Bailey is not, because the conspiracy had terminated with the arrest of Adam.
D:Adam is guilty but Bailey is not, because Adam's act was outside the scope of the conspiracy.
|
#### B
|
The bus in which Pat was riding was struck from the rear by a taxi. He sued Cab Company for a claimed neck injury. Cab Company claimed the impact was too slight to have caused the claimed injury and introduced testimony that all passengers had refused medical attention at the time of the accident. Pat called a doctor from City Hospital to testify that three persons (otherwise proved to have been on the bus) were admitted to the hospital for treatment of severe neck pain within a week after the accident. The trial judge should rule the doctor's testimony
A:admissible, because a doctor is properly qualified as an expert in medical matters
B:admissible if other testimony establishes causal connection between the other passengers' pain and the accident
C:inadmissible, because the testimony to neck pain is hearsay, not within any exception
D:inadmissible, because the testimony is not the best evidence of the other passengers' pain and the passengers are not shown to be unavailable
|
#### B
|
Odum owned Brightacre (a tract of land) in fee simple. He conveyed it "to Pike, his heirs and assigns; but if Farley shall be living thirty years from the date of this deed, then to Farley, his heirs and assigns." The limitation "to Farley, his heirs and assigns" is
A:valid, because Farley's interest is a reversion
B:valid, because the interest will vest, if at all, within a life in being
C:valid, because Farley's interest is vested subject to divestment
D:invalid
|
#### B
|
Neff and Owens owned adjoining residences in Smithville. In 1971, they hired a contractor to lay sidewalks in front of both of their homes. Each man was to pay the contractor for that part of the work attributable to his property. After he had paid the bill which the contractor had submitted to him, Neff became convinced that the contractor had erred and had charged him for labor and materials which were used for part of the sidewalk in front of Owens' property. Neff thereupon asked Owens to reimburse him for the amount which he assumed he had erroneously paid the contractor. After a lengthy discussion, and although he was still convinced that he owed Neff nothing, Owens finally said: "I want to avoid trouble, and so if you agree not to sue for reimbursement, I'll employ a caretaker for a three-year term to keep our sidewalks free of ice and snow." Neff orally assented. Although he could have hired the man for three years, Owens hired Parsons in October, 1971, to keep the snow and ice off the sidewalks for the winter, November 1971-March 1972. During the early fall of 1972, Owens decided to go to Florida for the winter. He told his nephew, Morse, that he could live in Owens' house for the winter provided Morse would hire someone to keep the snow and ice off the walks in front of both Neff's and Owens' properties, and suggested that Morse could hire Parsons for that task at relatively little cost. Morse moved into Owens' home in October, 1972, but moved out November, 1972, prior to any icing or snowfall. He did not employ anyone to remove snow and ice in front of either property. Owens did not know that Morse had moved out of his home until he returned to Smithville in the spring. During the winter Neff had kept his own walks clean. No one cleaned the snow and ice from the walks in front of Owens' property.
Assume that the contractor had made no error and that Neff had paid only for labor and materials for the walk in front of his own property. Was Owens' promise to hire a caretaker supported by consideration?
A:Yes.
B:No, because Owens did not believe that Neff had a valid claim.
C:No, because Neff's claim was groundless.
D:No, because Owens' promise to employ the caretaker was aleatory.
|
#### A
|
Neff and Owens owned adjoining residences in Smithville. In 1971, they hired a contractor to lay sidewalks in front of both of their homes. Each man was to pay the contractor for that part of the work attributable to his property. After he had paid the bill which the contractor had submitted to him, Neff became convinced that the contractor had erred and had charged him for labor and materials which were used for part of the sidewalk in front of Owens' property. Neff thereupon asked Owens to reimburse him for the amount which he assumed he had erroneously paid the contractor. After a lengthy discussion, and although he was still convinced that he owed Neff nothing, Owens finally said: "I want to avoid trouble, and so if you agree not to sue for reimbursement, I'll employ a caretaker for a three-year term to keep our sidewalks free of ice and snow." Neff orally assented. Although he could have hired the man for three years, Owens hired Parsons in October, 1971, to keep the snow and ice off the sidewalks for the winter, November 1971-March 1972. During the early fall of 1972, Owens decided to go to Florida for the winter. He told his nephew, Morse, that he could live in Owens' house for the winter provided Morse would hire someone to keep the snow and ice off the walks in front of both Neff's and Owens' properties, and suggested that Morse could hire Parsons for that task at relatively little cost. Morse moved into Owens' home in October, 1972, but moved out November, 1972, prior to any icing or snowfall. He did not employ anyone to remove snow and ice in front of either property. Owens did not know that Morse had moved out of his home until he returned to Smithville in the spring. During the winter Neff had kept his own walks clean. No one cleaned the snow and ice from the walks in front of Owens' property.
Assuming there is an enforceable contract between Owens and Morse, does Neff have an action against Morse?
A:Yes, because Neff is a creditor thirdparty beneficiary of the contract.
B:Yes, because Neff is a donee third-party beneficiary of the contract.
C:No, because Neff is only an incidental beneficiary of the contract.
D:No, because there was no privity between Neff and Morse.
|
#### A
|
Defendant was driving his automobile at a legal speed in a residential zone. A child darted out in front of him and was run over and killed before Defendant could prevent it. Defendant's driver's license had expired three months previously; Defendant had neglected to check when it was due to expire. Driving without a valid license is a misdemeanor in the jurisdiction. On a charge of manslaughter, Defendant should be found
A:guilty under the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule
B:guilty because the licensing requirements are to protect life, and failure to obey is negligence
C:not guilty because the offense was not the proximate cause of the death
D:not guilty because there was no criminal intent
|
#### C
|
Pauline, an unmarried female, was prominent in the women's liberation movement. She recently gave birth to a baby and publicly announced that she had no intention of marrying the father or disclosing his identity. The local newspaper, Journal, decided to do a series of articles on Pauline, entitled "The Perils of Pauline." The first article about Pauline discussed her parents. The article correctly stated that Mary, her mother, had died recently and Frank, her father, is still living. The article referred to the fact that at the time of Pauline's birth there were rumors that she had been born six months after the marriage of Mary and Frank, that Frank was not in fact her father, and that a person identified as Albert, who had played minor roles in two motion pictures, was her real father. Albert has lived in retirement for the last ten years. If Pauline asserts a claim based on invasion of privacy againstJournal for the statements in the first article about her birth and it is established that the statements are true, the most likely result is that Pauline will
A:not prevail, because truth is a complete defense
B:not prevail, because of her announcement concerning the birth of her own child
C:prevail, because the statements hold her up to ridicule and contempt
D:prevail, because the statements are embarrassing to her
|
#### B
|
Homer conveyed his home to his wife, Wanda, for life, remainder to his daughter, Dixie. There was a $20,000 mortgage on the home, requiring monthly payments covering interest to date Plus a portion of the principal. Which of the following statements about the monthly payment is correct?
A:Wanda must pay the full monthly payment.
B:Wanda must pay a portion of the monthly payment based on an apportionment of the value between Wanda's life estate and Dixie's remainder.
C:Wanda must pay the portion of the monthly payment which represents interest.
D:Dixie must pay the full monthly payment.
|
#### C
|
The police, answering a complaint about noise, arrived at Sam's apartment and found Sam's wife dead on the living room floor. One of the officers turned to Sam and said, "What happened?" Sam replied, "She was a bitch and I took care of her." At Sam's trial his statement should be ruled
A:Admissible because the statement was part of the res gestae
B:admissible because the statement was made at the scene, was essentially volunteered, and was not a product of a custodial interrogation
C:inadmissible because the statement is ambiguous and not necessarily incriminatory
D:inadmissible because Sam was effectively in police custody and should have been given the Miranda warnings
|
#### B
|
John Smith has denied his purported signature on a letter which has become critical in a breach of contract suit between Smith and Miller. At trial, Miller's counsel calls Alice, a teacher, who testifies that she taught John Smith mathematics in school ten years earlier, knows his signature, and proposes to testify that the signature to the letter is that of John Smith. Smith's counsel objects. The trialjudge should
A:sustain the objection on the ground that identification of handwriting requires expert testimony and the teacher does not, per se, qualify as an expert
B:sustain the objection on the ground that the best evidence of Smith's handwriting would be testimony by a person who had examined his writing more recently than ten years ago
C:overrule the objection on the ground that a schoolteacher qualifies as an expert witness for the purpose of identifying handwriting
D:overrule the objection on the ground that a layman may identify handwriting if he has seen the person in question write, and has an opinion concerning the writing in question
|
#### D
|
Susie Blake, a working woman, always brought her lunch to eat in the office. One Saturday afternoon she went to Roger's Market, a local self-service grocery, and bought a can of corned beef. The can had printed on its label "A Product of West Beef Company." The company was a reputable supplier of beef products. On Sunday evening, Susie prepared a sandwich for lunch for the next day, using the can of corned beef she had bought on Saturday. When Susie bit into her sandwich at lunch time the next day, a large sliver of bone concealed in the corned beef slice pierced between her teeth, broke one off, and came to rest deep in the roof of her mouth. This accident caused her to suffer severe pain and to incur medical expenses of $700. Susie brought two claims for damages: one against Roger's Market and the other against West Beef Company. The claims were tried together. At the trial, Susie proved all of the above facts leading up to her injury as well as the elements of her damage. West Beef Company, one of the defendants, proved that it had not processed and packed the corned beef, but that such had been done by its regular and independent supplier, Meat Packers, Inc. West Beef Company further proved that it had never obtained from Meat Packers, Inc. defective meat products, and that it had no way of knowing that the can contained any dangerous material. Roger's Market, the other defendant, proved that it had no way of knowing the content of the can was likely to cause harm, and that it had sold the products of West Beef Company for a number of yearshwithout ever having been told by a customer that the products were defective. Both defendants agreed by stipulation in open court that Meat Packers, Inc. had been guilty of negligence in packing the corned beef containing the sliver of bone.
