| [ | |
| { | |
| "question": "In which of the following situations would Defendant's mistake most likely constitute a defense to the crime charged?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nIn which of the following situations would Defendant's mistake most likely constitute a defense to the crime charged?\n\n (A) A local ordinance forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 18 years of age. Relying on false identification, Defendant sells champagne to a 16-year-old high school student. Defendant is charged with illegal sale of alcoholic beverages.\n (B) Mistaking Defendant for a narcotics suspect, an undercover police officer attempts to arrest him. Defendant, unaware that the person who has grabbed him is an officer, hits him and knocks him unconscious. Defendant is charged with assault.\n (C) Defendant, aged 23, has sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old prostitute who tells Defendant that she is 18. Defendant is charged with the felony of statutory rape under a statute that makes sexual relations with a child under 16 a felony.\n (D) Relying on erroneous advice from his attorney that, if his wife has abandoned him for more than a year, he is free to marry, Defendant remarries and is subsequently charged with bigamy.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "Mistaking Defendant for a narcotics suspect, an undercover police officer attempts to arrest him. Defendant, unaware that the person who has grabbed him is an officer, hits him and knocks him unconscious. Defendant is charged with assault." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1017", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Dock had been the unsuccessful suitor of Mary, who had recently announced her engagement to Paul. Angered by her engagement, Dock sent Mary the following letter: \"I hope you know what you arc doing. The man you think you love wears women's clothes when at home. A Friend.\" The receipt of this letter caused Mary great emotional distress. She hysterically telephoned Paul. read him the letter, and told him that she was breaking their engagement. The contents of the letter were not revealed to others. Paul, who was a young attorney in the state attorney's office, suffered serious humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the broken engagement. If Paul asserts a claim against Dock based on defamation and it is proved that Dock's statement was true, such proof will be", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDock had been the unsuccessful suitor of Mary, who had recently announced her engagement to Paul. Angered by her engagement, Dock sent Mary the following letter: \"I hope you know what you arc doing. The man you think you love wears women's clothes when at home. A Friend.\" The receipt of this letter caused Mary great emotional distress. She hysterically telephoned Paul. read him the letter, and told him that she was breaking their engagement. The contents of the letter were not revealed to others. Paul, who was a young attorney in the state attorney's office, suffered serious humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the broken engagement. If Paul asserts a claim against Dock based on defamation and it is proved that Dock's statement was true, such proof will be\n\n (A) a defense by itself\n (B) a defense only if Dock was not actuated by malice\n (C) a defense only if Dock reasonably believed it to be true\n (D) no defense by itself\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "a defense by itself" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_102", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Suppose Sue's contract had called for the conveyance of 'a good and marketable title.\" Pursuant to that contract, Peg paid the purchase price and accepted a deed from Sue containing no covenants of title. Sue's title to the one acre subsequently proved defective and Peg was ejected by Opal. Peg sued Sue. Which of the following results is most likely?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nSue owned a five-acre tract of land, one acre of which had previously been owned by Opal, but to which Sue had acquired title by adverse possession. Sue contracted to convey the full five-acre tract to Peg, but the contract did not specify the quality of title Sue would convey. At closing, Peg refused the tendered deed and demanded return of her earnest money.\nSuppose Sue's contract had called for the conveyance of 'a good and marketable title.\" Pursuant to that contract, Peg paid the purchase price and accepted a deed from Sue containing no covenants of title. Sue's title to the one acre subsequently proved defective and Peg was ejected by Opal. Peg sued Sue. Which of the following results is most likely?\n\n (A) Peg will win because Sue's deed was fraudulent.\n (B) Peg will win because the terms of the deed control Sue's liability.\n (C) Sue will win because the terms of the deed control her liability.\n (D) Sue will win because the deed incorporates the terms of the contract.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "Sue will win because the terms of the deed control her liability." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_5", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "James and Mary Green were walking to their car one evening after having seen a movie. As they were passing a dark alleyway, Daves leaped out brandishing a gun. He pushed Mary against the wall of a nearby building, held the gun to her head, and demanded money from James. James handed over his cash. Daves grabbed the cash and ran away. Which of the following, listed in descending order of seriousness, is the most serious crime for which Daves may be convicted?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nJames and Mary Green were walking to their car one evening after having seen a movie. As they were passing a dark alleyway, Daves leaped out brandishing a gun. He pushed Mary against the wall of a nearby building, held the gun to her head, and demanded money from James. James handed over his cash. Daves grabbed the cash and ran away. Which of the following, listed in descending order of seriousness, is the most serious crime for which Daves may be convicted?\n\n (A) Robbery from James Green.\n (B) Larceny from James Green.\n (C) Assault on James and Mary Green.\n (D) Assault on Mary Green.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "Robbery from James Green." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_959", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "For this question only, assume the following facts. Amicusbank lent Bouquet $200,000 and Bouquet executed a written instrument providing that Amicusbank \"is entitled to collect the debt from my share of the profits, if any, under the Vintage-Bouquet contract\" Amicusbank gave prompt notice of this transaction to Vintage. If Vintage thereafter refuses to account for any profits to Amicusbank and Amicusbank sues Vintage for Bouquet's share of profits then realized, Vintage's strongest argument in defense is that", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nA written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $1,000,000 in Vintage for its capital expansion and, in return, that Vintage, from grapes grown in its famous vineyards, would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under the label \"Premium Vintage-Bouquet' The contract included provisions that the parties would share equally the profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by Vintage only through Claret, a wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither Bouquet nor Vintage had previously dealt with Claret. Claret learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility.\nFor this question only, assume the following facts. Amicusbank lent Bouquet $200,000 and Bouquet executed a written instrument providing that Amicusbank \"is entitled to collect the debt from my share of the profits, if any, under the Vintage-Bouquet contract\" Amicusbank gave prompt notice of this transaction to Vintage. If Vintage thereafter refuses to account for any profits to Amicusbank and Amicusbank sues Vintage for Bouquet's share of profits then realized, Vintage's strongest argument in defense is that\n\n (A) the Bouquet-Vintage contract did not expressly authorize an assignment of rights\n (B) Bouquet and Vintage are partners, not simply debtor and creditor\n (C) Amicusbank is not an assignee of Bouquet's rights under the Bouquet-Vintage contract\n (D) Amicusbank is not an intended third-party beneficiary of the Bouquet-Vintage contract\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "Amicusbank is not an assignee of Bouquet's rights under the Bouquet-Vintage contract" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_484", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "The prosecutor offers the testimony of a bartender that when he saw the money in Miller's wallet, he said, \"You must have robbed a bank,\" to which Miller made no reply. This evidence is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nMiller is tried for armed robbery of the First Bank of City.\nThe prosecutor offers the testimony of a bartender that when he saw the money in Miller's wallet, he said, \"You must have robbed a bank,\" to which Miller made no reply. This evidence is\n\n (A) admissible to prove that Miller's conduct caused the bartender to believe that Miller robbed the bank\n (B) admissible as a statement made in the presence of the defendant\n (C) inadmissible, because it would violate Miller's privilege against self-incrimination\n (D) inadmissible, because Miller had no reason to respond to the bartender's statement\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "inadmissible, because Miller had no reason to respond to the bartender's statement" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_279", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "In a trial to a jury, Owner proved that Power Company's negligent maintenance of a transformer caused a fire that destroyed his restaurant. The jury returned a verdict for Owner in the amount of $450,000 for property loss and $500,000 for emotional distress. The trial judge entered judgment in those amounts. Power Company appealed that part of the judgment awarding $500,000 for emotional distress. On appeal, the judgment should be", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nIn a trial to a jury, Owner proved that Power Company's negligent maintenance of a transformer caused a fire that destroyed his restaurant. The jury returned a verdict for Owner in the amount of $450,000 for property loss and $500,000 for emotional distress. The trial judge entered judgment in those amounts. Power Company appealed that part of the judgment awarding $500,000 for emotional distress. On appeal, the judgment should be\n\n (A) affirmed, because Power Company negligently caused Owner's emotional distress.\n (B) affirmed, because harm arising from emotional distress is as real as harm caused by physical impact.\n (C) reversed, because the law does not recognize a claim for emotional distress incident to negligently caused property loss.\n (D) reversed, unless the jury found that Owner suffered physical harm as a consequence of the emotional distress caused by his property loss.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "reversed, because the law does not recognize a claim for emotional distress incident to negligently caused property loss." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1080", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "A federal statute prohibits the sale or resale, in any place in this country, of any product intended for human consumption or ingestion into the human body that contains designated chemicals known to cause cancer, unless the product is clearly labeled as dangerous. The constitutionality of this federal statute may most easily be justified on the basis of the power of Congress to", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nA federal statute prohibits the sale or resale, in any place in this country, of any product intended for human consumption or ingestion into the human body that contains designated chemicals known to cause cancer, unless the product is clearly labeled as dangerous. The constitutionality of this federal statute may most easily be justified on the basis of the power of Congress to\n\n (A) regulate commerce among the states.\n (B) enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.\n (C) provide for the general welfare.\n (D) promote science and the useful arts.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "regulate commerce among the states." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_579", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "For this question only, assume that soon after the sale, Aberlone won three races and earned $400,000 for Sherwood. Which of the following additional facts, if established by Walker, would best support his chance of obtaining rescission of the sale to Sherwood?