question
stringlengths 158
3.04k
| answer
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|
Al and Bill are identical twins. Al, angry at David, said, "You'd better stay out of my way. The next time I find you around here, I'll beat you up." Two days later, while in the neighborhood, David saw Bill coming toward him. As Bill came up to David, Bill raised his hand. Thinking Bill was Al and fearing bodily harm, David struck Bill. If Bill asserts a claim against David and David relies on the privilege of self-defense, David will
A:not prevail, because Bill was not an aggressor
B:not prevail unless Bill intended his gesture as a threat
C:prevail if David honestly believed that Bill would attack him
D:prevail only if a reasonable person under the circumstances would have believed that Bill would attack him
|
#### D
|
Section 1 of the Vehicle Code of State makes it illegal to cross a street in a central business district other than at a designated crosswalk. Section 2 of the Code prohibits parking any motor vehicle so that it blocks any part of a designated crosswalk. Ped wanted to cross Main Street in the central business district of City, located in State, but a truck parked by Trucker was blocking the designated crosswalk. Ped stepped out into Main Street and carefully walked around the back of the truck. Ped was struck by a motor vehicle negligently operated by Driver.
If Ped asserts a claim against Driver, Ped's failure to be in the crosswalk will have which of the following effects?
A:It is not relevant in determining the rights of Ped.
B:It may be considered by the trier of the facts on the issue of Driver's liability.
C:It will bar Ped's recovery unless Driver saw Ped in time to avoid the impact.
D:It will bar Ped's recovery as a matter of law.
|
#### B
|
Section 1 of the Vehicle Code of State makes it illegal to cross a street in a central business district other than at a designated crosswalk. Section 2 of the Code prohibits parking any motor vehicle so that it blocks any part of a designated crosswalk. Ped wanted to cross Main Street in the central business district of City, located in State, but a truck parked by Trucker was blocking the designated crosswalk. Ped stepped out into Main Street and carefully walked around the back of the truck. Ped was struck by a motor vehicle negligently operated by Driver.
If Ped asserts a claim against Trucker, the most likely result is that Ped will
A:prevail, because Trucker's violation of a state statute makes him strictly liable for all injuries caused thereby
B:prevail, because the probable purpose of Section 2 of the Vehicle Code of State was to safeguard pedestrians in using crosswalks
C:not prevail, because Ped assumed the risk of injury when he crossed the street outside the crosswalk
D:not prevail, because Driver's conduct was the actual cause of Ped's harm
|
#### B
|
Suspecting that students in a dormitory were using narcotics, the president of a private college arranged for local police to place concealed microphones in several suites of the dormitory. Using these microphones, the college security officers recorded a conversation in which Green, a student, offered to sell marijuana to another student. The tape was turned over to the local police, who played it for a local judge. The judge issued a warrant to search Green's room. The room was searched by police, and marijuana was discovered. Green is charged with unlawful possession of narcotics. At trial, Green's motion to prevent the introduction of the marijuana into evidence will most probably be
A:denied, because the college president, in loco parentis, had the responsibility of preventing unlawful activity by students under the president's supervision
B:denied, because there was probable cause to make the search and police obtained a warrant before commencing the search
C:granted, because Green's privacy was unreasonably invaded
D:granted, because the electronic surveillance was "fundamentally unfair"
|
#### C
|
Tom had a heart ailment so serious that his doctors had concluded that only a heart transplant could save his life. They therefore arranged to have him flown to Big City to have the operation performed. Dan, Tom's nephew, who stood to inherit from him, poisoned him. The poison produced a reaction which required postponing the journey. The plane on which Tom was to have flown crashed, and all aboard were killed. By the following day, Tom's heart was so weakened by the effects of the poison that he suffered a heart attack and died. If charged with criminal homicide, Dan should be found
A:guilty
B:not guilty, because his act did not hasten the deceased's death, but instead prolonged it by one day
C:not guilty, because the deceased was already suffering from a fatal illness
D:not guilty, because the poison was not the sole cause of death
|
#### A
|
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be not guilty of the charge made?
A:Police arrested Thief and recovered goods he had stolen. At the direction of the Police Thief took the goods to Defendant. Defendant believing the goods to be stolen, Purchased them. Defendant is charged with attempting to receive stolen property.
B:Defendant misrepresented his identity to secure a loan from a bank. The banker was not deceived and refused to grant the loan. Defendant is charged with attempting to obtain property by false pretenses.
C:Believing that state law made it a crime to purchase codeine without a prescription, Defendant purchased, without a prescription, cough syrup containing codeine. Unknown to Defendant, the statute had been repealed and codeine could be legally purchased without a prescription. Defendant is charged with attempting to purchase codeine without a prescription.
D:Defendant, intending to kill Selma, shot at Selma. Unknown to Defendant, Selma had died of a heart attack minutes before Defendant shot at her. Defendant is charged with attempted murder.
|
#### C
|
Potts sued Dobbs on a product liability claim. Louis testified for Potts. On cross-examination, which of the following questions is the trial judge most likely to rule improper?
A:"Isn't it a fact that you are Potts' close friend?"
B:"Isn't it true that you are known in the community as "Louie the Lush" because of your addiction to alcohol?"
C:"Didn't you fail to report some income on your tax return last year?"
D:"Weren't you convicted, seven years ago in this court, of obtaining money under false pretenses?"
|
#### B
|
In an action to recover for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, Plaintiff calls Bystander to testify. Claiming the privilege against self-incrimination, Bystander refuses to answer a question as to whether she was at the scene of the accident. Plaintiff moves that Bystander be ordered to answer the question. The judge should allow Bystander to remain silent only if
A:the judge is convinced that she will incriminate herself
B:there is clear and convincing evidence that she will incriminate herself
C:there is a preponderance of evidence that she will incriminate herself
D:the judge believes that there is some reasonable possibility that she will incriminate herself
|
#### D
|
Venner, the owner of Greenacre, a tract of land, entered into an enforceable written agreement with Brier providing that Venner would sell Greenacre to Brier for an agreed price. At the place and time designated for the closing, Venner tendered an appropriate deed, but Brier responded that he had discovered a mortgage on Greenacre and would not complete the transaction, because Venner 's title was not free of encumbrances, as the contract required. Venner said that it was his intent to pay the mortgage from the proceeds of the sale, and he offered to put the proceeds in escrow for that pur pose with any agreeable, responsible escrowee. The balance due on the mortgage was substantially less than the contract purchase price. Brier refused Venner 's proposal. Venner began an appropriate legal action against Brier for specific performance. There is no applicable statute in the jurisdiction where Greenacre is located. Venner s best legal argument in support of his claim for relief is that
A:as the seller of real estate, he had an implied right to use the contract proceeds to clear the title being conveyed
B:the lien of the mortgage shifts from Greenacre to the contract proceeds
C:under the doctrine of equitable conversion, title has already passed to Brier, and the only issue is how the purchase price is to be allocated
D:no provision of the contract has been breached by Venner
|
#### A
|
Blackacre is a three-acre tract of land with a small residence. Olga, the owner of Blackacre, rented it to Terrence at a monthly rental of $200. After Terrence had been in possession of Blackacre for several years, Terrence and Olga orally agreed that Terrence would purchase Blackacre from Olga for the sum of $24,000, payable at the rate of $200 a month for ten years and also would pay the real estate taxes and the expenses of insuring and maintaining Blackacre. Olga agreed to give Terrence a deed to Blackacre after five years had passed and $12,000 had been paid on account and to accept from Terrence a note secured by a mortgage for the balance. Terrence continued in possession of Blackacre and performed his obligations as orally agreed. Terrence, without consulting Olga, made improvements for which he paid $1,000. When Terrence had paid $12,000, he tendered a proper note and mortgage to Olga and demanded the delivery of the deed as agreed. Olga did not deny the oral agreement but told Terrence that she had changed her mind, and she refused to complete the transaction. Terrence then brought an action for specific performance. Olga pleaded the Statute of Frauds as her defense. If Olga wins, it will be because
A:nothing Terrence could have done would have overcome the original absence of a written agreement
B:the actions and payments of Terrence are as consistent with his being a tenant as with an oral contract
C:Terrence did not secure Olga's approval for the improvements that he made
D:Olga has not received any unconscionable benefit, and, therefore, Terrence is not entitled to equitable relief
|
#### B
|
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged the Humongous Store, occurred in the City of Swelter. In early 1977 Swelter's City Council adopted this resolution: The City will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here. The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, Humongous, by a written memorandum to Gimlet, a private detective, proposed to pay Gimlet $200 "for each day 's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August, 1977, the City Council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September, 1977, a Humongous employee voluntarily confessed to Gimlet to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. Humongous' president thereupon paid Gimlet at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that Gimlet also claim the city's reward, of which Gimlet had been previously unaware. Gimlet immediately made the claim. In December, 1977, as a result of Gimlet's investigation, the Humongous employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay Gimlet anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repealer before claiming its reward.
In which of the following ways could the city's reward offer be effectively accepted?
A:Only by an offeree's return promise to make a reasonable effort to bring about the arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer
B:Only by an offeree's making the arrest and assisting in the successful conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer
C:By an offeree's supplying information leading to arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer
D:By an offeree's communication of assent through the same medium (television) used by the city in making its offer
|
#### C
|
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged the Humongous Store, occurred in the City of Swelter. In early 1977 Swelter's City Council adopted this resolution: The City will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here. The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, Humongous, by a written memorandum to Gimlet, a private detective, proposed to pay Gimlet $200 "for each day 's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August, 1977, the City Council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September, 1977, a Humongous employee voluntarily confessed to Gimlet to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. Humongous' president thereupon paid Gimlet at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that Gimlet also claim the city's reward, of which Gimlet had been previously unaware. Gimlet immediately made the claim. In December, 1977, as a result of Gimlet's investigation, the Humongous employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay Gimlet anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repealer before claiming its reward.
With respect to duration, the city's reward offer was terminable
A:by lapse of time, on December 31 of the year in which it was made
B:not by lapse of time, but only by effective revocation
C:not by revocation, but only by lapse of a reasonable time
D:either by lapse of a reasonable time or earlier by effective revocation
|
#### D
|
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged the Humongous Store, occurred in the City of Swelter. In early 1977 Swelter's City Council adopted this resolution: The City will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here. The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, Humongous, by a written memorandum to Gimlet, a private detective, proposed to pay Gimlet $200 "for each day 's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August, 1977, the City Council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September, 1977, a Humongous employee voluntarily confessed to Gimlet to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. Humongous' president thereupon paid Gimlet at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that Gimlet also claim the city's reward, of which Gimlet had been previously unaware. Gimlet immediately made the claim. In December, 1977, as a result of Gimlet's investigation, the Humongous employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay Gimlet anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repealer before claiming its reward.
If the city's reward offer was revocable, revocation could be effectively accomplished only
A:by publication in the legal notices of a local newspaper
B:in the same manner as made, i.e., by local telecast at least once daily for one week
C:in the same manner as made or by a comparable medium and frequency of publicity
D:by notice mailed to all residents of the city and all other reasonably identifiable, potential offerees
|
#### C
|
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged the Humongous Store, occurred in the City of Swelter. In early 1977 Swelter's City Council adopted this resolution: The City will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here. The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, Humongous, by a written memorandum to Gimlet, a private detective, proposed to pay Gimlet $200 "for each day 's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August, 1977, the City Council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September, 1977, a Humongous employee voluntarily confessed to Gimlet to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. Humongous' president thereupon paid Gimlet at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that Gimlet also claim the city's reward, of which Gimlet had been previously unaware. Gimlet immediately made the claim. In December, 1977, as a result of Gimlet's investigation, the Humongous employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay Gimlet anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repealer before claiming its reward.
Which of the following best characterizes the relationship between Humongous and Gimlet?
A:A unilateral offer of employment by Humongous which became irrevocable for a reasonable number of days after Gimlet commenced his investigation of the store's arson
B:An employment for compensation subject to a condition precedent that Gimlet succeed in his investigation
C:A series of daily bilateral contracts, Humongous exchanging an express promise to pay the daily rate for Gimlet's implied promise to pursue his investigation with reasonable diligence
D:A series of daily unilateral contracts, Humongous exchanging an express promise to pay the daily rate for Gimlet's daily activity of investigating the store's arson
|
#### D
|
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged the Humongous Store, occurred in the City of Swelter. In early 1977 Swelter's City Council adopted this resolution: The City will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here. The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, Humongous, by a written memorandum to Gimlet, a private detective, proposed to pay Gimlet $200 "for each day 's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August, 1977, the City Council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September, 1977, a Humongous employee voluntarily confessed to Gimlet to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. Humongous' president thereupon paid Gimlet at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that Gimlet also claim the city's reward, of which Gimlet had been previously unaware. Gimlet immediately made the claim. In December, 1977, as a result of Gimlet's investigation, the Humongous employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay Gimlet anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repealer before claiming its reward.