If Susie's claim against Roger's Market is based on a negligence theory, Susie will
A:recover, because the negligence of Meat Packers, Inc. follows passage of title of the product to the defendant
B:recover, because the defendant is liable for the negligence of Meat Packers, Inc., they being joint venturers
C:not recover, because there was no evidence that the defendant failed to exercise due care in selling her the corned beef
D:not recover, because she was guilty of contributory negligence when she selected the can containing the sliver of bone
|
#### C
|
Susie Blake, a working woman, always brought her lunch to eat in the office. One Saturday afternoon she went to Roger's Market, a local self-service grocery, and bought a can of corned beef. The can had printed on its label "A Product of West Beef Company." The company was a reputable supplier of beef products. On Sunday evening, Susie prepared a sandwich for lunch for the next day, using the can of corned beef she had bought on Saturday. When Susie bit into her sandwich at lunch time the next day, a large sliver of bone concealed in the corned beef slice pierced between her teeth, broke one off, and came to rest deep in the roof of her mouth. This accident caused her to suffer severe pain and to incur medical expenses of $700. Susie brought two claims for damages: one against Roger's Market and the other against West Beef Company. The claims were tried together. At the trial, Susie proved all of the above facts leading up to her injury as well as the elements of her damage. West Beef Company, one of the defendants, proved that it had not processed and packed the corned beef, but that such had been done by its regular and independent supplier, Meat Packers, Inc. West Beef Company further proved that it had never obtained from Meat Packers, Inc. defective meat products, and that it had no way of knowing that the can contained any dangerous material. Roger's Market, the other defendant, proved that it had no way of knowing the content of the can was likely to cause harm, and that it had sold the products of West Beef Company for a number of yearshwithout ever having been told by a customer that the products were defective. Both defendants agreed by stipulation in open court that Meat Packers, Inc. had been guilty of negligence in packing the corned beef containing the sliver of bone.
If Susie's claim against West Beef Company is based on the theory of strict liability in tort, Susie will
A:recover, because the can contained a sliver of bone when the defendant sold it
B:recover, because any breach of warranty chargeable to Roger's Market would be imputed to the defendant
C:not recover, because there was no privity of contract between her and the defendant
D:not recover, because any breach of warranty was that of Meat Packers. Inc. and not that of the defendant
|
#### A
|
A newly-enacted state criminal statute provides, in its entirety, "No person shall utter to another person in a public place any annoying, disturbing or unwelcome language." Smith followed an elderly woman for three blocks down a public street, yelling in her ear offensive four-letter words. The woman repeatedly asked Smith to leave her alone, but he refused. In the subsequent prosecution of Smith, the first under this statute, Smith
A:can be convicted
B:cannot be convicted, because speech of the sort described here may not be punished by the state because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments
C:cannot be convicted, because, though his speech here may be punished by the state, the state may not do so under this statute
D:cannot be convicted, because the average user of a public street would think his speech/action here was amusing and ridiculous rather than "annoying," etc.
|
#### C
|
In which of the following situations is Defendant's claim of intoxication most likely to result in his being found not guilty?
A:Defendant is charged with manslaughter for a death resulting from an automobile accident. Defendant, the driver, claims he was so drunk he was unable to see the other car involved in the accident.
B:Defendant is charged with assault with intent to kill Watts as a result of his wounding Watts by shooting him. Defendant claims he was so drunk he did not realize anyone else was around when he fired the gun.
C:Defendant is charged with armed robbery. He claims he was so drunk he did not know if the gun was loaded.
D:Defendant is charged with statutory rape after he has sexual intercourse with a girl aged 15 in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is 16. Defendant claims he was so drunk he did not realize the girl was a minor.
|
#### B
|
Owen held in fee simple Farmdale, a large tract of vacant land. The state wherein Farmdale is situated has a statute which provides, in substance, that unless the conveyance is recorded, every deed orother conveyance of an interest in land is void as to a subsequent purchaser who pays value without notice of such conveyance. The following transactions occurred in the order given. First: Owen conveyed Farmdale, for a fair price, to Allred by general warranty deed. Allred did not immediately record. Second: Owen executed a mortgage to secure repayment of a loan concurrently made to Owen by Leon. Leon had no notice of the prior conveyance to Allred and promptly duly recorded the mortgage. Third: Owen, by general warranty deed, gratuitously conveyed to Niece, who promptly duly recorded this deed. Fourth: Allred duly recorded his deed from Owen. Fifth: Niece, by general warranty deed, conveyed Farmdale to Barrett. Barrett had no actual notice of any of the prior transactions, paid full value, and promptly duly recorded the deed.
Asserting that his title was held free of any claim by Barrett, Allred instituted suit against Barrett to quiet title to Farmdale. If Barrett prevails, it will be because
A:Allred's prior recorded deed is deemed to be outside Barrett's chain of title
B:Barrett's grantor, Niece, recorded before Allred
C:as between two warranty deeds, the later one controls
D:Barrett's grantor, Niece, had no notice of Allred's rights
|
#### A
|
Owen held in fee simple Farmdale, a large tract of vacant land. The state wherein Farmdale is situated has a statute which provides, in substance, that unless the conveyance is recorded, every deed orother conveyance of an interest in land is void as to a subsequent purchaser who pays value without notice of such conveyance. The following transactions occurred in the order given. First: Owen conveyed Farmdale, for a fair price, to Allred by general warranty deed. Allred did not immediately record. Second: Owen executed a mortgage to secure repayment of a loan concurrently made to Owen by Leon. Leon had no notice of the prior conveyance to Allred and promptly duly recorded the mortgage. Third: Owen, by general warranty deed, gratuitously conveyed to Niece, who promptly duly recorded this deed. Fourth: Allred duly recorded his deed from Owen. Fifth: Niece, by general warranty deed, conveyed Farmdale to Barrett. Barrett had no actual notice of any of the prior transactions, paid full value, and promptly duly recorded the deed.
Asserting that his title was held free of any claim by Leon, Allred instituted suit against Leon to quiet title to Farmdale. Judgment should be for
A:Allred, because Leon is deemed not to have paid value
B:Allred, because a mortgagee is not a subsequent purchaser within the meaning of the statute mentioned
C:Leon, because he recorded before Allred
D:Leon, because he advanced money without notice of Allred's rights
|
#### D
|
Owen held in fee simple Farmdale, a large tract of vacant land. The state wherein Farmdale is situated has a statute which provides, in substance, that unless the conveyance is recorded, every deed orother conveyance of an interest in land is void as to a subsequent purchaser who pays value without notice of such conveyance. The following transactions occurred in the order given. First: Owen conveyed Farmdale, for a fair price, to Allred by general warranty deed. Allred did not immediately record. Second: Owen executed a mortgage to secure repayment of a loan concurrently made to Owen by Leon. Leon had no notice of the prior conveyance to Allred and promptly duly recorded the mortgage. Third: Owen, by general warranty deed, gratuitously conveyed to Niece, who promptly duly recorded this deed. Fourth: Allred duly recorded his deed from Owen. Fifth: Niece, by general warranty deed, conveyed Farmdale to Barrett. Barrett had no actual notice of any of the prior transactions, paid full value, and promptly duly recorded the deed.