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nWalker, who knew nothing about horses, inherited Aberlone, a thoroughbred colt whose disagreeable behavior made him a pest around the barn. Walker sold the colt for $1,500 to Sherwood, an experienced racehorse-trainer who knew of Walker's ignorance about horses. At the time of sale, Walker said to Sherwood, \"I hate to say it, but this horse is bad-tempered and nothing special.\"\nFor this question only, assume that soon after the sale, Aberlone won three races and earned $400,000 for Sherwood. Which of the following additional facts, if established by Walker, would best support his chance of obtaining rescission of the sale to Sherwood?\n\n (A) Walker did not know until after the sale that Sherwood was an experienced racehorse-trainer.\n (B) At a pre-sale exercise session of which Sherwood knew that Walker was not aware, Sherwood clocked Aberlone in record-setting time, far surpassing any previous performance.\n (C) Aberlone was the only thoroughbred that Walker owned, and Walker did not know how to evaluate young and untested racehorses.\n (D) At the time of the sale, Walker was angry and upset over an incident in which Aberlone had reared and thrown a rider.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "At a pre-sale exercise session of which Sherwood knew that Walker was not aware, Sherwood clocked Aberlone in record-setting time, far surpassing any previous performance." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_811", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "A burglar stole Collecta's impressionist painting valued at $400,000. Collecta, who had insured the painting for $300,000 with Artistic Insurance Co., promised to pay $25,000 to Snoop, a full-time investigator for Artistic, if he effected the return of the painting to her in good condition. By company rules, Artistic permits its investigators to accept and retain rewards from policyholders for the recovery of insured property. Snoop, by long and skillful detective work, recovered the picture and returned it undamaged to Collecta. If Collecta refuses to pay Snoop anything, and he sues her for $25,000, what is the probable result under the prevailing modern rule?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nA burglar stole Collecta's impressionist painting valued at $400,000. Collecta, who had insured the painting for $300,000 with Artistic Insurance Co., promised to pay $25,000 to Snoop, a full-time investigator for Artistic, if he effected the return of the painting to her in good condition. By company rules, Artistic permits its investigators to accept and retain rewards from policyholders for the recovery of insured property. Snoop, by long and skillful detective work, recovered the picture and returned it undamaged to Collecta. If Collecta refuses to pay Snoop anything, and he sues her for $25,000, what is the probable result under the prevailing modern rule?\n\n (A) Collecta wins, because Snoop owed Artistic a preexisting duty to recover the picture if possible.\n (B) Collecta wins, because Artistic, Snoop's employer, had a preexisting duty to return the recovered painting to Collecta.\n (C) Snoop wins, because Collecta will benefit more from return of the $400,000 painting than from receiving the $300,000 policy proceeds.\n (D) Snoop wins, because the preexisting duty rule does not apply if the promise's (Snoop's) duty was owed to a third person.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "Snoop wins, because the preexisting duty rule does not apply if the promise's (Snoop's) duty was owed to a third person." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_933", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "For this question only, assume the following facts. Soon after making its contract with Bouquet, Vintage, without Bouquet's knowledge or assent, sold its vineyards but not its winery to Agribiz, a large agricultural corporation. Under the terms of this sale, Agribiz agreed to sell to Vintage all grapes grown on the land for five years. Agribiz's employees have no experience in wine-grape production, and Agribiz has no reputation in the wine industry as a grape producer or otherwise. The Bouquet-Vintage contract was silent on the matter of Vintage's selling any or all of its business assets. If Bouquet seeks an appropriate judicial remedy against Vintage for entering into the Vintage-Agribiz transaction, is Bouquet likely to prevail?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nA written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $1,000,000 in Vintage for its capital expansion and, in return, that Vintage, from grapes grown in its famous vineyards, would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under the label \"Premium Vintage-Bouquet' The contract included provisions that the parties would share equally the profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by Vintage only through Claret, a wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither Bouquet nor Vintage had previously dealt with Claret. Claret learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility.\nFor this question only, assume the following facts. Soon after making its contract with Bouquet, Vintage, without Bouquet's knowledge or assent, sold its vineyards but not its winery to Agribiz, a large agricultural corporation. Under the terms of this sale, Agribiz agreed to sell to Vintage all grapes grown on the land for five years. Agribiz's employees have no experience in wine-grape production, and Agribiz has no reputation in the wine industry as a grape producer or otherwise. The Bouquet-Vintage contract was silent on the matter of Vintage's selling any or all of its business assets. If Bouquet seeks an appropriate judicial remedy against Vintage for entering into the Vintage-Agribiz transaction, is Bouquet likely to prevail?\n\n (A) Yes, because the Vintage-Agribiz transaction created a significant risk of diminishing the profits in which Bouquet would share under his contract with Vintage.\n (B) Yes, because the Bouquet-Vintage contract did not contain a provision authorizing a delegation of Vintage's duties.\n (C) No, because Vintage remains in a position to perform under the Bouquet-Vintage contract.\n (D) No, because Vintage, as a corporation, must necessarily perform its contracts by delegating duties to individuals.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "Yes, because the Vintage-Agribiz transaction created a significant risk of diminishing the profits in which Bouquet would share under his contract with Vintage." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_485", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "In an action brought by Bell to enjoin Ogden from erecting the apartment building in such a way as to obstruct the view from Bell's livingroom window, the decision should be for", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOgden was the fee simple owner of three adjoining vacant lots fronting on a common street in a primarily residential section of a city which had no zoning laws. The lots were identified as Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ogden conveyed Lot 1 to Akers and Lot 2 to Bell. Ogden retained Lot 3, which consisted of three acres of woodland. Bell, whose lot was between the other two, built a house on his lot. Bell's house included a large window on the side facing Lot 3. The window provided a beautiful view from Bell's living room, thereby adding value to Bell's house. Akers erected a house on his lot. Ogden made no complaint to either Akers or Bell concerning the houses they built. After both Akers and Bell had completed their houses, the two of them agreed to and did build a common driveway running from the street to the rear of their respective lots. The driveway was built on the line between the two houses so that one-half of the way was located on each lot. Akers and Bell exchanged right-ofway deeds by which each of them conveyed to the other, his heirs and assigns, an easement to continue the right of way. Both deeds were properly recorded. After Akers and Bell had lived in their respective houses for thirty years, a new public street was built bordering on the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3. Akers informed Bell that, since the new street removed the need for their common driveway, he considered the right-of-way terminated; therefore, he intended to discontinue its use and expected Bell to do the same. At about the same time, Ogden began the erection of a six-story apartment house on Lot 3. If the apartment house is completed, it will block the view from Bell's window and will substantially reduce the value of Bell's lot.\nIn an action brought by Bell to enjoin Ogden from erecting the apartment building in such a way as to obstruct the view from Bell's livingroom window, the decision should be for\n\n (A) Bell, because Ogden's proposed building would be an obstruction of Bell's natural right to an easement for light and air\n (B) Bell, because Bell was misled by Ogden's failure to complain when Bell was building his house\n (C) Ogden if, but only if, it can be shown that Ogden's intention to erect such a building was made known to Bell at or prior to the time of Ogden's conveyance to Bell\n (D) Ogden, because Bell has no easement for light, air, or view\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "Ogden, because Bell has no easement for light, air, or view" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_405", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Patten suffered from a serious, though not immediately life-threatening, impairment of his circulatory system. Patten's cardiologist recommended a cardiac bypass operation and referred Patten to Dr. Cutter. Cutter did not inform Patten of the 2% risk of death associated with this operation. Cutter defended his decision not to mention the risk statistics to Patten because \"Patten was a worrier and it would significantly lessen his chances of survival to be worried about the nonsurvival rate.\" Cutter successfully performed the bypass operation and Patten made a good recovery. However, when Patten learned of the 2% risk of death associated with the operation, he was furious that Cutter had failed to disclose this information to him. If Patten asserts a claim against Cutter based on negligence, will Patten prevail?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nPatten suffered from a serious, though not immediately life-threatening, impairment of his circulatory system. Patten's cardiologist recommended a cardiac bypass operation and referred Patten to Dr. Cutter. Cutter did not inform Patten of the 2% risk of death associated with this operation. Cutter defended his decision not to mention the risk statistics to Patten because \"Patten was a worrier and it would significantly lessen his chances of survival to be worried about the nonsurvival rate.\" Cutter successfully performed the bypass operation and Patten made a good recovery. However, when Patten learned of the 2% risk of death associated with the operation, he was furious that Cutter had failed to disclose this information to him. If Patten asserts a claim against Cutter based on negligence, will Patten prevail?\n\n (A) No, if Cutter used his best personal judgment in shielding Patten from the risk statistic.\n (B) No, because the operation was successful and Patten suffered no harm.\n (C) Yes, if Patten would have refused the operation had he been informed of the risk.\n (D) Yes, because a patient must be told the risk factor associated with a surgical procedure in order to give an informed consent.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "No, because the operation was successful and Patten suffered no harm." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_945", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Pedersen's counsel wishes to prove that after the accident Carr went to Pedersen and offered $1,000 to settle Pedersen's claim. The trial judge should rule this evidence", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nCarr ran into and injured Pedersen, a pedestrian. With Carr in his car were Wanda and Walter Passenger. Passerby saw the accident and called the police department, which sent Sheriff to investigate. All of these people are available as potential witnesses in the case of Pedersen v. Carr. Pedersen alleges that Carr, while drunk, struck Pedersen who was in a duly marked crosswalk.