In a suit by Gimlet against the city to recover the $10,000 reward, which of the following, in light of the facts given, most usefully supports Gimlet's claim?
A:The city was benefited as a result of Gimlet's services.
B:The city's offer was in the nature of a bounty, so that the elements of contract are not essential to the city's liability.
C:The fact that the city attempted to revoke its offer -only a few months after making it demonstrated that the attempted revocation was in bad faith.
D:Although there was no bargained -for exchange between Gimlet and the city, Gimlet 's claim for the reward is supported by a moral obligation on the part of the city.
|
#### B
|
Husband and Wife, walking on a country road, were frightened by a bull running loose on the road. They climbed over a fence to get onto the adjacent property, owned by Grower. After climbing over the fence, Husband and Wife damaged some of Grower's plants which were near the fence. The fence was posted with a large sign, "No Trespassing." Grower saw Husband and Wife and came toward them with his large watchdog on a long leash. The dog rushed at Wife. Grower had intended only to frighten Husband and Wife, but the leash broke, and before Grower could restrain the dog, the dog bit Wife.
If Wife asserts a claim based on battery against Grower, will Wife prevail?
A:Yes, because Grower intended that the dog frighten Wife.
B:Yes, because the breaking of the leash establishes liability under res ipsa loquitur.
C:No, because Wife made an unauthorized entry on Grower's land.
D:No, because Grower did not intend to cause any harmful contact with Wife.
|
#### A
|
Husband and Wife, walking on a country road, were frightened by a bull running loose on the road. They climbed over a fence to get onto the adjacent property, owned by Grower. After climbing over the fence, Husband and Wife damaged some of Grower's plants which were near the fence. The fence was posted with a large sign, "No Trespassing." Grower saw Husband and Wife and came toward them with his large watchdog on a long leash. The dog rushed at Wife. Grower had intended only to frighten Husband and Wife, but the leash broke, and before Grower could restrain the dog, the dog bit Wife.
If Husband asserts a claim based on assault against Grower, will Husband prevail?
A:Yes, because the landowner did not have a privilege to use excessive force.
B:Yes, if Husband reasonably believed that the dog might bite him.
C:No, if the dog did not come in contact with him.
D:No, if Grower was trying to protect his property.
|
#### B
|
Husband and Wife, walking on a country road, were frightened by a bull running loose on the road. They climbed over a fence to get onto the adjacent property, owned by Grower. After climbing over the fence, Husband and Wife damaged some of Grower's plants which were near the fence. The fence was posted with a large sign, "No Trespassing." Grower saw Husband and Wife and came toward them with his large watchdog on a long leash. The dog rushed at Wife. Grower had intended only to frighten Husband and Wife, but the leash broke, and before Grower could restrain the dog, the dog bit Wife.
If Grower asserts a claim against Wife and Husband for damage to his plants, will Grower prevail?
A:Yes, because Wife and Husband entered on his land without permission.
B:Yes, because Grower had posted his property with a "No Trespassing" sign.
C:No, because Wife and Husband were confronted by an emergency situation.
D:No, because Grower used excessive force toward Wife and Husband.
|
#### A
|
Ben was the illegitimate, unacknowledged child of Fred. Fred died intestate, leaving neither spouse nor any children other than Ben. The state's law of intestate succession provides that an unacknowledged illegitimate child may not inherit his father's property. The spouse, all other blood relations, and the state are preferred as heirs over the unacknowledged illegitimate child. Ben filed suit in an appropriate court alleging that the state statute barring an illegitimate child from sharing in a parent s estate is invalid, and that he should be declared lawful heir to his father's estate.
In challenging the validity of the state statute, Ben's strongest argument would be that
A:there is no rational basis for preferring as heirs collateral relatives and even the state over unacknowledged children, and, therefore, the law violates the equal protection clause
B:he has been deprived of property without due process because his fundamental right to inherit has been compromised without a compelling state need
C:it violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
D:it is a denial of procedural due process because it does not give the unacknowledged illegitimate child an opportunity to prove paternity
|
#### A
|
Ben was the illegitimate, unacknowledged child of Fred. Fred died intestate, leaving neither spouse nor any children other than Ben. The state's law of intestate succession provides that an unacknowledged illegitimate child may not inherit his father's property. The spouse, all other blood relations, and the state are preferred as heirs over the unacknowledged illegitimate child. Ben filed suit in an appropriate court alleging that the state statute barring an illegitimate child from sharing in a parent s estate is invalid, and that he should be declared lawful heir to his father's estate.
The state's strongest defense of the statute would be that
A:the authority of a state over the disposition of decedents' property located in the state is not affected by the Constitution of the United States
B:a statute prescribing the means of disposing of the property of intestate decedents does not constitute invidious discrimination
C:inheritance under intestate succession laws is a privilege, not a right, and therefore is not protected as property under the due process clause
D:its interest in promoting family life and in encouraging the formal acknowledgment of paternity gives the law a rational basis
|
#### D
|
Alice conveyed Twinoaks Farm "to Barbara, her heirs and assigns, so long as the premises are used for residential and farm purposes, then to Charles and his heirs and assigns." The jurisdiction in which Twinoaks Farm is located has adopted the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute. As a consequence of the conveyance, Alice's interest in Twinoaks Farm is
A:nothing
B:a possibility of reverter
C:a right of entry for condition broken
D:a reversion in fee simple absolute
|
#### B
|
Lawnacre was conveyed to Celeste and Donald by a deed which, in the jurisdiction in which Lawn. acre is situated, created a cotenancy in equal shares and with the right of survivorship. The jurisdiction has no statute directly applicable to any of the problems posed. Celeste, by deed, conveyed "my undivided one-half interest in Lawnacre" to Paul. Celeste has since died. In an appropriate action between Paul and Donald in which title to Lawnacre is at issue, Donald will
A:prevail, because he is the sole owner of Lawnacre
B:prevail if, but only if, the cotenancy created in Celeste and Donald was a tenancy by the entirety
C:not prevail if he had knowledge of the conveyance prior to Celeste's death
D:not prevail, because Paul and Donald own Lawnacre as tenants in common
|
#### B
|
Storekeeper, the owner of a large hardware store, sells power saws for both personal and commercial use. He often takes old power saws as trade-ins on new ones. The old power saws are then completely disassembled and rebuilt with new bearings by Storekeeper's employees and sold by Storekeeper as "reconditioned saws. " Purchaser, the owner and operator of a cabinetmaking shop, informed Storekeeper that he wanted to buy a reconditioned circular saw for use in his cabinetmaking business. However, the blade that was on the saw he picked out had very coarse teeth for cutting rough lumber. Purchaser told Storekeeper that he wanted a saw blade that would cut plywood. Storekeeper exchanged the coarse blade for a new one with finer teeth that would cut plywood smoothly. The new blade was manufactured by Saw- Blade Company, which uses all available techniques to inspect its products for defects. The reconditioned saw had been manufactured by Power Saw Company. The week after the saw was purchased, Employee, who works for Purchaser in Purchaser's cabinetmaking shop, was injured while using the saw. Employee's arm was severely cut. As a result, the cabinetmaking shop was shut down for a week until a replacement for Employee could be found.
If Employee was injured while cutting plywood when the shaft holding the saw blade came loose when a bearing gave way and the shaft and blade flew off the saw, and if Employee asserts a claim based on strict liability in tort against Power Saw Company, Employee will probably
A:recover if the shaft that came loose was a part of the saw when it was new
B:recover, because Power Saw Company was in the business of manufacturing dangerous machines
C:not recover, because Employee was not the buyer of the power saw
D:not recover, because the saw had been rebuilt by Storekeeper
|
#### D
|
Storekeeper, the owner of a large hardware store, sells power saws for both personal and commercial use. He often takes old power saws as trade-ins on new ones. The old power saws are then completely disassembled and rebuilt with new bearings by Storekeeper's employees and sold by Storekeeper as "reconditioned saws. " Purchaser, the owner and operator of a cabinetmaking shop, informed Storekeeper that he wanted to buy a reconditioned circular saw for use in his cabinetmaking business. However, the blade that was on the saw he picked out had very coarse teeth for cutting rough lumber. Purchaser told Storekeeper that he wanted a saw blade that would cut plywood. Storekeeper exchanged the coarse blade for a new one with finer teeth that would cut plywood smoothly. The new blade was manufactured by Saw- Blade Company, which uses all available techniques to inspect its products for defects. The reconditioned saw had been manufactured by Power Saw Company. The week after the saw was purchased, Employee, who works for Purchaser in Purchaser's cabinetmaking shop, was injured while using the saw. Employee's arm was severely cut. As a result, the cabinetmaking shop was shut down for a week until a replacement for Employee could be found.
If Employee was injured while cutting plywood when the shaft holding the saw blade came loose when a bearing gave way and the shaft and blade flew off the saw, and if Purchaser asserts a claim based on strict liability in tort against Storekeeper for loss of business because of the injury to Employee, Purchaser probably will
A:not recover, because economic loss from injury to an employee is not within the scope of Storekeeper's duty
B:not recover, because Storekeeper was not the manufacturer of the power saw
C:recover, because Storekeeper knew the power saw was to be used in Purchaser's cabinetmaking business
D:recover, because the reconditioned power saw was the direct cause of Purchaser's loss of business
|
#### A
|
Storekeeper, the owner of a large hardware store, sells power saws for both personal and commercial use. He often takes old power saws as trade-ins on new ones. The old power saws are then completely disassembled and rebuilt with new bearings by Storekeeper's employees and sold by Storekeeper as "reconditioned saws. " Purchaser, the owner and operator of a cabinetmaking shop, informed Storekeeper that he wanted to buy a reconditioned circular saw for use in his cabinetmaking business. However, the blade that was on the saw he picked out had very coarse teeth for cutting rough lumber. Purchaser told Storekeeper that he wanted a saw blade that would cut plywood. Storekeeper exchanged the coarse blade for a new one with finer teeth that would cut plywood smoothly. The new blade was manufactured by Saw- Blade Company, which uses all available techniques to inspect its products for defects. The reconditioned saw had been manufactured by Power Saw Company. The week after the saw was purchased, Employee, who works for Purchaser in Purchaser's cabinetmaking shop, was injured while using the saw. Employee's arm was severely cut. As a result, the cabinetmaking shop was shut down for a week until a replacement for Employee could be found.
If Employee was injured while cutting plywood when the shaft holding the saw blade came loose when a bearing gave way and the shaft and blade flew off the saw, and if Employee asserts a claim based on strict liability in tort against Storekeeper, Employee probably will
A:not recover unless Purchaser told Storekeeper that Employee would use the power saw
B:not recover if Employee failed to notice that the shaft was coming loose
C:recover unless Employee knew that the shaft was coming loose
D:recover unless Storekeeper used all possible care in reconditioning the power saw
|
#### C
|
Storekeeper, the owner of a large hardware store, sells power saws for both personal and commercial use. He often takes old power saws as trade-ins on new ones. The old power saws are then completely disassembled and rebuilt with new bearings by Storekeeper's employees and sold by Storekeeper as "reconditioned saws. " Purchaser, the owner and operator of a cabinetmaking shop, informed Storekeeper that he wanted to buy a reconditioned circular saw for use in his cabinetmaking business. However, the blade that was on the saw he picked out had very coarse teeth for cutting rough lumber. Purchaser told Storekeeper that he wanted a saw blade that would cut plywood. Storekeeper exchanged the coarse blade for a new one with finer teeth that would cut plywood smoothly. The new blade was manufactured by Saw- Blade Company, which uses all available techniques to inspect its products for defects. The reconditioned saw had been manufactured by Power Saw Company. The week after the saw was purchased, Employee, who works for Purchaser in Purchaser's cabinetmaking shop, was injured while using the saw. Employee's arm was severely cut. As a result, the cabinetmaking shop was shut down for a week until a replacement for Employee could be found.