Assume for this question only that Niece had not conveyed to Barrett. After Allred recorded his deed from Owen. Allred, asserting that Allred's title was held free of any claim by Niece, instituted suit against Niece to recover title to Farmdale. Judgment should be for
A:Niece, because she had no notice of Allred's rights when she accepted the deed from Owen
B:Niece, because she recorded her deed before Allred recorded his
C:Allred, because Niece was not a bona fide purchaser who paid value
D:Allred, because he had paid value for Farmdale and had no actual or constructive notice of the deed to Niece
|
#### C
|
On May I Ohner telegraphed Byer, "Will sell you any or all of the lots in Grove subdivision at $5,000 each. Details follow in letter." The letter contained all the necessary details concerning terms of payment, insurance, mortgages, etc., and provided, "This offer remains open until June I." On May 2, after he had received the telegram but before he had received the letter, Byer telegraphed Ohner, " Accept your offer with respect to lot 101." Both parties knew that there were fifty lots in the Grove subdivision and that they were numbered 101 through 150.
For this question only, assume that Ohner and Byer were bound by a contract for the sale of lot 101 for $5,000, that on May 3 Ohner telephoned Byer that because he had just discovered that a shopping center was going to be erected adjacent to the Grove subdivision, he would "have to have $6,000 for each of the lots including lot 101," that Byer thereupon agreed to pay him $6,000 for lot 101, and that on May 6 Byer telegraphed, "Accept your offer with respect to the rest of the lots." Assuming that two contracts were formed and that there is no controlling statute, Byer will most likely be required to pay
A:only S5,000 for each of the fifty lots
B:only $5,000 for lot 101, but $6,000 for the remaining forty-nine lots
C:$6,000 for each of the fifty lots
D:$6,000 for lot 101, but only $5,000 for the remaining forty-nine lots
|
#### B
|
On May I Ohner telegraphed Byer, "Will sell you any or all of the lots in Grove subdivision at $5,000 each. Details follow in letter." The letter contained all the necessary details concerning terms of payment, insurance, mortgages, etc., and provided, "This offer remains open until June I." On May 2, after he had received the telegram but before he had received the letter, Byer telegraphed Ohner, " Accept your offer with respect to lot 101." Both parties knew that there were fifty lots in the Grove subdivision and that they were numbered 101 through 150.
For this question only, assume that on May 5 Ohner telephoned Byer that he had sold lots 102 through 150 to someone else on May 4 and that Byer thereafter telegraphed Ohner. "Will take the rest of the lots." Assume further that there is no controlling statute. In an action by Byer against Ohner for breach of contract. Byer probably will
A:succeed. because Ohner had promised him that the offer would remain open until June I
B:Succeed, because Ohner's attempted revocation was by telephone
C:not succeed, because Byer's power of acceptance was terminated by Ohner's sale of the lots to another party
D:not succeed, because Byer's power of acceptance was terminated by an effective revocation
|
#### D
|
On May I Ohner telegraphed Byer, "Will sell you any or all of the lots in Grove subdivision at $5,000 each. Details follow in letter." The letter contained all the necessary details concerning terms of payment, insurance, mortgages, etc., and provided, "This offer remains open until June I." On May 2, after he had received the telegram but before he had received the letter, Byer telegraphed Ohner, " Accept your offer with respect to lot 101." Both parties knew that there were fifty lots in the Grove subdivision and that they were numbered 101 through 150.
For this question only, assume that on May 6 Byer telegraphed Ohner. "Will take the rest of the lots' dand that on May 8 Ohner discovered that he did not have good title to the remaining lots. Which of the following would provide the best legal support to Ohner's contention that he was not liable for breach of contract as to the remaining forty-nine lots?
A:Impossibility of performance
B:Unilateral mistake as to basic assumption
C:Termination of the offer by Byer's having first contracted to buy lot 101
D:Excuse by failure of an implied condition precedent
|
#### C
|
Philip was a 10-year-old boy. Macco was a company that sold new and used machinery. Macco stored discarded machinery, pending sale for scrap, on a large vacant area it owned. This area was unfenced and was one-quarter mile from the housing development where Philip lived. Macco knew that children frequently played in the area and on the machinery. Philip's parents had directed him not to play on the machinery because it was dangerous. One day Philip was playing on a press in Macco's storage area. The press had several wheels, each geared to the other. Philip climbed on the largest wheel, which was about five feet in diameter. Philip's weight caused the wheel to rotate, his foot was caught between two wheels that were set into motion, and he was severely injured. A claim for relief was asserted by Philip through a duly appointed guardian. Macco denied liability and pleaded Philip's contributory fault as a defense. In determining whether Macco breached a duty to Philip, which of the following is the most significant'?
A:Whether the press on which Philip was injured was visible from a public way
B:Whether the maintenance of the area for the storage of discarded machinery was a private nuisance
C:Whether the maintenance of the area for the storage of discarded machinery was a public nuisance
D:Whether Macco could have eliminated the risk of harm without unduly interfering with Macco's normal operations
|
#### D
|
Si was in the act of siphoning gasoline from Neighbor's car in Neighbor's garage and without his consent when the gasoline exploded and a fire followed. Rescuer, seeing the fire, grabbed a fire extinguisher from his car and put out the fire, saving Si's life and Neighbor's car and garage. In doing so, Rescuer was badly burned.
If Rescuer asserts a claim against Si for personal injuries, Rescuer will
A:prevail, because he saved Si's life
B:prevail, because Si was at fault in causing the fire
C:not prevail, because Rescuer knowingly assumed the risk
D:not prevail, because Rescuer's action was not a foreseeable consequence of Si's conduct
|
#### B
|
Si was in the act of siphoning gasoline from Neighbor's car in Neighbor's garage and without his consent when the gasoline exploded and a fire followed. Rescuer, seeing the fire, grabbed a fire extinguisher from his car and put out the fire, saving Si's life and Neighbor's car and garage. In doing so, Rescuer was badly burned.
If Rescuer asserts a claim against Neighbor personal injuries, Rescuer will
A:prevail, because he saved Neighbor's property
B:prevail, because he acted reasonably in an emergency
C:not prevail, because Neighbor was not at fault
D:not prevail, because Rescuer knowningly assumed the risk
|
#### C
|
Defendant was tried for robbery. Victim Worth were the only witnesses called to.t tify. Victim testified that Defend; threatened her with a knife, grabbed her pur and ran off with it. Worth testified that hes Defendant grab Victim's purse and run av with it but that he neither saw a knife nor he any threats. On this evidence the jury co properly return a verdict of guilty of
A:robbery only
B:larceny only
C:either robbery or larceny
D:both robbery and larceny
|
#### C
|
Congressional legislation authorizing marriages and divorces as a matter of federal law on prescribed terms and conditions could most easily be upheld if it
A:applied only to marriages and divorces in which at least one of the parties is a member of the armed forces
B:applied only to marriages performed by federal judges and to divorces granted by federal courts
C:implemented an executive agreement seeking to define basic human rights
D:applied only to marriages and divorces in the District of Columbia
|
#### D
|
In City of State Y, Maple Street is a local public thoroughfare, designated as a one-way street for northbound traffic. Pine Street is a public thoroughfare, designated is a One-way street for eastbound traffic. Maple and Pine Streets intersect at right angles. The intersection is controlled by traffic lights. There are two sets of lights, one at the northeast corner and one at the northwest corner, for traffic on Maple Street. There are two sets of lights, one at the northeast corner and one at the southeast corner, for traffic on Pine Street. Trucker was making a delivery to a market on the east side of Maple Street, just north of its intersection with Pine Street. There being insufficient space for his truck and enclosed trailer, he parked it with the rear of the trailer extending entirely across the crosswalk on the north side of the intersection. The height of the trailer was such that it entirely obscured the traffic light on the northeast corner from the vie" of traffic moving east on Pine Street. Unknown to Trucker, the traffic light at the southeast corner was not functioning, because a collision seventy-two hours earlier had knocked down the pole from which the light was suspended. Visitor, on his first trip to City, w as driving east on Pine Street. Not seeing any traffic light or pole, he entered the intersection at a time when the light was red for eastbound traffic and green for northbound traffic. Driver, proceeding north on Maple Street and seeing the green light, entered the intersection without looking for any cross traffic and struck Visitor's car. Driver received personal injuries, and Visitor's car was damaged severely as a result of the impact. Statutes of State Y make it a misdemeanor (1) to park a motor vehicle so that any part projects into a crosswalk and (2) to enter an intersection contrary to a traffic signal.