\nPedersen's counsel wishes to prove that after the accident Carr went to Pedersen and offered $1,000 to settle Pedersen's claim. The trial judge should rule this evidence\n\n (A) admissible as an admission of a party\n (B) admissible as an admission to show Carr's liability, provided the court gives a cautionary instruction that the statement should not be considered as bearing on the issue of damages\n (C) inadmissible since it is not relevant either to the question of liability or the question of damages\n (D) inadmissible because even though relevant and an admission, the policy of the law is to encourage settlement negotiations\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "inadmissible because even though relevant and an admission, the policy of the law is to encourage settlement negotiations" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_379", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Roberta Monk, a famous author, had a life insurance policy with Drummond Life Insurance Company. Her son, Peter, was beneficiary. Roberta disappeared from her residence in the city of Metropolis two years ago and has not been seen since. On the day that Roberta disappeared, Sky Airlines Flight 22 left Metropolis for Rio de Janeiro and vanished; the plane's passenger list included a Roberta Rector. Peter is now suing Drummond Life Insurance Company for the proceeds of his mother's policy. At trial, Peter offers to testify that his mother told him that she planned to write her next novel under the pen name of Roberta Rector. Peter's testimony is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nRoberta Monk, a famous author, had a life insurance policy with Drummond Life Insurance Company. Her son, Peter, was beneficiary. Roberta disappeared from her residence in the city of Metropolis two years ago and has not been seen since. On the day that Roberta disappeared, Sky Airlines Flight 22 left Metropolis for Rio de Janeiro and vanished; the plane's passenger list included a Roberta Rector. Peter is now suing Drummond Life Insurance Company for the proceeds of his mother's policy. At trial, Peter offers to testify that his mother told him that she planned to write her next novel under the pen name of Roberta Rector. Peter's testimony is\n\n (A) admissible as circumstantial evidence that Roberta Monk was on the plane.\n (B) admissible as a party admission, because Roberta and Peter Monk are in privity with each other.\n (C) inadmissible, because Roberta Monk has not been missing more than seven years.\n (D) inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "admissible as circumstantial evidence that Roberta Monk was on the plane." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_738", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "In an action brought by Bell to enjoin Akers from interfering with Bell's continued use of the common driveway between the two lots, the decision should be for", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOgden was the fee simple owner of three adjoining vacant lots fronting on a common street in a primarily residential section of a city which had no zoning laws. The lots were identified as Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ogden conveyed Lot 1 to Akers and Lot 2 to Bell. Ogden retained Lot 3, which consisted of three acres of woodland. Bell, whose lot was between the other two, built a house on his lot. Bell's house included a large window on the side facing Lot 3. The window provided a beautiful view from Bell's living room, thereby adding value to Bell's house. Akers erected a house on his lot. Ogden made no complaint to either Akers or Bell concerning the houses they built. After both Akers and Bell had completed their houses, the two of them agreed to and did build a common driveway running from the street to the rear of their respective lots. The driveway was built on the line between the two houses so that one-half of the way was located on each lot. Akers and Bell exchanged right-ofway deeds by which each of them conveyed to the other, his heirs and assigns, an easement to continue the right of way. Both deeds were properly recorded. After Akers and Bell had lived in their respective houses for thirty years, a new public street was built bordering on the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3. Akers informed Bell that, since the new street removed the need for their common driveway, he considered the right-of-way terminated; therefore, he intended to discontinue its use and expected Bell to do the same. At about the same time, Ogden began the erection of a six-story apartment house on Lot 3. If the apartment house is completed, it will block the view from Bell's window and will substantially reduce the value of Bell's lot.\nIn an action brought by Bell to enjoin Akers from interfering with Bell's continued use of the common driveway between the two lots, the decision should be for\n\n (A) Akers, because the termination of the necessity for the easement terminated the easement\n (B) Akers, because the continuation of the easement after the change of circumstances would adversely affect the marketability of both lots without adding any commensurate value to either\n (C) Bell, because an incorporeal hereditament lies in grant and cannot be terminated without a writing\n (D) Bell, because the removal of the need for the easement created by express grant does not affect the right to the easement\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "Bell, because the removal of the need for the easement created by express grant does not affect the right to the easement" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_404", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Plaintiff's estate sued Defendant Stores claiming that Guard, one of Defendant's security personnel, wrongfully shot and killed Plaintiff when Plaintiff fled after being accused of shoplifting. Guard was convicted of manslaughter for killing Plaintiff. At his criminal trial Guard, who was no longer working for Defendant, testified that Defendant's security director had instructed him to stop shoplifters \"at all costs.\" Because Guard's criminal conviction is on appeal, he refuses to testify at the civil trial. Plaintiff's estate then offers an authenticated transcript of Guard's criminal trial testimony concerning the instructions of Defendant's security director. This evidence is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nPlaintiff's estate sued Defendant Stores claiming that Guard, one of Defendant's security personnel, wrongfully shot and killed Plaintiff when Plaintiff fled after being accused of shoplifting. Guard was convicted of manslaughter for killing Plaintiff. At his criminal trial Guard, who was no longer working for Defendant, testified that Defendant's security director had instructed him to stop shoplifters \"at all costs.\" Because Guard's criminal conviction is on appeal, he refuses to testify at the civil trial. Plaintiff's estate then offers an authenticated transcript of Guard's criminal trial testimony concerning the instructions of Defendant's security director. This evidence is\n\n (A) admissible as a statement of an agent of a party-opponent.\n (B) admissible, because the instruction from the security director is not hearsay.\n (C) admissible, although hearsay, as former testimony.\n (D) inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1039", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "At the trial of Davis for a murder that occurred in Newtown, the prosecution called Waite, who testified that she saw Davis kill the victim. Davis believed that Waite was 600 miles away in Old Town, engaged in the illegal sale of narcotics, on the day in question. On cross-examination by Davis, Waite was asked whether she had in fact sold narcotics in Old Town on that date. Waite refused to answer on the ground of self-incrimination. The judge, over the prosecutor's objection, ordered that if Waite did not testify, her direct testimony should be stricken. The order to testify or have the testimony stricken can best be supported on the basis that", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAt the trial of Davis for a murder that occurred in Newtown, the prosecution called Waite, who testified that she saw Davis kill the victim. Davis believed that Waite was 600 miles away in Old Town, engaged in the illegal sale of narcotics, on the day in question. On cross-examination by Davis, Waite was asked whether she had in fact sold narcotics in Old Town on that date. Waite refused to answer on the ground of self-incrimination. The judge, over the prosecutor's objection, ordered that if Waite did not testify, her direct testimony should be stricken. The order to testify or have the testimony stricken can best be supported on the basis that\n\n (A) Waite had not been charged with any crime and, thus, could claim no privilege against self-incrimination\n (B) Waite's proper invocation of the privilege prevented adequate cross-examination\n (C) the public interest in allowing an accused to defend himself or herself outweighs the interest of a non-party witness in the privilege\n (D) the trial record, independent of testimony, does not establish that Waite's answer could incriminate her\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "Waite's proper invocation of the privilege prevented adequate cross-examination" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_407", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "In 1956, Silo Cement Company constructed a plant for manufacturing ready-mix concrete in Lakeville. At that time Silo was using bagged cement, which caused little or no dust. In 1970, Petrone bought a home approximately 1,800 feet from the Silo plant. One year ago, Silo stopped using bagged cement and began to receive cement in bulk shipments. Since then at least five truckloads of cement have passed Petrone's house daily. Cement blows off the trucks and into Petrone's house. When the cement arrives at the Silo plant, it is blown by forced air from the trucks into the storage bin. As a consequence cement dust fills the air surrounding the plant to a distance of 2,000 feet. Petrone's house is the only residence within 2,000 feet of the plant. If Petrone asserts a claim against Silo based on nuisance, will Petrone prevail?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nIn 1956, Silo Cement Company constructed a plant for manufacturing ready-mix concrete in Lakeville. At that time Silo was using bagged cement, which caused little or no dust. In 1970, Petrone bought a home approximately 1,800 feet from the Silo plant. One year ago, Silo stopped using bagged cement and began to receive cement in bulk shipments. Since then at least five truckloads of cement have passed Petrone's house daily. Cement blows off the trucks and into Petrone's house. When the cement arrives at the Silo plant, it is blown by forced air from the trucks into the storage bin. As a consequence cement dust fills the air surrounding the plant to a distance of 2,000 feet. Petrone's house is the only residence within 2,000 feet of the plant. If Petrone asserts a claim against Silo based on nuisance, will Petrone prevail?\n\n (A) Yes, unless using bagged cement would substantially increase Silo's costs.\n (B) Yes, if the cement dust interfered unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of Petrone's property.\n (C) No, because Silo is not required to change its industrial methods to accommodate the needs of one individual.\n (D) No, if Silo's methods are in conformity with those in general use in the industry.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "Yes, if the cement dust interfered unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of Petrone's property." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_533", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "The constitution of State X authorizes a fivemember state reapportionment board to redraw state legislative districts every ten years. In the last state legislative reapportionment, the board, by a unanimous vote, divided the greater Green metropolitan area, composed of Green City and several contiguous townships, into three equally populated state legislative districts. The result of that districting was that 40% of the area's total black population resided in one of those districts, 45% of the area's total black population resided in the second of those districts, and 15% resided in the third district. Jones is black, is a registered voter, and is a resident of Green City. Jones brings suit in an appropriate court against the members of the state reapportionment board, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would require the boundary lines of the state legislative districts in the greater Green metropolitan area to be redrawn. His only claim is that the current apportionment violates the Fifteenth Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it improperly dilutes the voting power of the blacks who reside in that area. If no federal statute is applicable, which of the following facts, if proven, would most strongly support the validity of the action of the state reapportionment board?