If Employee was cutting a sheet of plywood, and while he was doing so, the saw blade flew to pieces and severely cut Employee's arm, and if.Employee asserts a claim against Storekeeper, the theory on which Employee is most likely to prevail is
A:strict liability in tort
B:express warranty
C:negligence, relying on res ipsa loquitur
D:negligence, relying on the sale of an inherently dangerous product
|
#### A
|
Storekeeper, the owner of a large hardware store, sells power saws for both personal and commercial use. He often takes old power saws as trade-ins on new ones. The old power saws are then completely disassembled and rebuilt with new bearings by Storekeeper's employees and sold by Storekeeper as "reconditioned saws. " Purchaser, the owner and operator of a cabinetmaking shop, informed Storekeeper that he wanted to buy a reconditioned circular saw for use in his cabinetmaking business. However, the blade that was on the saw he picked out had very coarse teeth for cutting rough lumber. Purchaser told Storekeeper that he wanted a saw blade that would cut plywood. Storekeeper exchanged the coarse blade for a new one with finer teeth that would cut plywood smoothly. The new blade was manufactured by Saw- Blade Company, which uses all available techniques to inspect its products for defects. The reconditioned saw had been manufactured by Power Saw Company. The week after the saw was purchased, Employee, who works for Purchaser in Purchaser's cabinetmaking shop, was injured while using the saw. Employee's arm was severely cut. As a result, the cabinetmaking shop was shut down for a week until a replacement for Employee could be found.
If Employee was cutting a sheet of hard plastic, and while he was doing so, the saw blade flew to pieces and severely cut Employee's arm, and if Employee asserts a claim based on strict liability in tort against Saw-Blade Company, the defense most likely to prevail is
A:Employee did not purchase the saw blade
B:the blade was being put to an improper use
C:Employee was contributorily negligent in using the blade to cut hard plastic
D:Saw-Blade Company used every available means to inspect the blade for defects
|
#### B
|
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of common-law murder?
A:Angered because his neighbor is having a noisy party, Defendant fires a rifle into the neighbor's house. The bullet strikes and kills a guest at the party.
B:During an argument, Harry slaps Defendant. Angered, Defendant responds by shooting and killing Harry.
C:Defendant drives his car through a red light and strikes and kills a pedestrian who is crossing the street.
D:Using his fist, Defendant punches Walter in the face. As a result of the blow, Walter falls and hits his head on a concrete curb, suffers a concussion, and dies.
|
#### A
|
In an effort to relieve serious and persistent unemployment in the industrialized state of Onondaga, its legislature enacted a statute requiring every business with annual sales in Onondaga of over one million dollars to purchase goods and/or services In Onondaga equal in value to at least half of the annual sales in Onondaga of the business. Which of the following constitutional provisions is the strongest basis on which to attack this statute?
A:The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
B:The equal protection clause
C:The commerce clause
D:The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
|
#### C
|
Meadowview is a large tract of undeveloped land. Black, the owner of Meadowview, prepared a development plan creating 200 house lots in Meadowview with the necessary streets and public areas. The plan was fully approved by all necessary governmental agencies and duly recorded. However, construction of the streets, utilities, and other aspects of the development of Meadowview has not yet begun, and none of the streets can be opened as public ways until they are completed in accordance with the applicable ordinances of the municipality in which Meadowview is located. College Avenue, one of the streets laid out as part of the Meadowview development, abuts Whiteacre, an adjacent one-acre parcel owned by White. Whiteacre has no access to any public way except an old, poorly developed road which is inconvenient and cannot be used without great expense. White sold Whiteacre to Breyer. The description used in the deed from White to Breyer was the same as that used in prior deeds except that the portion of the description which formerly said, "thence by land of Black, north-easterly a distance of 200 feet, more or less," was changed to "thence by College Avenue as laid out on the Plan of Meadowview North 460 East 201.6 feet," with full reference to the plan and its recording data. Breyer now seeks a building permit which will show that Breyer intends to use College Avenue for access to Whiteacre. Black objects to the granting of a building permit on the grounds that he has never granted any rights to White or Breyer to use College Avenue. There are no governing statutes or ordinances relating to the problem. Black brings an appropriate action in which the right of Breyer to use College Avenue without an express grant from Black is at issue.
The best argument for Black in this action is that
A:Breyer 's right must await the action of appropriate public authorities to open College Avenue as a public street, since no private easements arose by implication
B:the Statute of Frauds prevents the introduction of evidence which might prove the necessity for Breyer to use College Avenue
C:Breyer 's right to use College Avenue is restricted to the assertion of a way by necessity and the facts preclude the success of such a claim
D:Breyer would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to use College Avenue
|
#### A
|
Meadowview is a large tract of undeveloped land. Black, the owner of Meadowview, prepared a development plan creating 200 house lots in Meadowview with the necessary streets and public areas. The plan was fully approved by all necessary governmental agencies and duly recorded. However, construction of the streets, utilities, and other aspects of the development of Meadowview has not yet begun, and none of the streets can be opened as public ways until they are completed in accordance with the applicable ordinances of the municipality in which Meadowview is located. College Avenue, one of the streets laid out as part of the Meadowview development, abuts Whiteacre, an adjacent one-acre parcel owned by White. Whiteacre has no access to any public way except an old, poorly developed road which is inconvenient and cannot be used without great expense. White sold Whiteacre to Breyer. The description used in the deed from White to Breyer was the same as that used in prior deeds except that the portion of the description which formerly said, "thence by land of Black, north-easterly a distance of 200 feet, more or less," was changed to "thence by College Avenue as laid out on the Plan of Meadowview North 460 East 201.6 feet," with full reference to the plan and its recording data. Breyer now seeks a building permit which will show that Breyer intends to use College Avenue for access to Whiteacre. Black objects to the granting of a building permit on the grounds that he has never granted any rights to White or Breyer to use College Avenue. There are no governing statutes or ordinances relating to the problem. Black brings an appropriate action in which the right of Breyer to use College Avenue without an express grant from Black is at issue.
The best argument for Breyer in this action is that
A:there is a way by necessity over Meadowview 's lands to gain access to a public road
B:the deed from White to Breyer referred to the recorded plan and therefore created rights to use the streets delineated on the plan
C:sale of lots in Meadowview by reference to its plan creates private easements in the streets shown on the plan
D:the recording of the plan is a dedication of the streets shown on the plan to public use
|
#### D
|
John Doe, the owner of a milk container manufacturing firm, sought to focus public attention on the milk packaging law of the State of Clinton in order to have it repealed. On a weekday at 12:00 noon, he delivered an excited, animated, and loud harangue on the steps of the State Capitol in front of the main entryway. An audience of 200 onlookers, who gathered on the steps, heckled him and laughed as he delivered his tirade. Doe repeatedly stated, gesturing expressively and making faces, that "the g-ddamned milk packaging law is stupid," and that "I will strangle every one of those g-ddamned legislators I can get hold of because this law they created proves they are all too dumb to live." After about fifteen minutes, Doe stopped speaking, and the amused crowd dispersed. There are three relevant statutes of the State of Clinton. The first statute prohibits "all speech making, picketing, and public gatherings of every sort on the Capitol steps in front of the main entryway between 7:45 a.m. -8:15 a.m., 11:45 a.m. -12:15 p.m., 12:45 p.m. -1:15 p.m., and 4:45 p.m. -5:15 p.m., on Capitol working days."
If Doe is prosecuted under the "Capitol steps" statute and defends on constitutional grounds, which of the following best describes the proper burden of proof?
A:Doe would have to prove thet the state did not have a rational basis for enacting this statute.
B:Doe would have to prove that the state did not have a compelling need for this statute or that it had less restrictive means by which it could satisfy that need.
C:The state would have to prove that it had a rational basis for enacting this statute.
D:The state would have to prove that it had a compelling need for this statute and that there were no less restrictive means by which it could satisfy that need.
|
#### D
|
John Doe, the owner of a milk container manufacturing firm, sought to focus public attention on the milk packaging law of the State of Clinton in order to have it repealed. On a weekday at 12:00 noon, he delivered an excited, animated, and loud harangue on the steps of the State Capitol in front of the main entryway. An audience of 200 onlookers, who gathered on the steps, heckled him and laughed as he delivered his tirade. Doe repeatedly stated, gesturing expressively and making faces, that "the g-ddamned milk packaging law is stupid," and that "I will strangle every one of those g-ddamned legislators I can get hold of because this law they created proves they are all too dumb to live." After about fifteen minutes, Doe stopped speaking, and the amused crowd dispersed. There are three relevant statutes of the State of Clinton. The first statute prohibits "all speech making, picketing, and public gatherings of every sort on the Capitol steps in front of the main entryway between 7:45 a.m. -8:15 a.m., 11:45 a.m. -12:15 p.m., 12:45 p.m. -1:15 p.m., and 4:45 p.m. -5:15 p.m., on Capitol working days."
Which of the following possible plaintiffs other than Doe would be most likely to obtain an adjudication in a federal court on the validity of the "Capitol steps" statute?
A:A state taxpayer in the highest tax bracket
B:A politician intending to make a campaign speech on the Capitol steps during a prohibited time
C:A legislator who voted against the statute because he thought it unconstitutional
D:An organization whose purpose was "to seek judicial invalidation of unconstitutional laws"
|
#### B
|
John Doe, the owner of a milk container manufacturing firm, sought to focus public attention on the milk packaging law of the State of Clinton in order to have it repealed. On a weekday at 12:00 noon, he delivered an excited, animated, and loud harangue on the steps of the State Capitol in front of the main entryway. An audience of 200 onlookers, who gathered on the steps, heckled him and laughed as he delivered his tirade. Doe repeatedly stated, gesturing expressively and making faces, that "the g-ddamned milk packaging law is stupid," and that "I will strangle every one of those g-ddamned legislators I can get hold of because this law they created proves they are all too dumb to live." After about fifteen minutes, Doe stopped speaking, and the amused crowd dispersed. There are three relevant statutes of the State of Clinton. The first statute prohibits "all speech making, picketing, and public gatherings of every sort on the Capitol steps in front of the main entryway between 7:45 a.m. -8:15 a.m., 11:45 a.m. -12:15 p.m., 12:45 p.m. -1:15 p.m., and 4:45 p.m. -5:15 p.m., on Capitol working days."
The "Capitol steps" statute is probably
A:constitutional both on its face and as applied to Doe
B:constitutional on its face but unconstitutional as applied to Doe
C:unconstitutional on its face, because it applies to all working days
D:unconstitutional on its face, because it concerns the State Capitol
|
#### A
|
John Doe, the owner of a milk container manufacturing firm, sought to focus public attention on the milk packaging law of the State of Clinton in order to have it repealed. On a weekday at 12:00 noon, he delivered an excited, animated, and loud harangue on the steps of the State Capitol in front of the main entryway. An audience of 200 onlookers, who gathered on the steps, heckled him and laughed as he delivered his tirade. Doe repeatedly stated, gesturing expressively and making faces, that "the g-ddamned milk packaging law is stupid," and that "I will strangle every one of those g-ddamned legislators I can get hold of because this law they created proves they are all too dumb to live." After about fifteen minutes, Doe stopped speaking, and the amused crowd dispersed. There are three relevant statutes of the State of Clinton. The first statute prohibits "all speech making, picketing, and public gatherings of every sort on the Capitol steps in front of the main entryway between 7:45 a.m. -8:15 a.m., 11:45 a.m. -12:15 p.m., 12:45 p.m. -1:15 p.m., and 4:45 p.m. -5:15 p.m., on Capitol working days."
A second state statute punishes "any person who shall intentionally threaten the life or safety of any public official for any act which he performed as part of his public office." Which of the following statements is correct concerning the possible punishment of Doe under the second statute?
A:The statute is unconstitutional on its face.
B:The statute is constitutional on its face, but Doe could not constitutionally be punished under it for this speech.
C:Doe could constitutionally be punished under the statute for his speech.
D:Doe could constitutionally be punished under the statute for his speech, but only if one or more legislators were actually present when he delivered it.
|
#### B
|
John Doe, the owner of a milk container manufacturing firm, sought to focus public attention on the milk packaging law of the State of Clinton in order to have it repealed. On a weekday at 12:00 noon, he delivered an excited, animated, and loud harangue on the steps of the State Capitol in front of the main entryway. An audience of 200 onlookers, who gathered on the steps, heckled him and laughed as he delivered his tirade. Doe repeatedly stated, gesturing expressively and making faces, that "the g-ddamned milk packaging law is stupid," and that "I will strangle every one of those g-ddamned legislators I can get hold of because this law they created proves they are all too dumb to live." After about fifteen minutes, Doe stopped speaking, and the amused crowd dispersed. There are three relevant statutes of the State of Clinton. The first statute prohibits "all speech making, picketing, and public gatherings of every sort on the Capitol steps in front of the main entryway between 7:45 a.m. -8:15 a.m., 11:45 a.m. -12:15 p.m., 12:45 p.m. -1:15 p.m., and 4:45 p.m. -5:15 p.m., on Capitol working days."