If Driver asserts a claim against Trucker and establishes that Trucker was negligent, the likely result is that Trucker',s negligence is
A:a legal but not actual cause of Driver's injuries
B:an actual but not a legal cause of Driver's nju e e
C:both an actual and a legal cause of Driver's injuries
D:neither an actual nor a legal cause of Driver's injuries
|
#### C
|
In City of State Y, Maple Street is a local public thoroughfare, designated as a one-way street for northbound traffic. Pine Street is a public thoroughfare, designated is a One-way street for eastbound traffic. Maple and Pine Streets intersect at right angles. The intersection is controlled by traffic lights. There are two sets of lights, one at the northeast corner and one at the northwest corner, for traffic on Maple Street. There are two sets of lights, one at the northeast corner and one at the southeast corner, for traffic on Pine Street. Trucker was making a delivery to a market on the east side of Maple Street, just north of its intersection with Pine Street. There being insufficient space for his truck and enclosed trailer, he parked it with the rear of the trailer extending entirely across the crosswalk on the north side of the intersection. The height of the trailer was such that it entirely obscured the traffic light on the northeast corner from the vie" of traffic moving east on Pine Street. Unknown to Trucker, the traffic light at the southeast corner was not functioning, because a collision seventy-two hours earlier had knocked down the pole from which the light was suspended. Visitor, on his first trip to City, w as driving east on Pine Street. Not seeing any traffic light or pole, he entered the intersection at a time when the light was red for eastbound traffic and green for northbound traffic. Driver, proceeding north on Maple Street and seeing the green light, entered the intersection without looking for any cross traffic and struck Visitor's car. Driver received personal injuries, and Visitor's car was damaged severely as a result of the impact. Statutes of State Y make it a misdemeanor (1) to park a motor vehicle so that any part projects into a crosswalk and (2) to enter an intersection contrary to a traffic signal.
If Driver asserts a claim against City, the theory on which he has the best chance of prevailing is that City
A:is strictly liable for harm caused by a defective traffic signal
B:was negligent in not replacing the broken pole within seventy-two hours
C:had an absolute duty to maintain installed traffic signals in good operating order
D:created a dangerous trap by not promptly replacing the broken pole
|
#### B
|
Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied all federal highway construction funding. The state of Atlantic, one of the richest and most highway-oriented states in the country, refuses to enact such a statute.
Which of the following potential plaintiffs is most likely to be able to obtain a judicial determination of the validity of this federal statute?
A:A taxpayer of the United States and the state of Atlantic who wants his state to get its fair share of federal tax monies for highways, and fears that, if it does not, his state taxes will be increased to pay for the highway construction in the state of Atlantic that federal funds would have financed.
B:Contractors who have been awarded contracts by the state of Atlantic for specified highway construction projects, which contracts are contingent on payment to the state of the federal highway construction funds to which it would otherwise be entitled.
C:An automobile owner who lives in the state of Atlantic and regularly uses its highway system
D:An organization dedicated to keeping the federal government within the powers granted it by the Constitution
|
#### B
|
Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied all federal highway construction funding. The state of Atlantic, one of the richest and most highway-oriented states in the country, refuses to enact such a statute.
The strongest argument that can be made in support of the constitutionality of this federal statute is that
A:the states ceded their authority over highways to the national government when the states accepted federal grants to help finance their highways.
B:the federal government can regulate the use of state highways without limitation because the federal government paid for some of their construction costs
C:Congress could reasonably believe that the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit will assure that the federal money spent on highways results in greater benefit than harm to the public
D:a recent public opinion survey demonstrates that 90 per cert of the people in this country support a 55 mile-an-hour speed limit.
|
#### C
|
Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied all federal highway construction funding. The state of Atlantic, one of the richest and most highway-oriented states in the country, refuses to enact such a statute.
The federal statute relating to disbursement of highway funds conditioned on the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit is probably
A:unconstitutional
B:constitutional only on the basis of the spending power
C:constitutional only on the basis of the commerce power
D:constitutional on the basis of both the spending power and the commerce power
|
#### D
|
Detective received informal from Informant, who had given reliable information many times in the past, that Harry was a narcotics dealer. Specifically, Informant said that, two months before, he had visited Harry's apartment with Bill and that on that occasion he saw Harry sell Bill some heroin. Detective knew that Informant, Harry, and Bill were friends. Thereafter, Detective put all this information into affidavit form, appeared before a magistrate, and secured a search warrant for Harry's apartment. The search turned up a supply of heroin. Harry's motion to suppress introduction of the heroin into evidence will most probably be
A:granted, because a search warrant cannot validly be issued solely on the basis of an informant's information.
B:granted, because the information supplied to Detective concerned an occurrence too remote in time to justify a finding of probable cause at the time of the search
C:granted, because a search for "mere evidence" alone is improper and illegal
D:denied, because Informant had proven himself reliable in the past and the information he gave turned out to be correct
|
#### B
|
Defendant sold heroin to Morgan. Morgan was later stopped by police for speeding. The police searched Morgan's car and found the heroin concealed under the rear seat. Defendant is charged with illegally selling heroin. Defendant's motion to prevent introduction of the heroin into evidence will most probably be
A:granted, because the heroin was not in plain view
B:granted, because the scope of the search was excessive
C:denied, because Defendant has no standing to object to the search
D:denied, because the search was proper as incident to a valid full custodial arrest
|
#### C
|
Defendant visited a fellow college student, James, in James's dormitory room. They drank some beer. James produced a box containing marijuana cigarettes and asked if Defendant wanted one. Defendant, afraid of being caught, declined and urged James to get rid of the marijuana. James refused. Shortly thereafter, both went out to get more beer, leaving the door to James's room standing open. Making an excuse about having dropped his pen, Defendant went back into James's room. Still apprehensive about their being caught with the marijuana cigarettes, he took the cigarettes and flushed them down the toilet. He was sure James was too drunk to notice that the cigarettes were missing. Defendant is charged with larceny and burglary (defined in the jurisdiction as breaking and entering the dwelling of another with intent to commit any felony or theft). He should be found guilty of
A:burglary only
B:larceny only
C:both burglary and larceny
D:neither burglary nor larceny
|
#### B
|
Trease owned Hilltop in fee simple. By his will, he devised as follows: "Hilltop to such of my grandchildren who shall reach the age of_21; and by this provision I intend to include all grandchildren whenever born." At the time of his death, Trease had three children and two grandchildren.
Courts hold such a devise valid under the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities. What is the best explanation of that determination?
A:All of Trease's children would be measuring lives.
B:The rule of convenience closes the class of beneficiaries when any grandchild reaches the age of 21.
C:There is a presumption that Trease intended to include only those grandchildren born prior to his death.
D:There is a subsidiary rule of construction that dispositive instruments are to be interpreted so as to uphold interests rather than to invalidate them under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
|
#### A
|
Trease owned Hilltop in fee simple. By his will, he devised as follows: "Hilltop to such of my grandchildren who shall reach the age of_21; and by this provision I intend to include all grandchildren whenever born." At the time of his death, Trease had three children and two grandchildren.
Which of the following additions to or changes in the facts of the preceding question would produce a violation of the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities?
A:A posthumous child was born to Trease.
B:Trease's will expressed the intention to include all afterborn grandchildren in the gift.
C:The instrument was an inter vivos conveyance rather than a will.
D:Trease had no grandchildren living at the time of his death.
|
#### C
|
Victim, injured by Driver in an auto accident, employed attorney First to represent him in the matter. Victim was chronically insolvent and expressed doubt whether he could promptly get necessary medical treatment. Accordingly, First wrote into their contract his promise to Victim "to pay from any settlementtwith Driver compensation to any physician who provides professional services for Victim's injuries." The contract also provided that First's duties were "'nonassignable." First immediately filed suit against Driver. Victim then sought and received medical treatment, reasonably valued at S1,000, from Doctor, but failed to inform Doctor of First's promise. After receiving a bill from Doctor for $1,000, Victim immediately wrote Doctor explaining that he was unable to pay and enclosing a copy of his contract with First. Victim then asked First about payment of this bill, but First requested a release from their employment contract. stating that he would like to refer Victim's claim to attorney Second and that Second was willing to represent Victim in the pending lawsuit. Victim wrote a letter to First releasing him from their contract and agreeing to Second's representation. A copy of this letter was sent to Doctor. Second subsequently promised First to represent Victim and soon negotiated a settlement of Victim's claim against Driver which netted $1,000, all of which was paid by Victim to creditors other than Doctor. Victim remains insolvent.