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nThe constitution of State X authorizes a fivemember state reapportionment board to redraw state legislative districts every ten years. In the last state legislative reapportionment, the board, by a unanimous vote, divided the greater Green metropolitan area, composed of Green City and several contiguous townships, into three equally populated state legislative districts. The result of that districting was that 40% of the area's total black population resided in one of those districts, 45% of the area's total black population resided in the second of those districts, and 15% resided in the third district. Jones is black, is a registered voter, and is a resident of Green City. Jones brings suit in an appropriate court against the members of the state reapportionment board, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would require the boundary lines of the state legislative districts in the greater Green metropolitan area to be redrawn. His only claim is that the current apportionment violates the Fifteenth Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it improperly dilutes the voting power of the blacks who reside in that area. If no federal statute is applicable, which of the following facts, if proven, would most strongly support the validity of the action of the state reapportionment board?\n\n (A) In drawing the current district lines, the reapportionment board precisely complied with state constitutional requirements that state legislative districts be compact and follow political subdivision boundaries to the maximum extent feasible.\n (B) The reapportionment board was composed of three white members and two black members and both of the board's black members were satisfied that its plan did not improperly dilute the voting power of the blacks who reside in that area.\n (C) Although the rate of voter registration among blacks is below that of voter registration among whites in the greater Green metropolitan area, two black legislators have been elected from that area during the last 15 years.\n (D) The total black population of the greater Green metropolitan area amounts to only 15% of the population that is required to comprise a single legislative district.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "In drawing the current district lines, the reapportionment board precisely complied with state constitutional requirements that state legislative districts be compact and follow political subdivision boundaries to the maximum extent feasible." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_630", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "The legislature of the state of Chetopah enacted a statute requiring that all law enforcement officers in that state be citizens of the United States. Alien, lawfully admitted to permanent residency five years before the enactment of this statute, sought employment as a forensic pathologist in the Chetopah coroner's office. He was denied such a job solely because he was not a citizen. Alien thereupon brought suit in federal district court against appropriate Chetopah officials seeking to invalidate this citizenship requirement on federal constitutional grounds. The strongest ground upon which to attack this citizenship requirement is that it", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nThe legislature of the state of Chetopah enacted a statute requiring that all law enforcement officers in that state be citizens of the United States. Alien, lawfully admitted to permanent residency five years before the enactment of this statute, sought employment as a forensic pathologist in the Chetopah coroner's office. He was denied such a job solely because he was not a citizen. Alien thereupon brought suit in federal district court against appropriate Chetopah officials seeking to invalidate this citizenship requirement on federal constitutional grounds. The strongest ground upon which to attack this citizenship requirement is that it\n\n (A) constitutes an ex postfJacto law as to previously admitted aliens.\n (B) deprives an alien of a fundamental right to employment without the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.\n (C) denies an alien a right to employment in violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n (D) denies an alien the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "denies an alien the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_803", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Assume for this question only that the programs completed on July 5 had cut processing time by one-half for all of HDS's financial transactions. Is HDS entitled to renounce the contract because of Cl\"s delay in completion?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOn March 1, Computer Programs, Inc. (CP) orally agreed with Holiday Department Store (HDS) to write a set of programs for HDS's computer and to coordinate the programs with HDS's billing methods. A subsequent memo, signed by both parties, provided in its entirety: HDS will pay CP $20,000 in two equal installments within one month of completion if CP is successful in shortening by one-half the processing time for the financial transactions now handled on HDS's Zenon 747 computer; CP to complete by July 1. This agreement may be amended only by a signed writing. On June 6, CP demanded $10,000, saying the job was one-half done. After HDS denied liability, the parties orally agreed that HDS should deposit $20,000 in escrow, pending completion to the satisfaction of HDS's computer systems manager. The escrow deposit was thereupon made. On July 5, CP completed the programs, having used an amount of time in which it could have earned $18,000 had it devoted that time to other jobs. Tests by CP and HDS's computer systems manager then showed that the computer programs, not being perfectly coordinated with HDS's billing methods, cut processing time by only 47%. They would, however, save HDS $12,000 a year. Further, if HDS would spend $5,000 to change its invoice preparation methods, as recommended by CP, the programs would cut processing time by a total of 58%, saving HDS another $8,000 a year. HDS's computer systems manager refused in good faith to certify satisfactory completion. HDS requested the escrow agent to return the $20,000 and asserted that nothing was owed to CP even though HDS continued to use the programs.\nAssume for this question only that the programs completed on July 5 had cut processing time by one-half for all of HDS's financial transactions. Is HDS entitled to renounce the contract because of Cl\"s delay in completion?\n\n (A) Yes, because \"CP to complete by July 1\" is an express condition,\n (B) Yes, because the doctrine of substantial performance does not apply to commercial contracts.\n (C) No, because both parties manifested an understanding that time was not of the essence.\n (D) No, because the contract did not contain a liquidated damages clause dealing with delay in completion.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "No, because both parties manifested an understanding that time was not of the essence." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_234", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "If Peterson brings an action, based on negligence, against Dora's mother, will Peterson prevail?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDora, who was eight years old, went to the grocery store with her mother. Dora pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. Dora's mother remained near Dora at all times. Peterson, another customer in the store, noticed Dora pushing the cart in a manner that caused Peterson no concern. A short time later, the cart Dora was pushing struck Peterson in the knee, inflicting serious injury.\nIf Peterson brings an action, based on negligence, against Dora's mother, will Peterson prevail?\n\n (A) Yes, if Dora was negligent.\n (B) Yes, because Dora's mother is responsible for any harm caused by Dora.\n (C) Yes, because Dora's mother assumed the risk of her child's actions.\n (D) Yes, if Dora's mother did not adequately supervise Dora's actions.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "Yes, if Dora's mother did not adequately supervise Dora's actions." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_622", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Deland operates a bank courier service that uses armored trucks to transport money and securities. One of Deland's armored trucks was parked illegally, too close to a street intersection. Pilcher, driving his car at an excessive speed, skidded into the armored truck while trying to make a turn. The truck was not damaged, but Pilcher was injured. Pilcher has brought an action against Deland to recover damages for his loss resulting from the accident. The jurisdiction follows a pure comparative negligence rule. In this action, Pilcher should recover", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDeland operates a bank courier service that uses armored trucks to transport money and securities. One of Deland's armored trucks was parked illegally, too close to a street intersection. Pilcher, driving his car at an excessive speed, skidded into the armored truck while trying to make a turn. The truck was not damaged, but Pilcher was injured. Pilcher has brought an action against Deland to recover damages for his loss resulting from the accident. The jurisdiction follows a pure comparative negligence rule. In this action, Pilcher should recover\n\n (A) nothing, because Deland was not an active or efficient cause of Pilcher's loss.\n (B) nothing, if Deland was less negligent than Pilcher.\n (C) his entire loss, reduced by a percentage that reflects the negligence attributed to Pilcher.\n (D) his entire loss, because Deland's truck suffered no damage.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "his entire loss, reduced by a percentage that reflects the negligence attributed to Pilcher." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_709", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Assume for this question only that CP's delay in completion did not give HDS the right to renounce the contract and that the parties' escrow agreement was enforceable. Is CP entitled to recover damages for breach of the contract?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOn March 1, Computer Programs, Inc. (CP) orally agreed with Holiday Department Store (HDS) to write a set of programs for HDS's computer and to coordinate the programs with HDS's billing methods. A subsequent memo, signed by both parties, provided in its entirety: HDS will pay CP $20,000 in two equal installments within one month of completion if CP is successful in shortening by one-half the processing time for the financial transactions now handled on HDS's Zenon 747 computer; CP to complete by July 1. This agreement may be amended only by a signed writing. On June 6, CP demanded $10,000, saying the job was one-half done. After HDS denied liability, the parties orally agreed that HDS should deposit $20,000 in escrow, pending completion to the satisfaction of HDS's computer systems manager. The escrow deposit was thereupon made. On July 5, CP completed the programs, having used an amount of time in which it could have earned $18,000 had it devoted that time to other jobs. Tests by CP and HDS's computer systems manager then showed that the computer programs, not being perfectly coordinated with HDS's billing methods, cut processing time by only 47%. They would, however, save HDS $12,000 a year. Further, if HDS would spend $5,000 to change its invoice preparation methods, as recommended by CP, the programs would cut processing time by a total of 58%, saving HDS another $8,000 a year. HDS's computer systems manager refused in good faith to certify satisfactory completion. HDS requested the escrow agent to return the $20,000 and asserted that nothing was owed to CP even though HDS continued to use the programs.\nAssume for this question only that CP's delay in completion did not give HDS the right to renounce the contract and that the parties' escrow agreement was enforceable. Is CP entitled to recover damages for breach of the contract?\n\n (A) Yes, because CP had substantially performed.\n (B) Yes, because the programs would save HDS $12,000 a year.\n (C) No, because shortening the processing time by one-half was an express condition subsequent.\n (D) No, because HDS's computer systems manager did not certify satisfactory completion of the programs.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "No, because HDS's computer systems manager did not certify satisfactory completion of the programs." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_235", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Dever was indicted for the murder of Vickers by poison. At trial, the prosecutor calls the county coroner, Dr. Wolfe, who is a board-certified pathologist, to testify that, in accord with good practice in her specialty, she has studied microphotographic slides, made under her supervision by medical assistants, of tissue taken from Vickers' corpse and that it is Wolfe's opinion, based on that study, that Vickers died of poisoning. The slides have not been offered in evidence. Dr. Wolfe's opinion should be", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDever was indicted for the murder of Vickers by poison. At trial, the prosecutor calls the county coroner, Dr. Wolfe, who is a board-certified pathologist, to testify that, in accord with good practice in her specialty, she has studied microphotographic slides, made under her supervision by medical assistants, of tissue taken from Vickers' corpse and that it is Wolfe's opinion, based on that study, that Vickers died of poisoning. The slides have not been offered in evidence. Dr. Wolfe's opinion should be\n\n (A) excluded, because the cause ofdeathis a critical issue to be decided by the trier of fact\n (B) excluded, because her opinion is based on facts not in evidence\n (C) admitted, because Wolfe followed accepted medical practice in arriving at her opinion\n (D) admitted, because her opinion is based on matters observed pursuant to a duty imposed by law\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "admitted, because Wolfe followed accepted medical practice in arriving at her opinion" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_406", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "After Orris's conveyance to Powell, title to the earthen dam was in", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOrris had title to Brownacre in fee simple. Without Orris' knowledge, Hull entered Brownacre in 1950 and constructed an earthen dam across a watercourse. The earthen dam trapped water that Hull used to water a herd of cattle he owned. After 12 years of possession of Brownacre, Hull gave possession of Brownacre to Burns. At the same time, Hull also purported to transfer his cattle and all his interests in the dam and water to Burns by a document that was sufficient as a bill of sale to transfer personal property but was insufficient as a deed to transfer real property. One year later, Burns entered into a lease with Orris to lease Brownacre for a period of five years. After the end of the five-year term of the lease, Burns remained on Brownacre for an additional three years and then left Brownacre. At that time Orris conveyed Brownacre by a quitclaim deed to Powell. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years.\nAfter Orris's conveyance to Powell, title to the earthen dam was in\n\n (A) the person who then held title to Brownacre in fee simple.\n (B) Burns, as purchaser of the dam under the bill of sale.\n (C) the person who then owned the water rights as an incident thereto.\n (D) Hull, as the builder of the dam.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "the person who then held title to Brownacre in fee simple." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_994", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Pat had been under the care of a cardiologist for three years prior to submitting to an elective operation that was performed by Surgeon. Two days thereafter, Pat suffered a stroke, resulting in a coma, caused by a blood clot that lodged in her brain. When it appeared that she had entered a permanent vegetative state, with no hope of recovery, the artificial life-support system that had been provided was withdrawn, and she died a few hours later. The withdrawal of artificial life support had been requested by her family, and duly approved by a court. Surgeon was not involved in that decision, or in its execution. The administrator of Pat's estate thereafter filed a wrongful death action against Surgeon, claiming that Surgeon was negligent in having failed to consult a cardiologist prior to the operation. At the trial the plaintiff offered evidence that accepted medical practice would require examination of the patient by a cardiologist prior to the type of operation that Surgeon performed. In this action, the plaintiff should", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nPat had been under the care of a cardiologist for three years prior to submitting to an elective operation that was performed by Surgeon. Two days thereafter, Pat suffered a stroke, resulting in a coma, caused by a blood clot that lodged in her brain. When it appeared that she had entered a permanent vegetative state, with no hope of recovery, the artificial life-support system that had been provided was withdrawn, and she died a few hours later. The withdrawal of artificial life support had been requested by her family, and duly approved by a court. Surgeon was not involved in that decision, or in its execution. The administrator of Pat's estate thereafter filed a wrongful death action against Surgeon, claiming that Surgeon was negligent in having failed to consult a cardiologist prior to the operation. At the trial the plaintiff offered evidence that accepted medical practice would require examination of the patient by a cardiologist prior to the type of operation that Surgeon performed. In this action, the plaintiff should\n\n (A) prevail, if Surgeon was negligent in failing to have Pat examined by a cardiologist prior to the operation.\n (B) prevail, if the blood clot that caused Pat's death was caused by the operation which Surgeon performed.\n (C) not prevail, absent evidence that a cardiologist, had one examined Pat before the operation, would probably have provided advice that would have changed the outcome.\n (D) not prevail, because Surgeon had nothing to do with the withdrawal of artificial life support, which was the cause of Pat's death.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "not prevail, absent evidence that a cardiologist, had one examined Pat before the operation, would probably have provided advice that would have changed the outcome." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1114", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "After Orris's conveyance to Powell, title to Brownacre was in", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOrris had title to Brownacre in fee simple. Without Orris' knowledge, Hull entered Brownacre in 1950 and constructed an earthen dam across a watercourse. The earthen dam trapped water that Hull used to water a herd of cattle he owned. After 12 years of possession of Brownacre, Hull gave possession of Brownacre to Burns. At the same time, Hull also purported to transfer his cattle and all his interests in the dam and water to Burns by a document that was sufficient as a bill of sale to transfer personal property but was insufficient as a deed to transfer real property. One year later, Burns entered into a lease with Orris to lease Brownacre for a period of five years. After the end of the five-year term of the lease, Burns remained on Brownacre for an additional three years and then left Brownacre. At that time Orris conveyed Brownacre by a quitclaim deed to Powell. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years.\nAfter Orris's conveyance to Powell, title to Brownacre was in\n\n (A) Hull.\n (B) Orris.\n (C) Burns.\n (D) Powell.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "Hull." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_993", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Henry hated Wanda, his former wife, for divorcing him and marrying John a short time thereafter. About a month after Wanda married John. Henry secretly entered Wanda and John's rented apartment during their absence by using a master key. Henry placed a microphone behind the bookstand in the bedroom of the apartment, drilled a hole in the nearby wall and poked the wires from the microphone through the hole into the space in the wall, with the result that the microphone appeared to be connected with wires going into the adjoining apartment. Actually, the microphone was not connected to anything. Henry anticipated that Wanda would discover the microphone in a few days and would be upset by the thought that someone had been listening to her conversations with John in their bedroom. Shortly thereafter, as he was putting a book on the stand, John noticed the wires behind the bookstand and discovered the hidden microphone. He then called Wanda and showed her the microphone and wires. Wanda fainted and, in falling, struck her head on the bookstand and suffered a mild concussion. The next day John telephone Henry and accused him of planting the microphone. Henry laughingly admitted it. Because of his concern about Wanda and his anger at Henry, John is emotionally upset and unable to go to work. If Wanda asserts a claim against Henry based on infliction of mental distress, the fact that John was the person who showed her the microphone will", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nHenry hated Wanda, his former wife, for divorcing him and marrying John a short time thereafter. About a month after Wanda married John. Henry secretly entered Wanda and John's rented apartment during their absence by using a master key. Henry placed a microphone behind the bookstand in the bedroom of the apartment, drilled a hole in the nearby wall and poked the wires from the microphone through the hole into the space in the wall, with the result that the microphone appeared to be connected with wires going into the adjoining apartment. Actually, the microphone was not connected to anything. Henry anticipated that Wanda would discover the microphone in a few days and would be upset by the thought that someone had been listening to her conversations with John in their bedroom. Shortly thereafter, as he was putting a book on the stand, John noticed the wires behind the bookstand and discovered the hidden microphone. He then called Wanda and showed her the microphone and wires. Wanda fainted and, in falling, struck her head on the bookstand and suffered a mild concussion. The next day John telephone Henry and accused him of planting the microphone. Henry laughingly admitted it. Because of his concern about Wanda and his anger at Henry, John is emotionally upset and unable to go to work. If Wanda asserts a claim against Henry based on infliction of mental distress, the fact that John was the person who showed her the microphone will\n\n (A) relieve Henry of liability, because John was careless in so doing\n (B) relieve Henry of liability, because John's conduct was the immediate cause of Wanda's harm\n (C) not relieve Henry of liability, because Henry's goal was achieved\n (D) not relieve Henry of liability, because the conduct of a third person is irrelevant in emotional distress cases\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "not relieve Henry of liability, because Henry's goal was achieved" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_81", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "If Peterson brings an action, based on negligence, against Dora, Dora's best argument in defense would be that", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDora, who was eight years old, went to the grocery store with her mother. Dora pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. Dora's mother remained near Dora at all times. Peterson, another customer in the store, noticed Dora pushing the cart in a manner that caused Peterson no concern. A short time later, the cart Dora was pushing struck Peterson in the knee, inflicting serious injury.\nIf Peterson brings an action, based on negligence, against Dora, Dora's best argument in defense would be that\n\n (A) Dora exercised care commensurate with her age, intelligence, and experience.\n (B) Dora is not subject to tort liability.\n (C) Dora was subject to parental supervision.\n (D) Peterson assumed the risk that Dora might hit Peterson with the cart.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "Dora exercised care commensurate with her age, intelligence, and experience." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_623", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Trawf, the manager of a state fair, contracted with Schweinebauch, a renowned hog breeder, to exhibit Schweinebauch's world champion animal, Megahawg, for the three weeks of the annual fair, at the conclusion of which Schweinebauch would receive an honorarium of $300. Two days before the opening of the fair, Megahawg took sick with boarsitis, a communicable disease among swine, and, under the applicable state quarantine law, very probably could not be exhibited for at least a month. Upon learning this, Trawf can legally pursue which of the following courses of action with respect to his contract with Schweinebauch?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nTrawf, the manager of a state fair, contracted with Schweinebauch, a renowned hog breeder, to exhibit Schweinebauch's world champion animal, Megahawg, for the three weeks of the annual fair, at the conclusion of which Schweinebauch would receive an honorarium of $300. Two days before the opening of the fair, Megahawg took sick with boarsitis, a communicable disease among swine, and, under the applicable state quarantine law, very probably could not be exhibited for at least a month. Upon learning this, Trawf can legally pursue which of the following courses of action with respect to his contract with Schweinebauch?