A third state statute, enacted in 1880, makes criminal "the utterance in any public place of any blasphemy or sacrilege." Assume that there have been only a few recorded prosecutions under the 1880 statute. Doe is charged with violating its proscriptions. The charge is based wholly on the speech he delivered on the steps of the Clinton State Capitol. Which of the following constitutional defenses to this prosecution under the 1880 statute would be the LEAST likely to succeed?
A:This statute is vague and, therefore, violates. the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B:This statute is an establishment of religion and, therefore, violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C:Application of this statute to Doe denies him equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D:Application of this statute to Doe denies him freedom of speech in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
#### C
|
Peri sues Denucci for a libelous letter received by Investigator. The authenticity and contents of the letter are disputed.
Peri's attorney asks Investigator to testify that, a week before receiving the libelous letter, he had written to Denucci inquiring about Peri. The testimony is
A:admissible provided this inquiry was made in the regular course of Investigator's business
B:admissible without production of the inquiry letter or the showing of its unavailability
C:inadmissible unless Peri's attorney has given Denucci notice of Investigator's intended testimony
D:inadmissible unless the inquiry letter itself is shown to be unavailable
|
#### B
|
Peri sues Denucci for a libelous letter received by Investigator. The authenticity and contents of the letter are disputed.
Investigator, if permitted, will testify that, "I received a letter that I cannot now find, which read: Dear Investigator, You inquired about Peri. We fired him last month when we discovered that he had been stealing from the stockroom. Denucci" The testimony should be admitted in evidence only if the
A:jury finds that Investigator has quoted the letter precisely
B:jury is satisfied that the original letter is unavailable
C:judge is satisfied that Investigator has quoted the letter precisely
D:judge finds that the original letter is unavailable
|
#### D
|
Photo, a free-lance photographer, took a Picture of Player in front of Shoe Store. Player was a nationally known amateur basketball star who had received much publicity in the press. At the time, the window display in Shoe Store featured "Jumpers," a well-known make of basketball shoes. Photo sold the picture, greatly enlarged, to Shoe Store and told Shoe Store that Photo had Player's approval to do so and that Player had consented to Shoe Store's showing the enlarged picture in the window. Shoe Store made no effort to ascertain whether Player had given his consent to Photo. In fact, Player did not even know that Photo had taken the picture. Shoe Store put the enlarged picture in the window with the display of "Jumpers" shoes. The college that Player attended believed that Player had intentionally endorsed Shoe Store and "Jumpers" shoes, and the college cancelled his athletic scholarship.
If Player asserts a claim based on defamation against Shoe Store, will Player prevail?
A:Yes, if Shoe Store was reckless in accepting Photo's statement that Photo had Player's approval.
B:Yes, because the defamatory material was in printed form.
C:No, if Shoe Store believed Photo's statement that Photo had Player's approval.
D:No, because the picture of Player was not defamatory per se
|
#### A
|
Photo, a free-lance photographer, took a Picture of Player in front of Shoe Store. Player was a nationally known amateur basketball star who had received much publicity in the press. At the time, the window display in Shoe Store featured "Jumpers," a well-known make of basketball shoes. Photo sold the picture, greatly enlarged, to Shoe Store and told Shoe Store that Photo had Player's approval to do so and that Player had consented to Shoe Store's showing the enlarged picture in the window. Shoe Store made no effort to ascertain whether Player had given his consent to Photo. In fact, Player did not even know that Photo had taken the picture. Shoe Store put the enlarged picture in the window with the display of "Jumpers" shoes. The college that Player attended believed that Player had intentionally endorsed Shoe Store and "Jumpers" shoes, and the college cancelled his athletic scholarship.
If Player asserts a claim based on invasion of privacy against Shoe Store, will Player prevail?
A:Yes, because Photo had no right to take Player's picture.
B:Yes, because Shoe Store, without Player's permission, used Player's picture for profit.
C:No, because Player was already a basketball star who had received much publicity in the press.
D:No, because Shoe Store believed it had permission to put the picture in its window.
|
#### B
|
Landover, the owner in fee simple of Highacre, an apartment house property, entered into an enforceable written agreement with VanMeer to sell Highacre to VanMeer. The agreement provided that a good and marketable title was to be conveyed free and clear of all encumbrances. However, the agreement was silent as to the risk of fire prior to the closing, and there is no applicable statute in the state where the land is located. The premises were not insured. The day before the scheduled closing date, Highacre was wholly destroyed by fire. When VanMeer refused to close, Landover brought an action for specific performance. If Landover prevails, the most likely reason will be that
A:the failure of VanMeer to insure his interest as the purchaser of Highacre precludes any relief for him
B:the remedy at law is inadequate in actions concerning real estate contracts and either party is entitled to specific performance
C:equity does not permit consideration of surrounding circumstances in actions concerning real estate contracts
D:the doctrine of equitable conversion applies
|
#### D
|
In the application for a life insurance policy, Mary answered in the negative the question, "Have you ever had any heart disease?" Both the application and the insurance policy which was issued provided: "Applicant warrants the truthfulness of the statements made in the application and they are made conditions to the cont ract of insurance." Unknown to Mary, she had had a heart disease at a very early age. The policy provided that the proceeds were not to be paid over to the named beneficiary, Mary's daughter, Joan, "until she reaches the age of 21." No contingent beneficiary was named in the policy. Mary was killed in an automobile accident two months after the policy was issued. Joan died one month later at the age of 19 from injuries incurred in the same accident.
If the question is raised in an action against the insurance company, how is the court likely to construe the clause dealing with the truthfulness of statements in the application?
A:The clause is a condition, and because the condition was not met, the company will not be liable.
B:The clause is a condition, but it will be interpreted to mean, "truthfulness to the best of my knowledge."
C:The clause is not a condition, and therefore the company may be liable even though Mary's statement was not true.
D:The clause is not a condition but is a promise, and therefore the company will have a cause of action against Mary 's estate for any losses it suffered because of Mary 's misstatement.
|
#### B
|
In the application for a life insurance policy, Mary answered in the negative the question, "Have you ever had any heart disease?" Both the application and the insurance policy which was issued provided: "Applicant warrants the truthfulness of the statements made in the application and they are made conditions to the cont ract of insurance." Unknown to Mary, she had had a heart disease at a very early age. The policy provided that the proceeds were not to be paid over to the named beneficiary, Mary's daughter, Joan, "until she reaches the age of 21." No contingent beneficiary was named in the policy. Mary was killed in an automobile accident two months after the policy was issued. Joan died one month later at the age of 19 from injuries incurred in the same accident.
If no objection is made concerning Mary's misstatement in the application, how is the court most likely to construe the clause dealing with the payment of the proceeds to Joan?
A:Joan's reaching the age of 21 is a constructive condition concurrent.
B:Joan's reaching the age of 21 is a condition precedent to the insurance company's duty to pay anyone.
C:Joan's reaching the age of 21 has legal significance only with respect to the time of payment.
D:Joan's reaching the age of 21 has no legal significance.
|
#### C
|
Defendant became intoxicated at a bar. He got into his car and drove away. Within a few blocks, craving another drink, he stopped ails car in the middle of the street, picked up a brick, and broke the display window of a liquor store. As he was reaching for a bottle, the night watchman arrived. Startled, Defendant turned, struck the watchman on the head with the bottle, killing him. Only vaguely aware of what was happening, Defendant returned to his car, consumed more liquor, and then drove off at a high speed. He ran a red light and struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the street. Relevant statutes define burglary to include "breaking and entering a building not used as a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein." Manslaughter is defined as the "killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." Criminal recklessness is "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." Murder is defined as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or the killing of another in the commission of committing rape, robbery, burglary, or arson." Another statute provides that intoxication is not a defense to crime unless it negates an element of the offense. Defendant was charged with the murder of the watchman and manslaughter in the death of the pedestrian. Assume that he is tried separately on each charge.
At Defendant's trial for the murder of the watchman, the court should in substance charge the jury on the issue of the defense of intoxication that
A:intoxication is a defense to the underlying crime of burglary if Defendant, due to drunkenness, did not form an intent to commit a crime within the building, in which case there can be no conviction for murder unless Defendant intentionally and with premeditation killed the watchman
B:voluntary intoxication is no defense to the crime of murder
C:Defendant is guilty of murder despite his intoxication only if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing of the watchman was premeditated and intentional
D:voluntary intoxication is a defense to the crime of murder if Defendant would not have killed the watchman but for his intoxication
|
#### A
|
Defendant became intoxicated at a bar. He got into his car and drove away. Within a few blocks, craving another drink, he stopped ails car in the middle of the street, picked up a brick, and broke the display window of a liquor store. As he was reaching for a bottle, the night watchman arrived. Startled, Defendant turned, struck the watchman on the head with the bottle, killing him. Only vaguely aware of what was happening, Defendant returned to his car, consumed more liquor, and then drove off at a high speed. He ran a red light and struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the street. Relevant statutes define burglary to include "breaking and entering a building not used as a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein." Manslaughter is defined as the "killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." Criminal recklessness is "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." Murder is defined as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or the killing of another in the commission of committing rape, robbery, burglary, or arson." Another statute provides that intoxication is not a defense to crime unless it negates an element of the offense. Defendant was charged with the murder of the watchman and manslaughter in the death of the pedestrian. Assume that he is tried separately on each charge.
At Defendant's trial on the charge of manslaughter in the death of the pedestrian, his best argument would be that
A:he was too intoxicated to realize he was creating a substantial and unjustifiable risking the manner in which he was operating his car
B:when he got in the car his acts were not volun. tary because he was too intoxicated to know where he was or what he was doing
C:the pedestrian was contributorily negligent in failing to see Defendant's car approaching
D:he was too intoxicated to form any intent to voluntarily operate the automobile
|
#### A
|
Defendant became intoxicated at a bar. He got into his car and drove away. Within a few blocks, craving another drink, he stopped ails car in the middle of the street, picked up a brick, and broke the display window of a liquor store. As he was reaching for a bottle, the night watchman arrived. Startled, Defendant turned, struck the watchman on the head with the bottle, killing him. Only vaguely aware of what was happening, Defendant returned to his car, consumed more liquor, and then drove off at a high speed. He ran a red light and struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the street. Relevant statutes define burglary to include "breaking and entering a building not used as a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein." Manslaughter is defined as the "killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." Criminal recklessness is "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." Murder is defined as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or the killing of another in the commission of committing rape, robbery, burglary, or arson." Another statute provides that intoxication is not a defense to crime unless it negates an element of the offense. Defendant was charged with the murder of the watchman and manslaughter in the death of the pedestrian. Assume that he is tried separately on each charge.
The state's best argument to counter Defendant's argument in Question 157 on the intoxication issue in the manslaughter death of the pedestrian is that
A:intoxication is no defense to the crime charged, because manslaughter is historically a general intent crime
B:intoxication is a defense only to a specific intent crime, and no specific intent is involved in the definition of the crime of manslaughter
C:conscious risk-taking refers to Defendant's entire course of conduct, including drinking with the knowledge that he might become intoxicated and seriously injure or kill someone while driving
D:whether Defendant was intoxicated or not is not the crucial issue here; the real issue is whether the manner in which Defendant was operating his car can be characterized under the facts as criminally reckless
|
#### C
|
Johnson wanted to purchase a used motor vehicle. The used car lot of Car Company, in a remote section away from town, was enclosed by a ten-foot chain link fence. While Johnson and Sales Representative, an employee of Car Company, were in the used car lot looking at cars, a security guard locked the gate at 1:30 p. i., because it was Saturday and the lot was supposed to be closed after 1:00 p. m. Saturday until Monday morning. At 1:45 p. m., Johnson and Sales Representative discovered they were locked in. There was no traffic in the vicinity and no way in which help could be summoned. After two hours, Johnson began to panic at the prospect of remaining undiscovered and without food and water until Monday morning. Sales Representative decided to wait in a car until help should come. Johnson tried to climb over the fence and, in doing so, fell and was injured. Johnson asserts a claim against Car Company for damages for his injuries.
If Johnson's claim is based on negligence, is the defense of assumption of the risk applicable?
A:Yes, if a reasonable person would have recognized that there was some risk of falling while climbing the fence.
B:Yes, because Sales Representative, as Car Company's agent, waited for help.
C:No, if it appeared that there was no other practicable way of getting out of the lot before Monday.