In an action by Doctor against Victim to recover $1,000, Doctor's best theory ofrecovery is that Doctor
A:is a creditor beneficiary of the employment contract between Victim and First
B:is a donee beneficiary of the employment contract between Victim and First
C:provided services essential to the preservation of Victim's health
D:has a claim based upon an implied-in-fact contract with Victim
|
#### D
|
Victim, injured by Driver in an auto accident, employed attorney First to represent him in the matter. Victim was chronically insolvent and expressed doubt whether he could promptly get necessary medical treatment. Accordingly, First wrote into their contract his promise to Victim "to pay from any settlementtwith Driver compensation to any physician who provides professional services for Victim's injuries." The contract also provided that First's duties were "'nonassignable." First immediately filed suit against Driver. Victim then sought and received medical treatment, reasonably valued at S1,000, from Doctor, but failed to inform Doctor of First's promise. After receiving a bill from Doctor for $1,000, Victim immediately wrote Doctor explaining that he was unable to pay and enclosing a copy of his contract with First. Victim then asked First about payment of this bill, but First requested a release from their employment contract. stating that he would like to refer Victim's claim to attorney Second and that Second was willing to represent Victim in the pending lawsuit. Victim wrote a letter to First releasing him from their contract and agreeing to Second's representation. A copy of this letter was sent to Doctor. Second subsequently promised First to represent Victim and soon negotiated a settlement of Victim's claim against Driver which netted $1,000, all of which was paid by Victim to creditors other than Doctor. Victim remains insolvent.
In an action by Doctor against First upon First's employment contract with Victim, First is likely to argue in defense that
A:the anti-assignment clause in First's contract with Victim is void as against public policy
B:First has relied to his detriment on Victim's letter of release
C:third parties cannot acquire valid claims under an attorney-client contract
D:Doctor has not materially changed his position in reliance upon First's employment contract
|
#### D
|
Victim, injured by Driver in an auto accident, employed attorney First to represent him in the matter. Victim was chronically insolvent and expressed doubt whether he could promptly get necessary medical treatment. Accordingly, First wrote into their contract his promise to Victim "to pay from any settlementtwith Driver compensation to any physician who provides professional services for Victim's injuries." The contract also provided that First's duties were "'nonassignable." First immediately filed suit against Driver. Victim then sought and received medical treatment, reasonably valued at S1,000, from Doctor, but failed to inform Doctor of First's promise. After receiving a bill from Doctor for $1,000, Victim immediately wrote Doctor explaining that he was unable to pay and enclosing a copy of his contract with First. Victim then asked First about payment of this bill, but First requested a release from their employment contract. stating that he would like to refer Victim's claim to attorney Second and that Second was willing to represent Victim in the pending lawsuit. Victim wrote a letter to First releasing him from their contract and agreeing to Second's representation. A copy of this letter was sent to Doctor. Second subsequently promised First to represent Victim and soon negotiated a settlement of Victim's claim against Driver which netted $1,000, all of which was paid by Victim to creditors other than Doctor. Victim remains insolvent.
In an action by Doctor against First upon First's employment contract with Victim, if First attempted to use Victim's release as a defense, Doctor is likely to argue that
A:the release was ineffective, because Doctor had impliedly assented to the Victim-First contract
B:the release was ineffective, because Victim would thereby be unjustly enriched
C:there was no consideration for Victim's release of First
D:First's contract duties were too personal to be effectively delegated to Second
|
#### A
|
Victim, injured by Driver in an auto accident, employed attorney First to represent him in the matter. Victim was chronically insolvent and expressed doubt whether he could promptly get necessary medical treatment. Accordingly, First wrote into their contract his promise to Victim "to pay from any settlementtwith Driver compensation to any physician who provides professional services for Victim's injuries." The contract also provided that First's duties were "'nonassignable." First immediately filed suit against Driver. Victim then sought and received medical treatment, reasonably valued at S1,000, from Doctor, but failed to inform Doctor of First's promise. After receiving a bill from Doctor for $1,000, Victim immediately wrote Doctor explaining that he was unable to pay and enclosing a copy of his contract with First. Victim then asked First about payment of this bill, but First requested a release from their employment contract. stating that he would like to refer Victim's claim to attorney Second and that Second was willing to represent Victim in the pending lawsuit. Victim wrote a letter to First releasing him from their contract and agreeing to Second's representation. A copy of this letter was sent to Doctor. Second subsequently promised First to represent Victim and soon negotiated a settlement of Victim's claim against Driver which netted $1,000, all of which was paid by Victim to creditors other than Doctor. Victim remains insolvent.
In an action by Doctor against Second, Second is most likely to argue on these facts that
A:Second made only a gratuitous promise to First
B:at the time Second promised to represent Victim, Doctor was only a member of an unidentified class of beneficiaries
C:there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Doctor was either a creditor or donee beneficiary of Second's promise to First
D:there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Doctor substantially changed his position in reliance on Second's promise
|
#### C
|
Peters sued Davis for $100,000 for injuries received in a traffic accident. Davis charges Peters with contributory negligence and alleges that Peters failed to have his lights on at a time when it was dark enough to require them.
Davis calls Bystander to testify that Passenger, who was riding in Peters' automobile and who also was injured, confided to him at the scene of the accident that "we should have had our lights on." Bystander's testimony is
A:admissible as an admission of a party opponent
B:admissible, as a declaration against interest
C:inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception
D:inadmissible, because it is opinion
|
#### C
|
Peters sued Davis for $100,000 for injuries received in a traffic accident. Davis charges Peters with contributory negligence and alleges that Peters failed to have his lights on at a time when it was dark enough to require them.
Davis offers to have Bystander testify that he was talking to Witness when he heard the crash and heard Witness, now deceased, exclaim, "That car doesn't have any lights on." Bystander's testimony is
A:admissible as a statement of present sense impression
B:admissible, because Witness is not available to testify
C:inadmissible as hearsay, not within any exception
D:inadmissible, because of the Dead Man's Statute
|
#### A
|
Owner and his employee, Driver, consult Attorney about a motor vehicle collision resulting in a suit by Litigant against Owner and Driver as joint defendants. Attorney calls Irving, his investigator, into the conference to make notes of what is said, and those present discuss the facts of the collision and Owner's insurance. Owner thereafter files a cross-claim against Driver for indemnity for any damages obtained by Litigant.
Litigant calls Driver to testify in Litigant's case in chief to admissions made by Owner in the conference. On objection by Owner, the court should rule that Driver's testimony is
A:admissible because of the presence of persons in the conference other than Attorney and Owner
B:admissible, because Driver is an adverse party in the lawsuit
C:inadmissible because of the attorneyclient privilege
D:inadmissible, because the best evidence is Irving's notes of the conference
|
#### C
|
Owner and his employee, Driver, consult Attorney about a motor vehicle collision resulting in a suit by Litigant against Owner and Driver as joint defendants. Attorney calls Irving, his investigator, into the conference to make notes of what is said, and those present discuss the facts of the collision and Owner's insurance. Owner thereafter files a cross-claim against Driver for indemnity for any damages obtained by Litigant.
Driver calls Irving in his defense against the cross-claim. He seeks to have Irving testify to admissions made by Owner in the conference. On objection by Owner, the court should rule Irving's testimony
A:admissible, because the attorney-client privilege does not apply, in suits between those conferring with him, tojoint consultations with an attorney
B:admissible, because the attorney-client privilege does not apply to testimony by one who does not stand in a confidential relationship with the person against whom the evidence is offered
C:admissible, because the conference was not intended to be confidential, since it concerned anticipated testimony in open court
D:inadmissible, because Owner has not waived the attorney-client privilege
|
#### A
|
Read the summaries of the decisions in the four cases (A- D) below. Then decide which is most applicable as a precedent to each of the cases in the questions that follow, and indicate each choice by marking the corresponding space on the answer sheet.
Policeman undertook to arrest Fan for throwing a pop bottle, and hitting a baseball umpire. Fan was innocent and indignantly objected to being arrested. Since Policeman had no warrant, the arrest was illegal. Fan, forcibly resisting Policeman, finally succeeded in seizing Policeman's revolver and shot him dead.
A:Defendant hit a fellow worker on the head with an iron crowbar, crushing his skull. Although Defendant testified he did not intend to kill, his conviction of murder was affirmed.
B:Defendant and Doaks held up a bank and tried to escape in their car. Shots from pursuing police disabled the car, and Defendant was captured. Doaks fled on foot, commandeered a passing car, and at gun point forced the driver to drive off. A chase extending over 20 miles followed. In an exchange of shots, a policeman was killed and Doaks escaped. Defendant's conviction of murder was affirmed.
C:Smythe owed Defendant $500. Impatient at Smythe's failure to pay, Defendant went to Smythe's home. He demanded payment, brandished a revolver. and threatened to shoot Smythe if he did not pay up. All this occurred in the presence of Smythe's aged aunt, who, as a result of the excitement, died of heart failure on the spot. Defendant's conviction of manslaughter was affirmed.