\n\n (A) Suspend his own performance, demand assurances from Schweinebauch, and treat a failure by Schweinebauch to give them as an actionable repudiation.\n (B) Suspend his own performance and recover damages from Schweinebauch for breach of contract unless Schweinebauch at once supplies an undiseased hog of exhibition quality as a substitute for Megahawg.\n (C) Terminate his own performance and treat Megahawg's illness as discharging all remaining duties under the contract.\n (D) Terminate the contract, but only if he (Trawf) seeks promptly to obtain for the exhibit a suitable substitute for Megahawg from another hog owner.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "Terminate his own performance and treat Megahawg's illness as discharging all remaining duties under the contract." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_847", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "If the court concludes that the Tyres-County contract is an agreement by County to buy its tire requirements from Tyres, Tyres probably will", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nResponding to County's written advertisement for bids, Tyres was the successful bidder for the sale of tires to County for County's vehicles. Tyres and County entered into a signed, written agreement that specified, \"It is agreed that Tyres will deliver all tires required by this agreement to County, in accordance with the attached bid form and specifications, for a one-year period beginning September 1, 1990.\" Attached to the agreement was a copy of the bid form and specifications. In the written advertisement to which Tyres had responded, but not in the bid form, County had stated, \"Multiple awards may be issued if they are in the best interests of County.\" No definite quantity of tires to be bought by County from Tyres was specified in any of these documents. In January 1991, Tyres learned that County was buying some of its tires from one of Tyres's competitors. Contending that the Tyres-County agreement was a requirements contract, Tyres sued County for the damages caused by County's buying some of its tires from the competitor.\nIf the court concludes that the Tyres-County contract is an agreement by County to buy its tire requirements from Tyres, Tyres probably will\n\n (A) recover under the contracts clause of the United States Constitution.\n (B) recover under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code.\n (C) not recover, because the agreement lacks mutuality of obligation.\n (D) not recover, because the agreement is indefinite as to quantity.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "recover under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_767", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Leader is a labor leader in Metropolis. Ten years ago he was divorced. Both he and his first wife have since married other persons. Recently, News, a newspaper in another city, ran a feature article on improper influences it asserted had been used by labor officials to secure favorable rulings from government officials. The story said that in 1960 Leader's first wife, with Leader's knowledge and concurrence, gave sexual favors to the mayor of Metropolis and then persuaded him to grant concessions to Leader's union, with which Metropolis was then negotiating a labor contract. The story named Leader and identified his first wife by her former and current surnames. The reporter for News believed the story to be true, since it had been related to him by two very reliable sources. Leader's first wife suffered emotional distress and became very depressed. If she asserts a claim based on defamation against News, she will", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nLeader is a labor leader in Metropolis. Ten years ago he was divorced. Both he and his first wife have since married other persons. Recently, News, a newspaper in another city, ran a feature article on improper influences it asserted had been used by labor officials to secure favorable rulings from government officials. The story said that in 1960 Leader's first wife, with Leader's knowledge and concurrence, gave sexual favors to the mayor of Metropolis and then persuaded him to grant concessions to Leader's union, with which Metropolis was then negotiating a labor contract. The story named Leader and identified his first wife by her former and current surnames. The reporter for News believed the story to be true, since it had been related to him by two very reliable sources. Leader's first wife suffered emotional distress and became very depressed. If she asserts a claim based on defamation against News, she will\n\n (A) prevail, because the story concerned her personal, private life\n (B) prevail if the story was false\n (C) not prevail, because News did not print the story with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity\n (D) not prevail if News exercised ordinary care in determining whether the story was true or false\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "not prevail if News exercised ordinary care in determining whether the story was true or false" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_225", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "If Vintage refuses to distribute the wine through Claret and Claret then sues Vintage for breach of contract, is it likely that Claret will prevail?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nA written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $1,000,000 in Vintage for its capital expansion and, in return, that Vintage, from grapes grown in its famous vineyards, would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under the label \"Premium Vintage-Bouquet' The contract included provisions that the parties would share equally the profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by Vintage only through Claret, a wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither Bouquet nor Vintage had previously dealt with Claret. Claret learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility.\nIf Vintage refuses to distribute the wine through Claret and Claret then sues Vintage for breach of contract, is it likely that Claret will prevail?\n\n (A) Yes, because Vintage's performance was to run to Claret rather than to Bouquet.\n (B) Yes, because Bouquet and Vintage could reasonably foresee that Claret would change his position in reliance on the contract.\n (C) No, because Bouquet and Vintage did not expressly agree that Claret would have enforceable rights under their contract.\n (D) No, because Bouquet and Vintage, having no apparent motive to benefit Claret, appeared in making the contract to have been protecting or serving only their own interests.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "No, because Bouquet and Vintage, having no apparent motive to benefit Claret, appeared in making the contract to have been protecting or serving only their own interests." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_483", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Six years ago, Oscar, owner of Blackacre in fee simple, executed and delivered to Albert an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed, purporting to convey Blackacre to \"Albert and his heirs.\" At that time, Albert was a widower who had one child, Donna. Three years ago, Albert executed and delivered to Bea an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed, purporting to convey Blackacre to \"Bea.\" Donna did not join in the deed. Bea was and still is unmarried and childless. The only possibly applicable statute in the jurisdiction states that any deed will be construed to convey the grantor's entire estate, unless expressly limited. Last month, Albert died, never having remarried. Donna is his only heir. Blackacre is now owned by", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nSix years ago, Oscar, owner of Blackacre in fee simple, executed and delivered to Albert an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed, purporting to convey Blackacre to \"Albert and his heirs.\" At that time, Albert was a widower who had one child, Donna. Three years ago, Albert executed and delivered to Bea an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed, purporting to convey Blackacre to \"Bea.\" Donna did not join in the deed. Bea was and still is unmarried and childless. The only possibly applicable statute in the jurisdiction states that any deed will be construed to convey the grantor's entire estate, unless expressly limited. Last month, Albert died, never having remarried. Donna is his only heir. Blackacre is now owned by\n\n (A) Donna, because Albert's death ended Bea's life estate pur autre vie.\n (B) Bea in fee simple pursuant to Albert's deed.\n (C) Donna and Bea as tenants in common of equal shares.\n (D) Donna and Bea as joint tenants, because both survived Albert.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "Bea in fee simple pursuant to Albert's deed." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1180", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "On January 15, Carpenter agreed to repair Householder's house according to certain specifications and to have the work completed by April 1. On March 1, Householder's property was inundated by flood waters which did not abate until March 15. Householder could not get the house in a condition which would permit Carpenter to begin the repairs until March 31. On that date Carpenter notified Householder that he would not repair the house. Which one of the following facts, if it was the only one true and known to both parties on January 15, would best serve Carpenter as the basis for a defense in an action brought against him by Householder for breach of contract?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOn January 15, Carpenter agreed to repair Householder's house according to certain specifications and to have the work completed by April 1. On March 1, Householder's property was inundated by flood waters which did not abate until March 15. Householder could not get the house in a condition which would permit Carpenter to begin the repairs until March 31. On that date Carpenter notified Householder that he would not repair the house. Which one of the following facts, if it was the only one true and known to both parties on January 15, would best serve Carpenter as the basis for a defense in an action brought against him by Householder for breach of contract?\n\n (A) Carpenter's busy schedule permitted him to work on Householder's house only during the month of March.\n (B) Any delay in making the repairs would not seriously affect Householder's use of the property.\n (C) The cost of making repairs was increasing at the rate of 3% a month.\n (D) The area around Householder's property was frequently flooded during the month of March.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "Carpenter's busy schedule permitted him to work on Householder's house only during the month of March." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_409", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Suppose that before closing, the house on the property had been totally destroyed by fire. In determining the rights of Sue and Peg, the court would most likely consider the doctrine of equitable", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nSue owned a five-acre tract of land, one acre of which had previously been owned by Opal, but to which Sue had acquired title by adverse possession. Sue contracted to convey the full five-acre tract to Peg, but the contract did not specify the quality of title Sue would convey. At closing, Peg refused the tendered deed and demanded return of her earnest money.\nSuppose that before closing, the house on the property had been totally destroyed by fire. In determining the rights of Sue and Peg, the court would most likely consider the doctrine of equitable\n\n (A) marshaling\n (B) sequestration\n (C) subrogation\n (D) conversion\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "conversion" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_6", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Defendant, an avid fan of his home town football team, shot at the leg ofa star playerfor a rival team, intending to injure his leg enough to hospitalize for a few weeks, but not to kill him. The victim died of loss of blood.", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nSelect from the choices (A-D) the most serious offense of which the defendant could be properly convicted.\nDefendant, an avid fan of his home town football team, shot at the leg ofa star playerfor a rival team, intending to injure his leg enough to hospitalize for a few weeks, but not to kill him. The victim died of loss of blood.