D:No, because Johnson was confined as the result of a volitional act.
|
#### C
|
Johnson wanted to purchase a used motor vehicle. The used car lot of Car Company, in a remote section away from town, was enclosed by a ten-foot chain link fence. While Johnson and Sales Representative, an employee of Car Company, were in the used car lot looking at cars, a security guard locked the gate at 1:30 p. i., because it was Saturday and the lot was supposed to be closed after 1:00 p. m. Saturday until Monday morning. At 1:45 p. m., Johnson and Sales Representative discovered they were locked in. There was no traffic in the vicinity and no way in which help could be summoned. After two hours, Johnson began to panic at the prospect of remaining undiscovered and without food and water until Monday morning. Sales Representative decided to wait in a car until help should come. Johnson tried to climb over the fence and, in doing so, fell and was injured. Johnson asserts a claim against Car Company for damages for his injuries.
If Johnson's claim is based on false imprisonment, will Johnson prevail?
A:Yes, because he was confined against his will.
B:Yes, because he was harmed as a result of his confinement.
C:No, unless the security guard was negligent in locking the gate.
D:No, unless the security guard knew that someone was in the lot at the time the guard locked the gate.
|
#### D
|
Albert, the owner of a house and lot, leased the same to Barnes for a term of five years. In addition to the house, there was also an unattached, two-car brick garage located on the lot. Barnes earned his living as an employee in a local grocery store, but his hobby consisted of wood carving and the making of small furniture. Barnes installed a work bench, electric lights, and a radiator in the garage. He also laid pipes connecting the radiator with the heating plant inside the house. Thereafter Albert mortgaged the premises to Good Bank to secure a loan. Barnes was not given notice of the mortgage, but the mortgage was recorded. Still later, Albert defaulted on his mortgage payments, and Good Bank began foreclosure proceedings, as it was entitled to do under the terms of the mortgage. By this time Barnes's lease was almost ended. Barnes began the removal of the equipment he had installed in the garage. Good Bank brought an action to enjoin the removal of the equipment mentioned above. Both Barnes and Albert were named as defendants.
If the court refuses the injunction, it will be because
A:Barnes was without notice of the mortgage
B:the circumstances reveal that the equipment was installed for Barnes's exclusive benefit
C:in the absence of a contrary agreement, a residential tenant is entitled to remove any personal property he voluntarily brings upon the premises
D:the Statute of Frauds precludes the Bank from claiming any interest In the equipment
|
#### B
|
Albert, the owner of a house and lot, leased the same to Barnes for a term of five years. In addition to the house, there was also an unattached, two-car brick garage located on the lot. Barnes earned his living as an employee in a local grocery store, but his hobby consisted of wood carving and the making of small furniture. Barnes installed a work bench, electric lights, and a radiator in the garage. He also laid pipes connecting the radiator with the heating plant inside the house. Thereafter Albert mortgaged the premises to Good Bank to secure a loan. Barnes was not given notice of the mortgage, but the mortgage was recorded. Still later, Albert defaulted on his mortgage payments, and Good Bank began foreclosure proceedings, as it was entitled to do under the terms of the mortgage. By this time Barnes's lease was almost ended. Barnes began the removal of the equipment he had installed in the garage. Good Bank brought an action to enjoin the removal of the equipment mentioned above. Both Barnes and Albert were named as defendants.
If the equipment concerned had been installed by Albert, but the facts were otherwise unchanged, the effect on Good Bank's prayer for an injunction would be that the
A:likelihood of Good Bank's succeeding would be improved
B:likelihood of Good Bank's succeeding would be lessened
C:likelihood of Good Bank's succeeding would be unaffected
D:outcome of the litigation would depend upon whether or not the mortgage expressly mentioned personal property located on the premises
|
#### A
|
Statutes in the jurisdiction define criminal assault as "an attempt to commit a criminal battery" and criminal battery as "causing an offensive touching." As Edward was walking down the street, a gust of wind blew his hat off. Edward reached out, trying to grab his hat, and narrowly missed striking Margaret in the face with his hand. Margaret, fearful of being struck by Edward, pushed Edward away.
If charged with criminal assault, Edward should be found
A:guilty, because he caused Margaret to be in apprehension of an offensive touching
B:guilty, because he should have realized he might strike someone by reaching out
C:not guilty, because he did not intend to hit Margaret
D:not guilty, because he did not hit Margaret
|
#### C
|
Statutes in the jurisdiction define criminal assault as "an attempt to commit a criminal battery" and criminal battery as "causing an offensive touching." As Edward was walking down the street, a gust of wind blew his hat off. Edward reached out, trying to grab his hat, and narrowly missed striking Margaret in the face with his hand. Margaret, fearful of being struck by Edward, pushed Edward away.
If charged with criminal battery, Margaret should be found
A:guilty, because she intentionally pushed Edward
B:guilty, because she caused the touching of Edward whether she meant to do so or not
C:not guilty, because a push is not an offensive touching
D:not guilty, because she was justified in pushing Edward
|
#### D
|
Police were concerned about an increase in marijuana traffic in Defendant's neighborhood. One night, Police Officers, accompanied by dogs trained to sniff out marijuana, went into the back yard of Defendant's house and onto his porch. Defendant and his friend were inside having dinner The dogs acted as if they smelled marijuana. Police Officers knocked on the back door. Defendant answered the door and let them in. Defendant was immediately placed under arrest. After a brief search, Police Officers confiscated a large quantity of marijuana which they found in Defendant's linen closet. Defendant's motion to prevent introduction of the marijuana into evidence will most probably be
A:denied, because the search was incident to a valid arrest
B:denied, because Defendant permitted Police Officers to enter his house
C:granted, because under the circumstances the police activity violated Defendant's reasonable expectations of privacy
D:granted, because this kind of detection by trained dogs has not been scientifically verified and cannot be the basis for probable cause
|
#### C
|
Drew was tried for the July 21 murder of Victor.
In his case in chief, Drew called as his first witness Wilma to testify to Drew's reputation in his community as "a peaceable man." The testimony is
A:admissible as tending to prove Drew is believable
B:admissible as tending to prove Drew is innocent
C:inadmissible, because Drew has not testified
D:inadmissible, because reputation is not a proper way to prove character
|
#### B
|
Drew was tried for the July 21 murder of Victor.
Drew called William to testify that on July 20 Drew said that he was about to leave that day to visit relatives in a distant state. The testimony Is
A:admissible, because it is a declaration of present mental state
B:admissible, because it is not hearsay
C:inadmissible, because it is irrelevant
D:inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception
|
#### A
|
Drew was tried for the July 21 murder of Victor.
Drew called Wilson to testify to alibi. On cross-examination of Wilson, the prosecutor asked, "Isn't it a fact that you are Drew's first cousin?" The question is
A:proper, because it goes to bias
B:proper, because a relative is not competent to give reputation testimony
C:improper, because the question goes beyond the scope of direct examination
D:improper, because the evidence being sought is irrelevant
|
#### A
|
Drew was tried for the July 21 murder of Victor.
Drew called Warren to testify to alibi. On cross-examination of Warren, the prosecutor asked, "Weren't you on the jury that acquitted Drew of another criminal charge?" The best reason for sustaining an objection to this question is that
A:the question goes beyond the scope of direct examination
B:the probative value of the answer would be outweighed by its tendency to mislead
C:the question is leading
D:prior jury service in a case involving a party renders the fitness incompetent
|
#### B
|
Re-direct examination of a witness must be permitted in which of the following circumstances?
A:To reply to any matter raised in crossexamination
B:only to reply to significant new matter raised in cross-examination
C:Only to reiterate the essential elements of the case
D:Only to supply significant information inadvertently omitted on direct examination
|
#### B
|
On March 1, Mechanic agreed to repair Ohner's machine for $5,000, to be paid on completion of the work. On March 15, before the work was completed, Mechanic sent a letter to Ohner with a copy to Jones, telling Ohner to pay the $5,000 to Jones, who was one of Mechanic's creditors, Mechanic then completed the work. Which of the following, if true, would best serve Ohner as a defense in an action brought against him by Jones for $5,000 ?
A:Jones was incapable of performing Mechanic's work.
B:Mechanic had not performed his work in a workmanlike manner.
C:On March 1, Mechanic had promised Ohner that he would not assign the contract.
D:Jones was not the intended beneficiary of the Ohner-Mechanic contract.
|
#### B
|
BCD, a manufacturer of computers, pays its salespeople a salary of $1,000 per month and a commission of 5% on billings actually rendered for machines that they sell. BCD salespeople are employed at will under written agreements which provide that in order to receive a commission the salesperson must be in the employment of the company when the bill is sent to the customer. In 1976, John, a salesperson for BCD, worked for eight months to get an order from Bobb Corporation for a large $750,000 computer. He consulted extensively with Bobb's top executives and worked with its operating personnel to dt.velop detailed specifications for the new equipment. He also promised Bobb, with BCD's knowledge and approval, to assist Bobb for six months after installation in making the equipment work. On January 1, 1977, Bobb signed an order, and on March 1 the computer was installed. On March 15, BCD fired John on the stated ground that he had failed to meet his 1975 and 1976 sales quotas. John thought that BCD was correct in this statement. Another salesperson, Franklin, was thereupon assigned to service the Bobb account. On March 31, BCD billed Bobb for the computer.
Assume for this question only that BCD's termination of John's employment was not wrongful. If John, after demand and refusal, sues BCD for the Bobb sale commission, which of the following is the most likely result?
A:John will win, because he had procured the sale of the computer.
B:John will win, because he had promised Bobb to assist in making the equipment work.
C:BCD will win, because Franklin is entitled to the commission on a quantum meruit basis.
D:BCD will win, because John was not employed as a BCD salesperson when Bobb was billed for the computer.
|
#### D
|
BCD, a manufacturer of computers, pays its salespeople a salary of $1,000 per month and a commission of 5% on billings actually rendered for machines that they sell. BCD salespeople are employed at will under written agreements which provide that in order to receive a commission the salesperson must be in the employment of the company when the bill is sent to the customer. In 1976, John, a salesperson for BCD, worked for eight months to get an order from Bobb Corporation for a large $750,000 computer. He consulted extensively with Bobb's top executives and worked with its operating personnel to dt.velop detailed specifications for the new equipment. He also promised Bobb, with BCD's knowledge and approval, to assist Bobb for six months after installation in making the equipment work. On January 1, 1977, Bobb signed an order, and on March 1 the computer was installed. On March 15, BCD fired John on the stated ground that he had failed to meet his 1975 and 1976 sales quotas. John thought that BCD was correct in this statement. Another salesperson, Franklin, was thereupon assigned to service the Bobb account. On March 31, BCD billed Bobb for the computer.
Assume for this question only that BCD's termination of John's employment was not wrongful. If John sues BCD for the reasonable value of his services, which of the following is the most likely result?
A:John will win, because BCD benefited as a result of John' services.
B:John will win, because BCD made an impliedin-fact promise to pay a reasonable commission for services that result in sales.
C:John will lose, because there is an express contractual provision pre-empting the subject of compensation for his services.
D:John will lose, because he cannot perform his agreement to assist the customer for six months.
|
#### C
|
BCD, a manufacturer of computers, pays its salespeople a salary of $1,000 per month and a commission of 5% on billings actually rendered for machines that they sell. BCD salespeople are employed at will under written agreements which provide that in order to receive a commission the salesperson must be in the employment of the company when the bill is sent to the customer. In 1976, John, a salesperson for BCD, worked for eight months to get an order from Bobb Corporation for a large $750,000 computer. He consulted extensively with Bobb's top executives and worked with its operating personnel to dt.velop detailed specifications for the new equipment. He also promised Bobb, with BCD's knowledge and approval, to assist Bobb for six months after installation in making the equipment work. On January 1, 1977, Bobb signed an order, and on March 1 the computer was installed. On March 15, BCD fired John on the stated ground that he had failed to meet his 1975 and 1976 sales quotas. John thought that BCD was correct in this statement. Another salesperson, Franklin, was thereupon assigned to service the Bobb account. On March 31, BCD billed Bobb for the computer.
Which of the following additional facts, if shown by the evidence, would support a claim by John against BCD ? 1. BCD terminated John because Franklin is the son of the company's president, who wanted his son to have the commission instead of John. II. BCD and John were mistaken; John had in fact exceeded his sales quotas for 1975 and 1976. III. John had worked for BCD as a salesperson for 20 years.