D:Defendant saw his wife and Ares go into the woods under circumstances that made him suspect adultery. While following them after they came out of the woods, Defendant was told by Brent that Brent had seen them commit adultery the day before. Defendant got a rifle and shot Ares dead. Defendant's conviction of murder was reversed as the evidence showed guilt only of manslaughter.
|
#### D
|
Read the summaries of the decisions in the four cases (A- D) below. Then decide which is most applicable as a precedent to each of the cases in the questions that follow, and indicate each choice by marking the corresponding space on the answer sheet.
Policeman, having a warrant for Defendant's arrest for a felonious assault, went to his home to arrest him. Defendant, however, resisted and during the ensuing struggle stabbed Policeman fatally with a butcher knife.
A:Defendant hit a fellow worker on the head with an iron crowbar, crushing his skull. Although Defendant testified he did not intend to kill, his conviction of murder was affirmed.
B:Defendant and Doaks held up a bank and tried to escape in their car. Shots from pursuing police disabled the car, and Defendant was captured. Doaks fled on foot, commandeered a passing car, and at gun point forced the driver to drive off. A chase extending over 20 miles followed. In an exchange of shots, a policeman was killed and Doaks escaped. Defendant's conviction of murder was affirmed.
C:Smythe owed Defendant $500. Impatient at Smythe's failure to pay, Defendant went to Smythe's home. He demanded payment, brandished a revolver. and threatened to shoot Smythe if he did not pay up. All this occurred in the presence of Smythe's aged aunt, who, as a result of the excitement, died of heart failure on the spot. Defendant's conviction of manslaughter was affirmed.
D:Defendant saw his wife and Ares go into the woods under circumstances that made him suspect adultery. While following them after they came out of the woods, Defendant was told by Brent that Brent had seen them commit adultery the day before. Defendant got a rifle and shot Ares dead. Defendant's conviction of murder was reversed as the evidence showed guilt only of manslaughter.
|
#### A
|
A recently enacted state law forbids aliens from owning more than 100 acres of land within the state and directs the state attorney general to bring an action of ejectment whenever an alien owns such land. Zane, a resident alien, located and purchased 200 acres of land in the state after passage of that law. He brings an action in federal court to enjoin the state attorney general from enforcing the statute against him. The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint.
The strongest argument for Zane is that
A:states are forbidden by the commerce clause from interfering with the rights of aliens to own land
B:the state statute violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
C:the state statute adversely affects Zanes right to travel
D:the state statute violates the obligation of contracts clause
|
#### B
|
A recently enacted state law forbids aliens from owning more than 100 acres of land within the state and directs the state attorney general to bring an action of ejectment whenever an alien owns such land. Zane, a resident alien, located and purchased 200 acres of land in the state after passage of that law. He brings an action in federal court to enjoin the state attorney general from enforcing the statute against him. The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint.
The federal court should
A:dismiss the action, because under the Constitution aliens may not sue in federal court
B:dismiss the action, because a state has unlimited power to determine the qualifications for landholding within its boundaries
C:hear the action, because the United Nations Charter forbids such discrimination
D:hear the action, because a federal question is presented
|
#### D
|
On March I, Green and Brown orally agreed that Brown would erect a boathouse on Green's lot and dig a channel from the boathouse, across Clark's lot, to a lake. Clark had already orally agreed with Green to permit the digging of the channel across Clark's lot. Brown agreed to begin work on the boathouse on March 15, and to complete all the work before June 1. The total price of $10,000 was to be paid by Green in three installments: $2,500 on March 15; $2,500 when the boathouse was completed; $5,000 when Brown finished the digging of the channel.
Assume that Green tendered the $2,500 on March 15, and that Brown refused to accept it or to perform. In an action by Green against Brown for breach of contract, which of the following can Brown successfully use as a defense? I. The Clark-Green agreement permitting the digging of the channel across Clark's lot was not in writing. II. The Green-Brown agreement was not in writing.
A:I only
B:II only
C:Both I and II
D:Neither I nor II
|
#### D
|
On March I, Green and Brown orally agreed that Brown would erect a boathouse on Green's lot and dig a channel from the boathouse, across Clark's lot, to a lake. Clark had already orally agreed with Green to permit the digging of the channel across Clark's lot. Brown agreed to begin work on the boathouse on March 15, and to complete all the work before June 1. The total price of $10,000 was to be paid by Green in three installments: $2,500 on March 15; $2,500 when the boathouse was completed; $5,000 when Brown finished the digging of the channel.
Assume that Green paid the $2,500 on March 15 and that Brown completed the boathouse according to specifications, but that Green then refused to pay the second installment and repudiated the contract. Assume further that the absence of a writing is not raised as a defense. Which of the following is (are) correct? I. Brown has a cause of action against Green and his damages will be $2,500 II. Brown can refuse to dig the channel and not be liable for breach of contract
A:I only
B:II only
C:Both I and II
D:Neither I nor II
|
#### B
|
On March I, Green and Brown orally agreed that Brown would erect a boathouse on Green's lot and dig a channel from the boathouse, across Clark's lot, to a lake. Clark had already orally agreed with Green to permit the digging of the channel across Clark's lot. Brown agreed to begin work on the boathouse on March 15, and to complete all the work before June 1. The total price of $10,000 was to be paid by Green in three installments: $2,500 on March 15; $2,500 when the boathouse was completed; $5,000 when Brown finished the digging of the channel.
Assume that Green paid the $2,500 on March 15, that Brown completed the boathouse, that Green paid the second installment of $2,500, and that Brown completed the digging of the channel but not until July 1. Assume further that the absence of a writing is not raised as a defense. Which of the following is (are) correct? I. Green has a cause of action against Brown for breach of contract. II. Green is excused from paying the $5,000.
A:I only
B:II only
C:Both I and II
D:Neither I nor II
|
#### A
|
Customer. aged twenty, went into Store at approximately 6:45 p.m. to look at some suits that were on sale. The clerks were busy, and one of them told him that he should wait on himself. Customer selected three suits from a rack and went into the dressing room to try them on. Signs posted on the walls of Store state that closing time is 9:00 p.m.; however, because of a special awards banquet for employees, Store was closed at 7:00 p.m. on this day. The employees, in a hurry to get to the banquet. did not check the dressing rooms or turn off the lights before leaving. When Customer emerged from the dressing room a few minutes after 7:00 p.m., he was alone and locked in. Customer tried the front door, but it was secured on the outside by a bar and padlock, so he went to the rear door. Customer grabbed the door knob and vigorously shook the door. It did not open, but the activity setoff a mechanism that had been installed because of several recent thefts committed by persons who had hidden in the store until after closing time. The mechanism sprayed a chemical mist in Customer's face, causing him to become temporarily blind. The mechanism also activated an alarm carried by Store's employee, Watchman, who was just coming to work. Watchman unlocked the front door, ran into the store. and grabbed Customer. Customer, who was still unable to see, struck out at this person and hit a metal rack, injuring his hand. Watchman then identified himself, and Customer did the same. After assuring himself that Customer was telling the truth, Watchman allowed him to leave. if Customer is to prevail on a claim against Store based on battery from the use of the chemical spray. Customer must establish that
A:he suffered severe bodily harm
B:the Pray mist was an offensive or harmful contact
C:he suffered severe emotional distress
D:his conduct was not a factual cause of the chemical's spraying him
|
#### B
|
Tortfeasor tortiously injured Victim in an auto accident. While Victim was consequently hospitalized in Hospital. Tortfeasor's liability insurer, Insurer, settled with Victim for S5,000. Victim gave Insurer a signed release and received a signed memorandum wherein Insurer promised to pay Victim $5,000 by check within thirty days. When Victim left Hospital two days later, Hospital demanded payment of his $4,00() stated bill. Victim thereupon gave Hospital his own negotiable promissory note for $4,000, payable to Hospital's order in thirty days, and also, as securitv. assigned to Hospital the Insurer settlement memorandum. Hospital promptly assigned for value the settlement memorandum and negotiated the note to Holder, who took the note as a holder in due course. Subsequently Victim misrepresented to Insurer that he had lost the settlement memorandum and needed another. Insurer issued another memorandum identical to the first, and Victim assigned it the ABC Furniture to secure a $5,000 credit sale contract. ABC immediately notified Insurer of this assignment. Later it was discovered that Hospital had mistakenly overbilled Victim by an amount of $1,000 and that Tortfeasor was an irresponsible minor.
If Victim starts an action against Insurer forty days after the insurance settlement agreement, can Victim recover?