\n\n (A) Involuntary manslaughter\n (B) Voluntary manslaughter\n (C) Murder\n (D) None of the above\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "Murder" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_130", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Assume for this question only that CP was in breach of contract because of its four-day delay in completion and that an express condition precedent to HDS's duty to pay the contract price has failed. Can CP nevertheless recover the reasonable value of its services?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOn March 1, Computer Programs, Inc. (CP) orally agreed with Holiday Department Store (HDS) to write a set of programs for HDS's computer and to coordinate the programs with HDS's billing methods. A subsequent memo, signed by both parties, provided in its entirety: HDS will pay CP $20,000 in two equal installments within one month of completion if CP is successful in shortening by one-half the processing time for the financial transactions now handled on HDS's Zenon 747 computer; CP to complete by July 1. This agreement may be amended only by a signed writing. On June 6, CP demanded $10,000, saying the job was one-half done. After HDS denied liability, the parties orally agreed that HDS should deposit $20,000 in escrow, pending completion to the satisfaction of HDS's computer systems manager. The escrow deposit was thereupon made. On July 5, CP completed the programs, having used an amount of time in which it could have earned $18,000 had it devoted that time to other jobs. Tests by CP and HDS's computer systems manager then showed that the computer programs, not being perfectly coordinated with HDS's billing methods, cut processing time by only 47%. They would, however, save HDS $12,000 a year. Further, if HDS would spend $5,000 to change its invoice preparation methods, as recommended by CP, the programs would cut processing time by a total of 58%, saving HDS another $8,000 a year. HDS's computer systems manager refused in good faith to certify satisfactory completion. HDS requested the escrow agent to return the $20,000 and asserted that nothing was owed to CP even though HDS continued to use the programs.\nAssume for this question only that CP was in breach of contract because of its four-day delay in completion and that an express condition precedent to HDS's duty to pay the contract price has failed. Can CP nevertheless recover the reasonable value of its services?\n\n (A) Yes, because continued use of the programs by HDS would save at least $12,000 a year.\n (B) Yes, because HDS was continuing to use programs created by CP for which, as HDS knew, CP expected to be paid.\n (C) No, because failure of an express condition precedent excused HDS from any duty to compensate CP.\n (D) No, because such a recovery by CP would be inconsistent with a claim by HOS against CP for breach of contract.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "Yes, because HDS was continuing to use programs created by CP for which, as HDS knew, CP expected to be paid." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_236", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Pratt sued Danvers for injuries suffered by Pratt when their automobiles collided. At trial, Pratt offers into evidence a properly authenticated letter from Danvers that says, \"Your claim seems too high, but, because I might have been a little negligent, I'm prepared to offer you half of what you ask\" The letter is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nPratt sued Danvers for injuries suffered by Pratt when their automobiles collided. At trial, Pratt offers into evidence a properly authenticated letter from Danvers that says, \"Your claim seems too high, but, because I might have been a little negligent, I'm prepared to offer you half of what you ask\" The letter is\n\n (A) admissible as an admission by a party-opponent\n (B) admissible as a statement against pecuniary interest\n (C) inadmissible, because Danver's statement is lay opinion on a legal issue\n (D) inadmissible, because Danver's statement was made in an effort to settle the claim\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "inadmissible, because Danver's statement was made in an effort to settle the claim" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_471", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Chase, as seller, and Scott, as buyer, enter into a written contract for the sale and purchase of land which is complete in all respects except that no reference is made to the quality of title to be conveyed. Which of the following will result?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nChase, as seller, and Scott, as buyer, enter into a written contract for the sale and purchase of land which is complete in all respects except that no reference is made to the quality of title to be conveyed. Which of the following will result?\n\n (A) The contract will be unenforceable.\n (B) Chase will be required to convey a marketable title.\n (C) Chase will be required to convey only what he owned on the date of the contract.\n (D) Chase will be required to convey only what he owned on the date of the contract plus whatever additional title rights he may acquire prior to the closing date.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "Chase will be required to convey a marketable title." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_385", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Which of the following statements concerning the order of performances is LEAST accurate?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAlpha and Beta made a written contract pursuant to which Alpha promised to convey a specified apartment house to Beta in return for Beta's promise (1) to convey a 100-acre farm to Alpha and (2) to pay Alpha $1,000 in cash six months after the exchange of the apartment house and the farm. The contract contained the following provision: \"It is understood and agreed that Beta's obligation to pay the $1,000 six months after the exchangeof the apartment house and the farm shall be voided if Alpha has not, within three months after the aforesaid exchange, removed the existing shed in the parking area in the rear of the said apartment house.\"\nWhich of the following statements concerning the order of performances is LEAST accurate?\n\n (A) Alpha's tendering of good title to the apartment house is a condition precedent to Beta's duty to convey good title to the farm.\n (B) Beta's tendering of good title to the farm is a condition precedent to Alpha's duty to convey good title to the apartment house.\n (C) Beta's tendering of good title to the farm is a condition subsequent to Alpha's duty to convey good title to the apartment house.\n (D) Alpha's tendering of good title to the apartment house and Beta's tendering of good title to the farm are concurrent conditions.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "Beta's tendering of good title to the farm is a condition subsequent to Alpha's duty to convey good title to the apartment house." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_137", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "For this question only, assume that a valid federal administrative rule, adopted under a federal consumer product safety act, regulates the design of snipe traps. The rule was issued to prevent traps from causing injury to human beings, e.g., by pinching fingers while persons were setting the traps. No other federal law applies. Which of the following best states the effect of the federal rule on the Midland state statute?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nThree states, East Winnetka, Midland, and West Hampton, are located next to one another in that order. The states of East Winnetka and West Hampton permit the hunting and trapping of snipe, but the state of Midland strictly forbids these activities in order to protect snipe, a rare species of animal, from extinction. The state of Midland has a state statute that provides, \"Possession of snipe traps is prohibited. Any game warden finding a snipe trap within the state shall seize and destroy it.\" Snipe traps cost about $15 each. Prentis is a resident of West Hampton and an ardent snipe trapper. She drove her car to East Winnetka to purchase a new improved snipe trap from a manufacturer there. In the course of her trip back across Midland with the trap in her car, Prentis stopped in a Midland state park to camp for a few nights. While she was in that park, a Midland game warden saw the trap, which was visible on the front seat of her car. The warden seized the trap and destroyed it in accordance with the Midland statute after Prentis admitted that the seized item was a prohibited snipe trap. No federal statutes or federal administrative regulations apply.\nFor this question only, assume that a valid federal administrative rule, adopted under a federal consumer product safety act, regulates the design of snipe traps. The rule was issued to prevent traps from causing injury to human beings, e.g., by pinching fingers while persons were setting the traps. No other federal law applies. Which of the following best states the effect of the federal rule on the Midland state statute?\n\n (A) The federal rule preempts the Midland state statute, because the federal rule regulates the same subject matter: snipe traps.\n (B) The federal rule preempts the Midland state statute, because the federal rule does not contain affirmative authorization for continued state regulation.\n (C) The federal rule does not preempt the Midland state statute, because the Midland state statute regulates wild animals, a field of exclusive state power.\n (D) The federal rule does not preempt the Midland state statute, because the purposes of the federal rule and the Midland state statute are different.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "The federal rule does not preempt the Midland state statute, because the purposes of the federal rule and the Midland state statute are different." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_992", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Which of the following best describes the constitutionality of the Attorney General's action?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nGreen is cited for contempt of the House of Representatives after she refused to answer certain questions posed by a House Committee concerning her acts while serving as a United States Ambassador. A federal statute authorizes the Attorney General to prosecute contempts of Congress. Pursuant to this law, the House directs the Attorney General to begin criminal proceedings against Green. A federal grand jury indicts Green, but the Attorney General refuses to sign the indictment.\nWhich of the following best describes the constitutionality of the Attorney General's action?\n\n (A) Illegal, because the Attorney General must prosecute if the House of Representatives directs\n (B) Illegal, because the Attorney General must prosecute those who violate federal law\n (C) Legal, because ambassadors are immune from prosecution for acts committed in the course of their duties\n (D) Legal, because the decision to prosecute is an exclusively executive act\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "Legal, because the decision to prosecute is an exclusively executive act" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_199", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "In a prosecution of Dale for murdering Vera, Dale testified that the killing had occurred in self defense when Vera tried to shoot him. In rebuttal, the prosecution seeks to call Walter, Vera's father, to testify that the day before the killing, Vera told Walter that she loved Dale so much she could never hurt him. Walter's testimony is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nIn a prosecution of Dale for murdering Vera, Dale testified that the killing had occurred in self defense when Vera tried to shoot him. In rebuttal, the prosecution seeks to call Walter, Vera's father, to testify that the day before the killing, Vera told Walter that she loved Dale so much she could never hurt him. Walter's testimony is\n\n (A) admissible within the hearsay exception for statements of the declarant's then existing state of mind.\n (B) admissible, because Vera is unavailable as a witness.\n (C) inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception.\n (D) inadmissible, because Vera's character is not an issue.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "admissible within the hearsay exception for statements of the declarant's then existing state of mind." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_722", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "If Peterson brings an action, based on negligence, against the grocery store, the store's best defense will be that", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDora, who was eight years old, went to the grocery store with her mother. Dora pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. Dora's mother remained near Dora at all times. Peterson, another customer in the store, noticed Dora pushing the cart in a manner that caused Peterson no concern. A short time later, the cart Dora was pushing struck Peterson in the knee, inflicting serious injury.