A:I only
B:II only
C:I and II only
D:I, II, and III
|
#### C
|
In 1940, Cattle Company paid $30,000 for a 150-acre tract of agricultural land well suited for a cattle feed lot. The tract was ten miles from the city of Metropolis, then a community of 50,000 people, and five miles from the nearest home. By 1976, the city limits extended to Cattle Company's feed lot, and the city had a population of 350,000. About 10,000 people lived within three miles of the cattle feeding operation. The Cattle Company land is outside the city limits and no zoning ordinance applies. The Cattle Company land is now worth $300,000, and $25,000 has been invested in buildings and pens. Cattle Company, conscious of its obligations to its neighbors, uses the best and most sanitary feed lot procedures, including chemical sprays, to keep down flies and odors and frequently removes manure. Despite these measures, residents of Metropolis complain of flies and odors. An action has been filed by five individual homeowners who live within half a mile of the Cattle Company feed lot. The plaintiffs' homes are valued currently at $25,000 to $40,000 each. Flies in the area are five to ten times more numerous than in other parts of Metropolis, and extremely obnoxious odors are frequently carried by the wind to the plaintiffs' homes. The flies and odors are a substantial health hazard.
If plaintiffs assert a claim based on public nuisance, plaintiffs will
A:prevail if plaintiffs sustained harm different from that suffered by the public at large
B:prevail if Cattle Company's acts interfered with any person's enjoyment of his property
C:not prevail, because only the state may bring an action based on public nuisance
D:not prevail, because plaintiffs came to the nuisance
|
#### A
|
In 1940, Cattle Company paid $30,000 for a 150-acre tract of agricultural land well suited for a cattle feed lot. The tract was ten miles from the city of Metropolis, then a community of 50,000 people, and five miles from the nearest home. By 1976, the city limits extended to Cattle Company's feed lot, and the city had a population of 350,000. About 10,000 people lived within three miles of the cattle feeding operation. The Cattle Company land is outside the city limits and no zoning ordinance applies. The Cattle Company land is now worth $300,000, and $25,000 has been invested in buildings and pens. Cattle Company, conscious of its obligations to its neighbors, uses the best and most sanitary feed lot procedures, including chemical sprays, to keep down flies and odors and frequently removes manure. Despite these measures, residents of Metropolis complain of flies and odors. An action has been filed by five individual homeowners who live within half a mile of the Cattle Company feed lot. The plaintiffs' homes are valued currently at $25,000 to $40,000 each. Flies in the area are five to ten times more numerous than in other parts of Metropolis, and extremely obnoxious odors are frequently carried by the wind to the plaintiffs' homes. The flies and odors are a substantial health hazard.
If plaintiffs assert a claim based on private nuisance, plaintiffs will
A:prevail, because Cattle Company's activity unreasonably interfered with plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property
B:prevail, because Cattle Company's activity constitutes an inverse condemnation of their property
C:not prevail, because Cattle Company had operated the feed lot for more than 25 years
D:not prevail, because Cattle Company uses the most reasonable procedures to keep down flies and odors
|
#### A
|
Alan, who was already married, went through a marriage ceremony with Betty and committed bigamy. Carl, his friend, who did not know of Alan's previous marriage, had encouraged Alan to marry Betty and was best man at the ceremony, If Carl is charged with being an accessory to bigamy, he should be found
A:not guilty, because his encouragement and assistance was not the legal cause of the crime
B:not guilty, because he did not have the mental state required for aiding and abetting
C:guilty, because he encouraged Alan, and his mistake as to the existence of a prior marriage is no defense to a charge of bigamy
D:guilty, because he was present when the crime occurred and is thus a principal in the second degree
|
#### B
|
Defendant was charged with murder. His principal defense was that he had killed in hot blood and should be guilty only of manslaughter. The judge instructed the jury that the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killing was presumed to be murder, and that the charge could bereduced to manslaughter, and Defendant accordingly found guilty of this lesser offense, if Defendant showed by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the killing was committed in the heat of passion on sudden provocation. Defendant was convicted of murder. On appeal, he seeks a new trial and claims error in the judge's instructions to the jury. Defendant's conviction will most probably be
A:affirmed, because the judge carefully advised the jury of the state's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
B:affirmed, because Defendant's burden to show hot blood was not one of ultimate persuasion but only one of producing evidence to rebut a legitimate presumption
C:reversed, because the instruction put a burden on Defendant which denied him due process of law
D:reversed, because presumptions have a highly prejudicial effect and thus cannot be used on behalf of the state in a criminal case
|
#### C
|
Darlene was arrested on a murder charge. She was given Miranda warnings and refused to talk further with the police. At trial, she testified in her own defense. She recounted in some detail her whereabouts on the day of the ci ime and explained why she could not have committed the crime. On cross-examination and over defense objection, the prosecution emphasized the fact that she did not tell the police this story following her arrest. The prosecution thereby suggested that her testimony was false. Defendant was convicted. On appeal, she claims error in the prosecutor's cross-examination. Her conviction will most probably be
A:affirmed, because defendant's silence at time of arrest is tantamount to a prior inconsistent statement, giving rise to an inference that the story was fabricated
B:affirmed, because defendant's silence was not used as direct evidence but only for impeachment, a purpose consistent with legitimate cross-examination
C:reversed, because post-arrest silence constituted defendant's exercise of her Miranda rights and use of that silence against her at trial violated due process
D:reversed, because to require the defense to acquaint the prosecution with defendant's testimony prior to trial would constitute unconstitutional pre-trial discovery
|
#### C
|
Alice was held up at the point of a gun, an unusual revolver with a red-painted barrel, while she was clerking in a neighborhood grocery store. Dennis is charged with armed robbery of Alice. The prosecutor calls Winthrop to testify that, a week after the robbery of Alice, he was robbed by Dennis with a pistol that had red paint on the barrel. Winthrop's testimony is
A:admissible as establishing an identifying circumstance
B:admissible as showing that Dennis was willing to commit robbery
C:inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence
D:inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
|
#### A
|
Maria is the owner and possessor of Goodacre, on which there is a lumber yard. Maria conveyed to Reliable Electric Company the right to construct and use an overhead electric line across Goodacre to serve other properties. The conveyance was in writing, but the writing made no provision concerning the responsibility for repair or maintenance of the line. Reliable installed the poles and erected the electric line in a proper and workmanlike manner. Neither Maria nor Reliable took any steps toward the maintenance or repair of the line after it was built. Neither party complained to the ocher about any failure to repair. Because of the failure to repair or properly maintain the line, it fell to the ground during a storm. In doing so, it caused a fire in the lumber yard and did considerable damage. Maria sued Reliable Electric Company to recover for damages to the lumber yard. The decision should be for
A:Maria, because the owner of an easement has a duty to so maintain the easement as to avoid unreasonable interference with the use of the servient tenement by its lawful possessor
B:Maria, because the owner of an easement is absolutely liable for any damage caused to the servient tenement by the exercise of the easement
C:Reliable Electric Company, because the possessor of the servient tenement has a duty to give the easement holder notice of defective conditions
D:Reliable Electric Company, because an easement holder's right to repair is a right for his own benefit, and is therefore inconsistent with any duty to repair for the benefit of another
|
#### A
|
Seth owned a vacant lot known as Richacre. Seth entered into a written contract with Bob to build a house of stated specifications on Richacre and to sell the house and lot to Bob. The contract provided for an "inside date" of April 1, 1977, and an "outside date" of May 1, 1977, for completion of the house and delivery of a deed. Neither party tendered performance on the dates stated. On May 3, 1977, Bob notified Seth in writing of Bob's election to cancel the contract because of Seth's failure to deliver title by May 1. On May 12, Seth notified Bob that some unanticipated construction difficulties had been encountered but that Seth was entitled to a reasonable time to complete in any event. The notification also included a promise that Seth would be ready to perform by May 29 and that he was setting that date as an adjourned closing date. Seth obtained a certificate of occupancy and appropriate documents of title, and he tendered performance on May 29. Bob refused. Seth brought an action to recover damages for breach of contract. The decision in the case will most likely be determined by whether
A:Seth acted with due diligence in completing the house
B:Bob can prove actual "undue hardship" caused by the delay
C:the expressions "inside date" and "outside date" are construed to make time of the essence
D:there Is a showing of good faith in Bob's efforts to terminate the contract
|
#### C
|
Metterly, the owner in fee simple of Brownacre by quitclaim deed conveyed Brownacre to her daughter, Doris, who paid no consideration for the conveyance. The deed was never recorded. About a year after the delivery of the deed, Metterly decided that this gift had been ill-advised, She requested that Doris destroy the deed, which Doris dutifully and voluntarily did. Within the month following the destruction of the deed, Metterly and Doris were killed in a common disaster. Each of the successors in interest claimed title to Brownacre. In an appropriate action to determine the title to Brownacre, the probable outcome will be that
A:Metterly was the owner of Brownacre, because Doris was a donee and therefore could not acquire title by quitclaim deed
B:Metterly was the owner of Brownacre, because title to Brownacre reverted to her upon the voluntary destruction of the deed by Doris
C:Doris was the owner of Brownacre, because her destruction of the deed to Brownacre was under the undue influence of Metterly
D:Doris was the owner of Brownacre, because the deed was merely evidence of her title, and its destruction was insufficient to cause title to pass back to Metterly
|
#### D
|
Motorist arranged to borrow his friend Owner's car to drive for one day while Motorist's car was being repaired. Owner knew that the brakes on his car were faulty and might fail in an emergency. Owner forgot to tell Motorist about the brakes when Motorist picked up the car, but Owner did telephone Spouse, Motorist's wife, and told her about them. Spouse, however, forgot to tell Motorist. Motorist was driving Owner's car at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit, with Spouse as passenger. Another car, driven by Cross, crossed in front of Motorist at an intersection and in violation of the traffic signal. Motorist tried to stop, but the brakes failed, and the two cars collided. If the brakes had been in proper working order, Motorist could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Motorist and Spouse were injured.
If Motorist asserts a claim against Cross, Motorist will
A:recover the full amount of his damages, because Motorist himself was not at fault
B:recover only a proportion of his damages, because Spouse was also at fault
C:not recover, because Spouse was negligent and a wife's negligence is imputed to her husband
D:not recover, because the failure of the brakes was the immediate cause of the collision
|
#### A
|
Motorist arranged to borrow his friend Owner's car to drive for one day while Motorist's car was being repaired. Owner knew that the brakes on his car were faulty and might fail in an emergency. Owner forgot to tell Motorist about the brakes when Motorist picked up the car, but Owner did telephone Spouse, Motorist's wife, and told her about them. Spouse, however, forgot to tell Motorist. Motorist was driving Owner's car at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit, with Spouse as passenger. Another car, driven by Cross, crossed in front of Motorist at an intersection and in violation of the traffic signal. Motorist tried to stop, but the brakes failed, and the two cars collided. If the brakes had been in proper working order, Motorist could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Motorist and Spouse were injured.
If the jurisdiction has adopted "pure" comparative negligence and Spouse asserts a claim against Cross, Spouse will
A:recover in full for her injuries, because Motorist, who was driving the car in which she was riding, was not himself at fault
B:recover a proportion of her damages based on the respective degrees of her negligence and that of Cross
C:not recover, because but for the failure of the brakes the collision would not have occurred
D:not recover, because she was negligent and her negligence continued until the moment of impact
|
#### B
|
Motorist arranged to borrow his friend Owner's car to drive for one day while Motorist's car was being repaired. Owner knew that the brakes on his car were faulty and might fail in an emergency. Owner forgot to tell Motorist about the brakes when Motorist picked up the car, but Owner did telephone Spouse, Motorist's wife, and told her about them. Spouse, however, forgot to tell Motorist. Motorist was driving Owner's car at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit, with Spouse as passenger. Another car, driven by Cross, crossed in front of Motorist at an intersection and in violation of the traffic signal. Motorist tried to stop, but the brakes failed, and the two cars collided. If the brakes had been in proper working order, Motorist could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Motorist and Spouse were injured.
If Motorist asserts a claim against Owner, will Motorist prevail?
A:Yes, in negligence, because Owner knew the brakes were faulty and failed to tell Motorist.
B:Yes, in strict liability in tort, because the car was defective and Owner lent it to Motorist.
C:No, because Owner was a gratuitous lender, and thus his duty of care was slight.
D:No, because the failure of Spouse to tell Motorist about the brakes was the cause in fact of Motorist's harm.
|
#### A
|
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of larceny?
A:Defendant took Sue's television set, with the intention of returning it the next day. However, he dropped it and damaged it beyond repair.
B:Defendant went into Tom's house and took $100 in the belief that Tom had damaged Defendant's car to that amount.
C:Mistakenly believing that larceny does not include the taking of a dog, Defendant took his neighbor's dog and sold it.