A:Yes because his attempted assignments of his claim against Insurer were ineffective inasmuch as Insurer's promise to pay "by check" created a right in Victim that was too personal to assign
B:No because he no longer has possession of Insurer's written memorandum
C:No because Tortfeasor's minority and irresponsibility vitiated the settlement agreement between Victim and Insurer
D:No because he has made at least one effective assignment of his claim against Insurer. and Insurer has notice thereof
|
#### D
|
Tortfeasor tortiously injured Victim in an auto accident. While Victim was consequently hospitalized in Hospital. Tortfeasor's liability insurer, Insurer, settled with Victim for S5,000. Victim gave Insurer a signed release and received a signed memorandum wherein Insurer promised to pay Victim $5,000 by check within thirty days. When Victim left Hospital two days later, Hospital demanded payment of his $4,00() stated bill. Victim thereupon gave Hospital his own negotiable promissory note for $4,000, payable to Hospital's order in thirty days, and also, as securitv. assigned to Hospital the Insurer settlement memorandum. Hospital promptly assigned for value the settlement memorandum and negotiated the note to Holder, who took the note as a holder in due course. Subsequently Victim misrepresented to Insurer that he had lost the settlement memorandum and needed another. Insurer issued another memorandum identical to the first, and Victim assigned it the ABC Furniture to secure a $5,000 credit sale contract. ABC immediately notified Insurer of this assignment. Later it was discovered that Hospital had mistakenly overbilled Victim by an amount of $1,000 and that Tortfeasor was an irresponsible minor.
In view of Tortfeasor's age and irresponsibility when Insurer issued his liability policy, can Holder and ABC Furniture recover on their assignments?
A:Neither can recover because Victim, the assignor, is a third-party beneficiary of the liability policy whose rights thereon can be no better than Tortfeasor's.
B:Neither can recover unless Insurer knowingly waived the defense of Tortfeasor's minority and irresponsibility.
C:Neither can recover because the liability policy and settlement thereunder are unenforceable on account of Tortfeasor's minority.
D:Either Holder or ABC Funiture, depending on priority, can recover as assignee (or subassignee) of Victim's claim because the latter arose from Insurer's settlement agreement, the latter agreement not being vitiated by Tortfeasor's minority and irresponsibility when he obtained the policy.
|
#### D
|
The city of Newtown adopted an ordinance providing that street demonstrations involving more than 15 persons may not be held in commercial areas during "rush" hours. "Exceptions" may be made to the prohibition "upon 24-hour advance application to and approval by the police department." The ordinance also imposes sanctions on any person "who shall, without provocation, use to or of another, and in his presence, opprobrious words or abusive language tending to cause a breach of the peace." The ordinance has not yet had either judicial or administrative interpretation. Which of the following is the strongest argument for the unconstitutionality of both parts of the ordinance on their face?
A:No type of prior restraint may be imposed on speech in public places.
B:Laws regulating, by their terms, expressive conduct or speech may not be overbroad or unduly vague.
C:The determination as to whether public gatherings may be lawfully held cannot be vested in the police.
D:The right of association in public places without interference is assured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
|
#### B
|
While Defendant was in jail on a procuring charge, his landlord called the police because rent had not been paid and because he detected a disagreeable odor coming from Defendant's apartment into the hallways. The police officer who responded to the call knew that Defendant was in jail. He recognized the stench coming from Defendant's apartment as that of decomposing flesh and, without waiting to obtain a warrant and using the landlord's passkey, entered the apartment with the landlord's consent. The lease to these premises gave the landlord a right of entry, at any reasonable hour, for the purpose of making repairs. The police officer found a large trunk in the bedroom which seemed to be the source of the odor. Upon breaking it open, he found the remains of Rosette, Defendant's former mistress.
The landlord's consent to the police officer's search of Defendant's apartment is
A:a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because a landlord has implied consent to enter a tenant's apartment
B:a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because the lease gave the landlord express authority to enter the premises
C:not a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment right because the landlord lacked probable cause to believe a crime was then in the process of commission
D:not a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because the landlord had neither actual nor apparent authority to permit the entry
|
#### D
|
While Defendant was in jail on a procuring charge, his landlord called the police because rent had not been paid and because he detected a disagreeable odor coming from Defendant's apartment into the hallways. The police officer who responded to the call knew that Defendant was in jail. He recognized the stench coming from Defendant's apartment as that of decomposing flesh and, without waiting to obtain a warrant and using the landlord's passkey, entered the apartment with the landlord's consent. The lease to these premises gave the landlord a right of entry, at any reasonable hour, for the purpose of making repairs. The police officer found a large trunk in the bedroom which seemed to be the source of the odor. Upon breaking it open, he found the remains of Rosette, Defendant's former mistress.
If Defendant undertakes to challenge the search of his apartment, he has
A:standing because the items seized in the search were incriminating in nature
B:standing because he still has a sufficient interest in the apartment even while in jail
C:no standing because his landlord authorized the search
D:no standing because he was out of the apartment when it occurred and had not paid his rent
|
#### B
|
Seller and Buyer execute an agreement for the sale of real property on September 1, 1971. The jurisdiction in which the property is located recognizes the principle of equitable conversion and has no statute pertinent to this problem.
Assume for this question only that Seller dies before closing and his will leaves his personal property to Perry and his real property to Rose. There being no breach of the agreement by either party, which of the following is correct'?
A:Death, an eventuality for which the parties could have provided, terminates the agreement if they did not so provide.
B:Rose is entitled to the proceeds of the sale when it closes, because the doctrine of equitable conversion does not apply to these circumstances.
C:Perry is entitled to the proceeds of the sale when it closes.
D:Title was rendered unmarketable by Seller's death.
|
#### C
|
Seller and Buyer execute an agreement for the sale of real property on September 1, 1971. The jurisdiction in which the property is located recognizes the principle of equitable conversion and has no statute pertinent to this problem.
Assume for this question only that Buyer dies before closing, there being no breach of the agreement by either party. Which of the following is appropriate in most jurisdictions?
A:Buyer's heir may specifically enforce the agreement.
B:Seller has the right to return the down payment and cancel the contract.
C:Death terminates the agreement.
D:Any title acquired would be unmarketable by reason of Buyer's death.
|
#### A
|
Farquart had made a legally binding promise to furnish his son Junior and the latter's fiancee a house on their wedding day, planned for June 10, 1972. Pursuant to that promise, Farquart telephoned his old contractor-friend Sawtooth on May 1, 1971, and made the following oral agreementeach making full and accurate written notes thereof: Sawtooth was to cut 30 trees into fireplace logs from a specified portion of a certain one-acre plot owned by Farquart, and Farquart was to pay therefor S20 per tree. Sawtooth agreed further to build a house ,n the plot conforming to the specifications of Plan OP5 published by Builders, Inc. for a construction price of Sl8,000. Farquart agreed to make payments of $2,000 on the first of every month for nine months beginning August I, 1971, upon monthly presentation of a certificate by Builders. Inc. that the specifications of Plan OP5 were being met. Sawtooth delivered the cut logs to Farquart in July 1971, when he also began building the house. Farquart made three S2.,000 payments forthe work done in July, August, and September 1971, without requiring a certificate. Sawtooth worked through October, but no work was done from November 1, 1971. to the end of February 1972. because of bad weather: and Farquart made no payments during that period. Sawtooth did not object. On March 1, 1972, Sawtooth demanded payment of $2,000 but Farquart refused on the grounds that no construction work had been done for four months and Builders had issued no certificate. Sawtooth thereupon abandoned work and repudiated the agreement.
Assuming that Sawtooth committed a total breach on March 1. 1972, what would be the probable measure of Far-quart's damages in an action against Sawtooth for breach of contract?
A:Restitution of the three monthly installments paid in August, September, and October
B:What it would cost to get the house completed by another contractor, minus installments not yet paid to Sawtooth
C:The difference between the market value of the partly built house, as of the time of Sawtooth's breach, and the market value of the house if completed according to specifications
D:In addition to other legally allowable damages, an allowance for Farqart's mental distress if the house cannot be completed in time for Junior's wedding Ot June 10, 1972
|
#### B
|
Farquart had made a legally binding promise to furnish his son Junior and the latter's fiancee a house on their wedding day, planned for June 10, 1972. Pursuant to that promise, Farquart telephoned his old contractor-friend Sawtooth on May 1, 1971, and made the following oral agreementeach making full and accurate written notes thereof: Sawtooth was to cut 30 trees into fireplace logs from a specified portion of a certain one-acre plot owned by Farquart, and Farquart was to pay therefor S20 per tree. Sawtooth agreed further to build a house ,n the plot conforming to the specifications of Plan OP5 published by Builders, Inc. for a construction price of Sl8,000. Farquart agreed to make payments of $2,000 on the first of every month for nine months beginning August I, 1971, upon monthly presentation of a certificate by Builders. Inc. that the specifications of Plan OP5 were being met. Sawtooth delivered the cut logs to Farquart in July 1971, when he also began building the house. Farquart made three S2.,000 payments forthe work done in July, August, and September 1971, without requiring a certificate. Sawtooth worked through October, but no work was done from November 1, 1971. to the end of February 1972. because of bad weather: and Farquart made no payments during that period. Sawtooth did not object. On March 1, 1972, Sawtooth demanded payment of $2,000 but Farquart refused on the grounds that no construction work had been done for four months and Builders had issued no certificate. Sawtooth thereupon abandoned work and repudiated the agreement.