D:Unreasonably mistaking George's car for his own, Defendant got into George's car in a parking lot and drove it home.
|
#### C
|
Acting on an anonymous telephone call, police went to Desmond's apartment, knocked on the door, and demanded to search it for narcotics. When Desmond refused, the police forced the door open and placed him under arrest. As they were removing him from the apartment, Desmond offered to give the officers "valuable information" in exchange for his release. Before he could say anything else, Desmond was given Miranda warnings by the police. Thereafter he told the police that he had stored some heroin in his friend's apartment and that he and his friend had been going to sell it. The heroin was recovered, and Desmond was prosecuted for conspiracy to sell narcotics and for possession of narcotics. At his trial, Desmond moved to suppress his statements. Which of the following is Desmond's best argument in support of the motion to suppress?
A:Desmond is entitled to know the identity of his accuser, and the state cannot supply this information.
B:The police should have given Desmond Miranda warnings prior to entry into the apartment, and the warnings were ineffectual once Desmond offered to give the police information.
C:Desmond was intimidated by the forced entry into the apartment, and since the statements were involuntary and coerced, their use against him would violate due process of law.
D:The statements were fruits of an unlawful arrest, and though the Miranda warnings may have been sufficient to protect his right against self-incrimination, they were not sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest.
|
#### D
|
Kane, a member of the legislature of State, is prosecuted in federal court for a violation of the Federal Securities Act arising out of the activities of a state-owned corporation. Kane's defense includes a claim that the alleged wrongful acts were committed in the course of legislative business and are immune from scrutiny.
Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument supporting Kane?
A:Because of doctrines of federalism, federal law generally cannot be applied to state legislators acting in the course of their official duties.
B:State legislators enjoy the protection of the speech and debate clause of the United States Constitution.
C:A federal court must follow state law respecting the scope of legislative immunity.
D:To apply the Federal Securities Act to state legislators would violate the due process clause.
|
#### A
|
Kane, a member of the legislature of State, is prosecuted in federal court for a violation of the Federal Securities Act arising out of the activities of a state-owned corporation. Kane's defense includes a claim that the alleged wrongful acts were committed in the course of legislative business and are immune from scrutiny.
Which of the following is the strongest argument against Kane's constitutional defense?
A:Congress has plenary power under the commerce clause.
B:Congress may impose liability on state legislators as a means of guaranteeing a republican form of government.
C:Congress does not significantly interfere with state government by applying this law to state legislators.
D:Congress may impose liability on state legislators by virtue of the necessary and proper clause.
|
#### C
|
By way of a gift, Pat executed a deed naming his daughter, Marian, as grantee. The deed contained descriptions as follows: (1) All of my land and dwelling known as 44 Main Street, Midtown, United States, being one acre. (2) All that part of my farm, being a square with 200foot sides, the southeast corner of which is in the north line of my neighbor, Julia Brown. The deed contained covenants of general warranty, quiet enjoyment, and right to convey. Pat handed the deed to Marian who immediately returned it to her father for safekeeping. Her father kept it in his safe deposit box. The deed was not recorded. The property at 44 Main Street covered 7/8 of an acre of land, had a dwelling and a garage situate thereon, and was subject to a right of way, described in prior deeds, in favor of Jack, a neighbor. Pat owned no other land on Main Street. Jack had not used the right of way for ten years and it was not visible on inspection of the property.
The description of 44 Main Street was
A:sufficient, because the discrepancy in area is not fatal
B:not sufficient, because it contained no metes and bounds
C:Not sufficient, because the acreage given was not correct
D:Not sufficient, because a deed purporting to convey more than a grantor owns is void ab initio
|
#### A
|
By way of a gift, Pat executed a deed naming his daughter, Marian, as grantee. The deed contained descriptions as follows: (1) All of my land and dwelling known as 44 Main Street, Midtown, United States, being one acre. (2) All that part of my farm, being a square with 200foot sides, the southeast corner of which is in the north line of my neighbor, Julia Brown. The deed contained covenants of general warranty, quiet enjoyment, and right to convey. Pat handed the deed to Marian who immediately returned it to her father for safekeeping. Her father kept it in his safe deposit box. The deed was not recorded. The property at 44 Main Street covered 7/8 of an acre of land, had a dwelling and a garage situate thereon, and was subject to a right of way, described in prior deeds, in favor of Jack, a neighbor. Pat owned no other land on Main Street. Jack had not used the right of way for ten years and it was not visible on inspection of the property.
The description of part of Pat's farm
A:is sufficient if consideration has been paid
B:is sufficient because no ambiguity therein appears on the face of the deed
C:could be enforced if the deed contained a covenant of seisin
D:is insufficient because of vagueness
|
#### D
|
Questions 3-4 are based on the following statute. VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER. Whoever in the course of driving a motor vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code is criminally negligent in driving such vehicle or omits to do anything that is his duty to do and shows a wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of other persons and as a result of such act or omission causes the death of a human being is guilty of vehicular manslaughter. Vehicular manslaughter is punishable by a sentence of not more than 10 years in the state prison or not more than one year in the county jail.
Defendant, driving along at a reasonable rate of speed, was distracted by a child carrying a silver balloon. He went through a boulevard stop light and hit and killed a pedestrian. He is charged with vehicular manslaughter. Of the following proposed definitions of criminal negligence, which is most favorable to the defendant?
A:Criminal negligence is something more than the slight negligence necessary to support a civil action for damages. It means disregard for the consequences of the act and indifference to rights of others.
B:Any person who drives a motor vehicle should realize the danger to others. If he fails to respond to surrounding circumstances, he is criminally negligent. Criminal negligence involves reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others.
C:To find the defendant guilty of criminal negligence, the jury must find as a fact that he intentionally did something he should not have done or intentionally failed to do something which he should have done under circumstances that demonstrate a conscious disregard of a known danger that his conduct would produce the result which it did produce.
D:Criminal negligence is something more than the slight negligence usually required for tort liability. It is something less than the wanton misconduct required for civil liability under the guest statute. It is, of course, conduct that demonstrates something less than the abandoned and malignant heart required for murder.
|
#### C
|
Questions 3-4 are based on the following statute. VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER. Whoever in the course of driving a motor vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code is criminally negligent in driving such vehicle or omits to do anything that is his duty to do and shows a wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of other persons and as a result of such act or omission causes the death of a human being is guilty of vehicular manslaughter. Vehicular manslaughter is punishable by a sentence of not more than 10 years in the state prison or not more than one year in the county jail.
In a particular jurisdiction there are no statutory standards for the amount of alcohol required to be in the blood to create a presumption that a person is under the influence of alcohol. Defendant, an alcoholic, while driving his motor vehicle, collided with another vehicle. A passenger was killed. Defendant is charged with vehicular manslaughter. Experts will testify that a person with blood alcohol of 0.00 to 0.05 per cent is not under the influence. From 0.05 to 0.10 per cent he may be under the influence. Most of those with 0.10 to 0.15 per cent are under the influence. All of those with over 0.15 per cent are under the influence. Defendant consented to and was given a blood alcohol test 60 minutes after the accident. The test showed 0.11 per cent alcohol. Of the following, what is Defendant's most appropriate argument to the jury?
A:Assuming the jury finds that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, they cannot convict him if he lacked the capacity to have the mental state of criminal negligence.
B:The results of the blood tests were improperly admitted in evidence because there are no statutory standards for the interpretation of such tests.
C:The blood test should merely be one factor in the jury's determination along with such things as the police officers' opinion as to sobriety.
D:AnN statute which makes it a crime to kill someone while under the influence of alcohol is unconstitutional: alcoholism is a disease and cannot be punished any more than narcotic addiction.
|
#### C
|
Dann, who was charged with the crime of assaulting Smith, admitted striking Smith but claimed to have acted in self-defense when he was attacked by Smith, who was drunk and belligerent after a football game.
Dann offered testimony of Employer, that he had known and employed Dann for twelve years and knew Dann's reputation among the people with whom he lived and worked to be that of a peaceful, law-abiding, nonviolent person. The trial judge should rule this testimony
A:admissible, because relevant to show the improbability of Dann's having committed an unprovoked assault
B:admissible, because relevant to a determination of the extent of punishment if Dann is convicted
C:not admissible, because whether Dann is normally a person of good character is irrelevant to the specific charge
D:not admissible, because irrevelant without a showing that Employer was one of the persons among whom Dann lived and worked
|
#### A
|
Dann, who was charged with the crime of assaulting Smith, admitted striking Smith but claimed to have acted in self-defense when he was attacked by Smith, who was drunk and belligerent after a football game.
On cross-examination of Employer (Dann's), the state's attorney asked Employer if he had heard that Dann often engaged in fights and brawls. The trial judge should rule the question
A:not objectionable, because evidence of Dann's previous fights and brawls may be used to prove his guilt
B:not objectionable, because it tests Employer's knowledge of Dann 's reputation
C:objectionable, because it seeks to put into evidence separate, unrelated offenses
D:Objectionable, because no specific time or incidents are specified and inquired about
|
#### B
|
Dann, who was charged with the crime of assaulting Smith, admitted striking Smith but claimed to have acted in self-defense when he was attacked by Smith, who was drunk and belligerent after a football game.
Dann's friend Frank was called to testify that Smith had a reputation among the people with whom he lived and worked for lawbreaking and frequently engaging in brawls. The trial judge should rule the testimony
A:admissible to support Dann's theory of self-defense, touching on whether Dann or Smith was the aggressor
B:admissible if Frank testifies further as to specific acts of misconduct on Smith's part of which Frank has personal knowledge
C:inadmissible on the question of Dann's guilt because Dann, not Smith, is on trial
D:inadmissible, because Frank failed to lay a proper foundation
|
#### A
|
Motorco is a manufacturer of motor vehicles. A federal regulation requires that all motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States be equipped with seat belts for each passenger and prescribes specifications for such belts. Motorco equipped all its cars with seat belts. It purchased all the bolts used in its seat belt assemblies from Boltco and it tested samples from each shipment received. Dunn purchased a motor vehicle manufactured by Motorco. While operating the car, with Price as a passenger in the front seat, Dunn collided with another vehicle. The collision was due solely to Dunn's negligence. Price had his seat belt fastened, but one of the bolts which anchored the belt to the frame broke. Price was thrown through the windshield, sustaining various injuries. Dunn, whose belt was fastened and held, was killed when, following the collision, the car went off the road, down an embankment, and overturned. Subsequent to the accident, tests of the bolt that broke showed metallurgical defects. Motorco's records showed that tests of samples from the shipment in which the defective bolt was received revealed no defective bolts.
If there is a guest law in the state where the accident happened, then in any action by Price against Motorco, that guest statute has which of the following effects?
A:It bars recovery by Price.
B:It bars recovery by Price unless he can prove that Dunn was guilty of more than ordinary negligence.
C:It bars recovery by Price unless he can prove that Motorco was guilty of more than ordi. nary negligence.
D:It is not relevant.
|
#### D
|
Motorco is a manufacturer of motor vehicles. A federal regulation requires that all motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States be equipped with seat belts for each passenger and prescribes specifications for such belts. Motorco equipped all its cars with seat belts. It purchased all the bolts used in its seat belt assemblies from Boltco and it tested samples from each shipment received. Dunn purchased a motor vehicle manufactured by Motorco. While operating the car, with Price as a passenger in the front seat, Dunn collided with another vehicle. The collision was due solely to Dunn's negligence. Price had his seat belt fastened, but one of the bolts which anchored the belt to the frame broke. Price was thrown through the windshield, sustaining various injuries. Dunn, whose belt was fastened and held, was killed when, following the collision, the car went off the road, down an embankment, and overturned. Subsequent to the accident, tests of the bolt that broke showed metallurgical defects. Motorco's records showed that tests of samples from the shipment in which the defective bolt was received revealed no defective bolts.
In a negligence action by Price against Motorco, the proof needed to establish a prima facie case is
A:only that the bolt was defective
B:that the bolt was defective and had not been inspected by Motorco
C:that the bolt was defective, was inspected by Motorco, and the defect was not discovered
D:that the bolt was defective and the defect would have been discovered in Motorco had exercised reasonable care in the inspection of component parts
|
#### D
|
Motorco is a manufacturer of motor vehicles. A federal regulation requires that all motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States be equipped with seat belts for each passenger and prescribes specifications for such belts. Motorco equipped all its cars with seat belts. It purchased all the bolts used in its seat belt assemblies from Boltco and it tested samples from each shipment received. Dunn purchased a motor vehicle manufactured by Motorco. While operating the car, with Price as a passenger in the front seat, Dunn collided with another vehicle. The collision was due solely to Dunn's negligence. Price had his seat belt fastened, but one of the bolts which anchored the belt to the frame broke. Price was thrown through the windshield, sustaining various injuries. Dunn, whose belt was fastened and held, was killed when, following the collision, the car went off the road, down an embankment, and overturned. Subsequent to the accident, tests of the bolt that broke showed metallurgical defects. Motorco's records showed that tests of samples from the shipment in which the defective bolt was received revealed no defective bolts.
In a negligence action by Price against Motorco, the negligence of Dunn will be considered to be
A:within the risk created by the action of Motorco
B:the proximate cause of Price's injuries
C:the legal cause of Price's injuries
D:an independent, intervening cause of Price's injuries
|
#### A
|
Motorco is a manufacturer of motor vehicles. A federal regulation requires that all motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States be equipped with seat belts for each passenger and prescribes specifications for such belts. Motorco equipped all its cars with seat belts. It purchased all the bolts used in its seat belt assemblies from Boltco and it tested samples from each shipment received. Dunn purchased a motor vehicle manufactured by Motorco. While operating the car, with Price as a passenger in the front seat, Dunn collided with another vehicle. The collision was due solely to Dunn's negligence. Price had his seat belt fastened, but one of the bolts which anchored the belt to the frame broke. Price was thrown through the windshield, sustaining various injuries. Dunn, whose belt was fastened and held, was killed when, following the collision, the car went off the road, down an embankment, and overturned. Subsequent to the accident, tests of the bolt that broke showed metallurgical defects. Motorco's records showed that tests of samples from the shipment in which the defective bolt was received revealed no defective bolts.
In a negligence action by Price against Motorco, a defense that is likely to prevail is that
A:Motorco exercised due care in testing the bolts
B:Dunn's negligence was the legal cause of Price's injuries
C:Price was a passenger in Dunn's car
D:Boltco, as the manufacturer of the bolts, has the sole responsibility for any defects therein
|
#### A
|
Motorco is a manufacturer of motor vehicles. A federal regulation requires that all motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States be equipped with seat belts for each passenger and prescribes specifications for such belts. Motorco equipped all its cars with seat belts. It purchased all the bolts used in its seat belt assemblies from Boltco and it tested samples from each shipment received. Dunn purchased a motor vehicle manufactured by Motorco. While operating the car, with Price as a passenger in the front seat, Dunn collided with another vehicle. The collision was due solely to Dunn's negligence. Price had his seat belt fastened, but one of the bolts which anchored the belt to the frame broke. Price was thrown through the windshield, sustaining various injuries. Dunn, whose belt was fastened and held, was killed when, following the collision, the car went off the road, down an embankment, and overturned. Subsequent to the accident, tests of the bolt that broke showed metallurgical defects. Motorco's records showed that tests of samples from the shipment in which the defective bolt was received revealed no defective bolts.
In an action based on strict liability in tort by Price against Boltco, Price will rely principally on
A:rep ipsa loquitur
B:warranty
C:privity
D:the fact that one of the bolts anchoring his seat was defective
|
#### D
|
As part of a comprehensive federal aid-to-education program, Congress included the following provisions as conditions for state receipt of federal funds: (1) Whenever textbooks are provided to students without charge, they must include no religious instruction and must be made available on the same terms to students in all public and private schools accredited by the state educational authority. (2) Salary supplements can be paid to teachers in public and private schools, up to ten percent of existing salary schedules, where present compensation is less than the average salary for persons of comparable training and experience, provided that no such supplement is paid to any teacher who instructs in religious subjects. (3) Construction grants can be made toward the cost of physical plant at private colleges and universities, provided that no part of the ant is used for buildings in which instruction in religious subJect matters is offered.
Federal taxpayer Allen challenges the provision that allows the distribution of free textbooks to students in a private school where religious instruction is included in the curriculum. On the question of the adequacy of Allen's standing to raise the constitutional question, the most likely result is that standing will be
A:sustained, because any congressional spending authorization can be challenged by any taxpayer
B:sustained, because the challenge to the exercise of congressional spending power is based on a claimed violation of specific constitutional limitations on the exercise of such power
C:denied, because there is insufficient nexus between the taxpayer and the challenged expenditures
D:denied, because, in the case of private schools, no state action is involved
|
#### B
|
As part of a comprehensive federal aid-to-education program, Congress included the following provisions as conditions for state receipt of federal funds: (1) Whenever textbooks are provided to students without charge, they must include no religious instruction and must be made available on the same terms to students in all public and private schools accredited by the state educational authority. (2) Salary supplements can be paid to teachers in public and private schools, up to ten percent of existing salary schedules, where present compensation is less than the average salary for persons of comparable training and experience, provided that no such supplement is paid to any teacher who instructs in religious subjects. (3) Construction grants can be made toward the cost of physical plant at private colleges and universities, provided that no part of the ant is used for buildings in which instruction in religious subJect matters is offered.
Federal taxpayer Bates also challenges the salary supplements for teachers in private schools where religious instruction is included. in the curriculum. On the substantive constitutional issue, the most likely result is that the salary supplements will be
A:sustained, because the statute provides that no supplements will be made to teachers who are engaged in any religious instruction
B:sustained, because to distinguish between private and public school teachers would violate the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment
C:held unconstitutional, because some religions would benefit disproportionately
D:held unconstitutional, because the policing of the restriction would amount to an excessive entanglement with religion
|
#### D
|
As part of a comprehensive federal aid-to-education program, Congress included the following provisions as conditions for state receipt of federal funds: (1) Whenever textbooks are provided to students without charge, they must include no religious instruction and must be made available on the same terms to students in all public and private schools accredited by the state educational authority. (2) Salary supplements can be paid to teachers in public and private schools, up to ten percent of existing salary schedules, where present compensation is less than the average salary for persons of comparable training and experience, provided that no such supplement is paid to any teacher who instructs in religious subjects. (3) Construction grants can be made toward the cost of physical plant at private colleges and universities, provided that no part of the ant is used for buildings in which instruction in religious subJect matters is offered.
Federal taxpayer Bates also challenges the construction grants to church-operated private colleges and universities. The most likely result is that the construction grants will be
A:sustained, because aid to one aspect of an institution of higher education not shown to be pervasively sectarian does not necessarily free it to spend its other resources for religious purposes
B:sustained, because bricks and mortar do not aid religion in a way forbidden by the establishment clause of the First Amendment
C:held unconstitutional, because any financial aid to a church-operated school strengthens the religious purposes of the institution
D:held unconstitutional, because the grants involve or cause an excessive entanglement with religion
|
#### A
|
On November 1 the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school The faculty, seeking to encourage legal xesearch, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before next May 1. (The National Competition is conducted by an outside agency, unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was madvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything.
Assuming that the faculty's notice of November 1 was posted on a bulletin board or other conspicuous place commonly viewed by all persons in the law school, such notice constituted a
A:preliminary invitation to deal, analogous to newspaper advertisements for the sale of goods by merchants
B:contractual offer, creating a power of acceptance
C:preliminary invitation, because no offered was named therein
D:promise to make a conditional, future gift of money
|
#### B
|
On November 1 the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school The faculty, seeking to encourage legal xesearch, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before next May 1. (The National Competition is conducted by an outside agency, unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was madvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything.
As to Student, was the offer effectively revoked?
A:Yes, by the faculty's second notice
B:No, because it became irrevocable after a reasonable time had elapsed
C:No, because of Student's reliance, prior to April 1, on the offer
D:No, unless Student became aware of the April 1 posting and removal before submitting his paper
|
#### C
|
On November 1 the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school The faculty, seeking to encourage legal xesearch, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before next May 1. (The National Competition is conducted by an outside agency, unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was madvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything.
The offer proposed a
A:unilateral contract only
B:bilateral contract only
C:Unilateral contract or bilateral contract. at the offeree's option
D:unilateral contract which ripened into a bilateral contract, binding on both parties, as soon as Student intensified his effort in response to the offer
|
#### A
|
On November 1 the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school The faculty, seeking to encourage legal xesearch, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before next May 1. (The National Competition is conducted by an outside agency, unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was madvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything.
The promise of the faculty on November 1 was
A:enforceable on principles of promissory estoppel
B:enforceable by Student's personal representative even if Student had been killed in an accident on April 16
C:not enforceable on policy grounds because it produced a noncommercial agreement between a student and his teachers, analogous to intramural family agreements and informal social commitments
D:not enforceable because Student, after entering the National Competition in October, was already under a duty to perform to the best of his ability
|
#### B
|
Owner held 500 acres in fee simple absolute. In 1960 Owner platted and obtained all required governmental approvals of two subdivisions of 200 acres each. In 1960 and 1961 commercial buildings and parking facilities were constructed on one,RoyalCenter, in accordance with the plans disclosed by the plat for each subdivision. Royal Center continues to be used for commercial purposes. The plat of the other, Royal Oaks, showed 250 lots, streets, and utility and drainage easements. All of the lots in Royal Oaks were conveyed during 1960 and 1961. The deeds contained provisions, expressly stated to be binding upon the grantee, his heirs and assigns, requiring the lots to be used only for single-family, residential purposes until 1985. The deeds expressly stated that these provisions were enforceable by the owner of any lot in the Royal Oaks subdivision. At all times since 1959, the 200 acres in Royal Center have been zoned for shopping center use, and the 200 acres in Royal Oaks have been zoned for residential use in a classification which permits both single-family and multiplefamily use.
In an appropriate attack upon the limitation to residential user by single families, if the evidence disclosed no fact in addition to those listed above, the most probable judicial resolution would be that
A:there is no enforceable restriction because judicial recognition constitutes state action which is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
B:there is no enforceable restriction because of Owner's conflict of interest in that he did not make the restriction applicable to the 100 acres he retains
C:the restriction in user set forth in the deeds will be enforced at the suit of any present owner of a lot in Royal Oaks residential subdivision
D:any user consistent with zoning will be permitted but that such users so permitted as are in conflict with the restrictions in the deeds will give rise to a right to damages from Owner or Owner's successor
|
#### C
|
Owner held 500 acres in fee simple absolute. In 1960 Owner platted and obtained all required governmental approvals of two subdivisions of 200 acres each. In 1960 and 1961 commercial buildings and parking facilities were constructed on one,RoyalCenter, in accordance with the plans disclosed by the plat for each subdivision. Royal Center continues to be used for commercial purposes. The plat of the other, Royal Oaks, showed 250 lots, streets, and utility and drainage easements. All of the lots in Royal Oaks were conveyed during 1960 and 1961. The deeds contained provisions, expressly stated to be binding upon the grantee, his heirs and assigns, requiring the lots to be used only for single-family, residential purposes until 1985. The deeds expressly stated that these provisions were enforceable by the owner of any lot in the Royal Oaks subdivision. At all times since 1959, the 200 acres in Royal Center have been zoned for shopping center use, and the 200 acres in Royal Oaks have been zoned for residential use in a classification which permits both single-family and multiplefamily use.
For this question only, assume that Owner now desires to open his remaining 100 acres as a residential subdivision of 125 lots (with appropriate streets, etc.). He has, as an essential element of his scheme, the feature that the restrictions should be identical with those he planned for the original Royal Oaks residential subdivision and, further, that lot owners in Royal Oaks should be able to enforce (by lawsuits) restrictions on the lots in the 100 acres. The zoning for the 100 acres is identical with that for the 200 acres of Royal Oaks residential subdivision. Which of the following best states the chance of success for his scheme?
A:He can restrict use only to the extent of that imposed by zoning (that is, to residential user by not more than four dwelling units per lot).
B:He cannot restrict the 100 acres to residential user because of the conflicting user for retail commercial purposes in the 200 acres comprising the shopping center.
C:He cannot impose any enforceable restriction to residential user only.
D:Any chance of success depends upon the 100 acres being considered by the courts as a part of a common development scheme which also includes the 200 acres of Royal Oaks.
|
#### D
|
A state accredits both public and private schools, licenses their teachers, and supplies textbooks on secular subjects to all such schools. Country School. house, a private school that offers elementary and secondary education in the state, denies admission to all non-Caucasians. In a suit to enjoin as unconstitutional the continued racially exclusionary admissions policy of the Country Schoolhouse, which of the fol., lowing is the strongest argument AGAINST the school?
A:Because education is a public function, the Country Schoolhouse may not discriminate on racial grounds.
B:The state is so involved in school regulation and support that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is applicable to the school.
C:The state is constitutionally obligated to eliminate segregation in all public and private educational institutions within the state.
D:Any school with teachers who are licensed by the state is forbidden to discriminate on racial grounds.
|
#### B
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.