Assuming that Sawtooth committed a total breach on March 1, 1972, and assuming further that he was aware when the agreement was made of the purpose for which Farquart wanted the completed house, which of the following, if true, would best support Farquart's claim for consequential damages on account of delay beyond June 10, 1972, in getting the house finished'?
A:Junior and his bride, married on June 10, 1972, would have to pay storage charges on their wedding gifts and new furniture until the house could be completed.
B:Junior's finance jilted Junior on June 10, 1972, and ran off with another man who had a new house.
C:Farquart was put to additional expense in providing Junior and his bride, married on June 10, 1972, with temporary housing.
D:On June 10, 1972, Farquart paid a $5,000 judgment obtained against him in a suit filed March 15, 1972, by an adjoining landowner on account of Farquart's negligent excavation, including blasting, in an attempt to finish the house himself after Sawtooth's repudiation.
|
#### C
|
Farquart had made a legally binding promise to furnish his son Junior and the latter's fiancee a house on their wedding day, planned for June 10, 1972. Pursuant to that promise, Farquart telephoned his old contractor-friend Sawtooth on May 1, 1971, and made the following oral agreementeach making full and accurate written notes thereof: Sawtooth was to cut 30 trees into fireplace logs from a specified portion of a certain one-acre plot owned by Farquart, and Farquart was to pay therefor S20 per tree. Sawtooth agreed further to build a house ,n the plot conforming to the specifications of Plan OP5 published by Builders, Inc. for a construction price of Sl8,000. Farquart agreed to make payments of $2,000 on the first of every month for nine months beginning August I, 1971, upon monthly presentation of a certificate by Builders. Inc. that the specifications of Plan OP5 were being met. Sawtooth delivered the cut logs to Farquart in July 1971, when he also began building the house. Farquart made three S2.,000 payments forthe work done in July, August, and September 1971, without requiring a certificate. Sawtooth worked through October, but no work was done from November 1, 1971. to the end of February 1972. because of bad weather: and Farquart made no payments during that period. Sawtooth did not object. On March 1, 1972, Sawtooth demanded payment of $2,000 but Farquart refused on the grounds that no construction work had been done for four months and Builders had issued no certificate. Sawtooth thereupon abandoned work and repudiated the agreement.
What was the probable legal effect of the following? I. Sawtooth's failure to object to Farquart's making no payments on November 1, December I , January 1, and February I II. Farquart's making payments in August through October without requiring a certificate from Builders.
A:Estoppel-type waiver as to both I and II
B:Waiver of delay in payment as to I and revocable waiver as to II
C:Mutual rescission of the contract by I combined with II
D:Discharge of Farquart's duty to make the four payments as to I and estoppel-type waiver as to II
|
#### B
|
Construction Company contracted to build a laundry for Wash Company on the latter's vacant lot in a residential area. As a part of its work, Construction Company dug a trench from the partially completed laundry to the edge of a public sidewalk: waterlines were to be installed in the trench. Because of the contour of the land, the trench was dug to a depth ranging from 7 to 9 feet. Construction Company did not place any barriers around the trench and permitted it to lie open for almost a week while waiting for the delivery of water pipes. This was known to Wash Company, but it raised no objection. During the time the trench was open, a series of heavy rains fell, causing 5 feet of surface water to gather in the bottom of the trench. While this condition existed, 5-year-old Tommy, who was playing on the vacant lot with friends, stumbled and fell into the trench. Robert, an adult passerby, saw this and immediately lowered himself into the trench to rescue Tommy. However, his doing so caused the rain-soaked walls of the trench to collapse, killing both him and Tommy. In a claim for wrongful death by Tommy's administrator against Construction Company, the most likely result is that the plaintiff will
A:recover, because the defendant left the open trench unprotected
B:recover, because construction companies are strictly liable for inherently dangerous conditions
C:not recover. because Tommy was a trespasser
D:not recover, because Tommy's death was a result of the collapse of the trench, an independent intervening cause
|
#### A
|
Doctor, a licensed physician, resided in her own home. The street in front of the home had a gradual slope. Doctor's garage was on the street level, with a driveway entrance from the street. At two in the morning Doctor received an emergency call. She dressed and went to the garage to get her car and found a car parked in front of her driveway. That car was occupied by Parker, who, while intoxicated, had driven to that place and now was in a drunken stupor in the front seat. Unable to rouse Parker, Doctor pushed him into the passenger's side of the front seat and got in on the driver's side. Doctor released the brake and coasted the car down the street, planning to pull into a parking space that was open. When Doctor attempted to stop the car, the brakes failed to work, and the car crashed into the wall of Owner's home, damaging Owner's home and Parker's car and injuring Doctor and Parker. Subsequent examination of the car disclosed that the brake linings were badly worn. A state statute prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle unless the brakes are capable of stopping the vehicle within specified distances at specified speeds. The brakes on Parker's car were incapable of stopping the vehicle within the limits required by the statute. Another state statute makes it a criminal offense to be intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle. If Parker asserts a claim against Doctor for his injuries, Parker will probably
A:recover, because Doctor was negligent as a matter of law
B:recover, because Doctor had no right to move the car
C:not recover, because his brakes were defective
D:not recover because he was in a drunken stupor when injured
|
#### C
|
Bill and Chuck hated Vic and agreed to start a fight with Vic and, if the opportunity arose, to kill him. Bill and Chuck met Vic in the street outside a bar and began to push him around. Ray, Sam, and Tom. who also hated Vic, stopped to watch. Ray threw Bill a knife. Sam told Bill, ''Kill him." Tom. who made no move and said nothing, hoped that Bill would kill Vic with the knife. Chuck held Vic while Bill stabbed and killed him.
On a charge of murdering Vic, Sam is
A:not guilty, because his words did not create a ''clear and present danger" not already existing
B:not guilty, because mere presence and oral encouragement, whether or not he has the requisite intent, will not make him guilty as an accomplice
C:guilty. because. with the intent to have Bill kill Vic. he shouted encouragement to Bill
D:guilty. because he aided and abetted the murder through his mere presence plus his intent to see Vic killed
|
#### C
|
Bill and Chuck hated Vic and agreed to start a fight with Vic and, if the opportunity arose, to kill him. Bill and Chuck met Vic in the street outside a bar and began to push him around. Ray, Sam, and Tom. who also hated Vic, stopped to watch. Ray threw Bill a knife. Sam told Bill, ''Kill him." Tom. who made no move and said nothing, hoped that Bill would kill Vic with the knife. Chuck held Vic while Bill stabbed and killed him.
On a charge of murdering Vic, Tom is
A:not guilty, because mere presence, coupled with silent approval and intent, is not sufficient
B:not guilty, because he did not tell Bill -head of time that he hoped Bill would murder Vie
C:gUilty. because he had a duty to stop the killing and made no attempt to do so
D:guilty. because he was present and approved of what occurred
|
#### A
|
Leonard A as the high priest of a small cult of Satan worshippers living in NewArcadia. Asa part of the practice of their religious beliefs, a cat w.as required to be sacrificed to the glory of Satan after a live dissection of the animal in w which it endured frightful pain. In the course of such a religious sacrifice. Leonard was arrested on the complaint of the local Humane Society and charged under a statute punishing cruelty to animals. On appeal, a conviction of Leonard probably will be
A:sustained on the grounds that belief in or worship of Satan does not enjoy constitutional protection
B:sustained on the grounds that sincere religious belief is not an adequate defense on these facts
C:overturned on the grounds that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and its expression was violated
D:overturned on the grounds that the beliefs of the cult members in the need for the sacrifice might be reasonable, and their act was religious
|
#### B
|
An appropriations act passed by Congress over the President's veto directs that one billion dollars ''shall be spent by the federal government for the development of a new military weapons system, which is available only from the Arms Corporation. On the order of the President. the Secretary of Defense refuses to authorize a contract for purchase of the weapons system. The Arms Corporation sues the Secretary of Defense alleging an unlawful withholding of these federal funds. The strongest constitutional argument for the Arms Corporation is that
A:passage of an appropriation over a veto makes the spending mandatory
B:Congress' power to appropriate funds includes the power to require that the funds will be spent as directed
C:the President's independent constitutional powers do not specifically refer to spending
D:the President's power to withhold such funds is limited to cases where foreign affairs are directly involved
|
#### B
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 14