\nIf Peterson brings an action, based on negligence, against the grocery store, the store's best defense will be that\n\n (A) a store owes no duty to its customers to control the use of its shopping carts.\n (B) a store owes no duty to its customers to control the conduct of other customers.\n (C) any negligence of the store was not the proximate cause of Peterson's injury.\n (D) a supervised child pushing a cart does not pose an unreasonable risk to other customers.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "a supervised child pushing a cart does not pose an unreasonable risk to other customers." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_621", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "The committee wants you to draft a statute governing the recording of deeds that fixes priorities of title, as reflected on the public record, as definitely as possible. Which of the following, divorced from other policy considerations, would best accomplish this particular result?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAssume for the purposes of these questions that you are counsel to the state legislative committee that is responsible for real estate laws in your state.\nThe committee wants you to draft a statute governing the recording of deeds that fixes priorities of title, as reflected on the public record, as definitely as possible. Which of the following, divorced from other policy considerations, would best accomplish this particular result?\n\n (A) Eliminate the requirement of witnesses to deeds.\n (B) Make time of recording the controlling factor.\n (C) Make irrebuttable the declarations in the deeds that valuable consideration was paid.\n (D) Make the protection of bona fide purchasers the controlling factor.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "Make time of recording the controlling factor." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_68", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Pedersen's counsel wants to introduce testimony of Sheriff that at the police station Carr told Sheriff, \"I think this was probably my fault.\" The trial judge should rule this testimony", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nCarr ran into and injured Pedersen, a pedestrian. With Carr in his car were Wanda and Walter Passenger. Passerby saw the accident and called the police department, which sent Sheriff to investigate. All of these people are available as potential witnesses in the case of Pedersen v. Carr. Pedersen alleges that Carr, while drunk, struck Pedersen who was in a duly marked crosswalk.\nPedersen's counsel wants to introduce testimony of Sheriff that at the police station Carr told Sheriff, \"I think this was probably my fault.\" The trial judge should rule this testimony\n\n (A) admissible as a part of the res gestae\n (B) admissible as an admission of a party\n (C) inadmissible because it includes a conclusion of law which the declarant was not qualified to make\n (D) inadmissible because it constitutes an opinion rather than an admission of specific facts\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "admissible as an admission of a party" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_378", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "A group of children, ranging in age from 8 to 15, regularly played football on the common area of an apartment complex owned by O'Neill. Most of the children lived in the apartment complex, but some lived elsewhere. O'Neill knew that the children played on the common area and had not objected. Peter, a 13-year-old who did not live in the apartment complex, fell over a sprinkler head while running for a pass and broke his leg. Although Peter had played football on the common area before, he had never noticed the sprinkler heads, which protruded one inch above the ground and were part of a permanently installed underground sprinkler system. If a claim is asserted on Peter's behalf, Peter will", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nA group of children, ranging in age from 8 to 15, regularly played football on the common area of an apartment complex owned by O'Neill. Most of the children lived in the apartment complex, but some lived elsewhere. O'Neill knew that the children played on the common area and had not objected. Peter, a 13-year-old who did not live in the apartment complex, fell over a sprinkler head while running for a pass and broke his leg. Although Peter had played football on the common area before, he had never noticed the sprinkler heads, which protruded one inch above the ground and were part of a permanently installed underground sprinkler system. If a claim is asserted on Peter's behalf, Peter will\n\n (A) prevail if the sprinkler head was a hazard that Peter probably would not discover\n (B) prevail, because O'Neill had not objected to children playing on the common area\n (C) not prevail, because Peter did not live in the apartment complex\n (D) not prevail unless the sprinkler heads were abnormally dangerous to users of the common area\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "prevail if the sprinkler head was a hazard that Peter probably would not discover" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_430", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Zeller contracted in writing to deliver to Baker 100 bushels of wheat on August 1 at $3.50 a bushel. Because his suppliers had not delivered enough wheat to him by that time, Zeller on August 1 had only 95 bushels of wheat with which to fulfill his contract with Baker. If Zeller tenders 95 bushels of wheat to Baker on August 1, and Baker refused to accept or pay for any of the wheat, which of the following best states the legal relationship between Zeller and Baker?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nZeller contracted in writing to deliver to Baker 100 bushels of wheat on August 1 at $3.50 a bushel. Because his suppliers had not delivered enough wheat to him by that time, Zeller on August 1 had only 95 bushels of wheat with which to fulfill his contract with Baker. If Zeller tenders 95 bushels of wheat to Baker on August 1, and Baker refused to accept or pay for any of the wheat, which of the following best states the legal relationship between Zeller and Baker?\n\n (A) Zeller has a cause of action against Baker, because Zeller has substantially performed his contract.\n (B) Zeller is excused from performing his contract because of impossibility of performance.\n (C) Baker has a cause of action against Zeller for Zeller's failure to deliver 100 bushels of wheat.\n (D) Baker is obligated to give Zeller a reasonable time to attempt to obtain the other five bushels of wheat.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "Baker has a cause of action against Zeller for Zeller's failure to deliver 100 bushels of wheat." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_452", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Bell's refusal to pay anything to Ames when he finished painting was a", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAmes had painted Bell's house under a contract which called for payment of $2,000. Bell, contending in good faith that the porch had not been painted properly, refused to pay anything. On June 15, Ames mailed a letter to Bell stating, \"I am in serious need of money. Please send the $2,000 to me before July 1.\" On June 18, Bell replied, \"I will settle for $1,800 provided you agree to repaint the porch.\" Ames did not reply to this letter. Thereafter Bell mailed a check for $1,800 marked \"Payment in full on the Ames-Bell painting contract as per letter dated June 18.\" Ames received the check on June 30. Because he was badly in need of money, Ames cashed the check without objection and spent the proceeds but has refused to repaint the porch.\nBell's refusal to pay anything to Ames when he finished painting was a\n\n (A) partial breach of contract only if Ames had properly or substantially painted the porch\n (B) partial breach of contract whether or not Ames had properly or substantially painted the porch\n (C) total breach of contract only if Ames had properly or substantially painted the porch\n (D) total breach of contract whether or not Ames had properly or substantially painted the porch\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "total breach of contract only if Ames had properly or substantially painted the porch" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_156", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Congress enacts a statute punishing \"each and every conspiracy entered into by any two or more persons for the purpose of denying Black persons housing, employment, or education, solely because of their race\"' Under which of the following constitutional provisions is the authority of Congress to pass such a statute most clearly and easily justifiable?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nCongress enacts a statute punishing \"each and every conspiracy entered into by any two or more persons for the purpose of denying Black persons housing, employment, or education, solely because of their race\"' Under which of the following constitutional provisions is the authority of Congress to pass such a statute most clearly and easily justifiable?\n\n (A) The obligation of contracts clause\n (B) The general welfare clause of Article I, 8\n (C) The Thirteenth Amendment\n (D) The Fourteenth Amendment\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "The Thirteenth Amendment" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_475", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "For this question only, assume that Farmer rightfully refused Painter's demand for payment. If Painter immediately terminates the contract without painting the third barn, what is Painter entitled to recover from Farmer?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nIn a single writing, Painter contracted with Farmer to paint three identical barns on her rural estate for $2,000 each. The contract provided for Farmer's payment of $6,000 upon Painter's completion of the work on all three barns. Painter did not ask for any payment when the first barn was completely painted, but she demanded $4,000 after painting the second barn.\nFor this question only, assume that Farmer rightfully refused Painter's demand for payment. If Painter immediately terminates the contract without painting the third barn, what is Painter entitled to recover from Farmer?\n\n (A) Nothing, because payment was expressly conditioned on completion of all three barns.\n (B) Painter's expenditures plus anticipated profit\" in painting the first two barns, up to a maximum recovery of $4,000.\n (C) The reasonable value of Painter's services in painting the two barns, less Farmer's damages, if any, for Painter's failure to paint the third barn.\n (D) The amount that the combined value of the two painted barns has been increased by Painter's work.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "The reasonable value of Painter's services in painting the two barns, less Farmer's damages, if any, for Painter's failure to paint the third barn." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1015", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "A federal statute provides that the United States Supreme Court has authority to review any case filed in a United States Court of Appeals, even though that case has not yet been decided by the court of appeals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an agency in the executive branch of the federal government, issued an important environmental rule. Although the rule had not yet been enforced against them, companies that would be adversely affected by the rule filed a petition for review of the rule in a court of appeals, seeking a declaration that the rule was invalid solely because it was beyond the statutory authority of the EPA. The companies made no constitutional claim. A statute specifically provides for direct review of EPA rules by a court of appeals without any initial action in a district court. The companies have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court requesting immediate review of this case by the Supreme Court before the court of appeals has actually decided the case. The EPA acknowledges that the case is important enough to warrant Supreme Court review and that it should be decided promptly, but it asks the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The best constitutional argument in support of the EPA's request is that", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nA federal statute provides that the United States Supreme Court has authority to review any case filed in a United States Court of Appeals, even though that case has not yet been decided by the court of appeals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an agency in the executive branch of the federal government, issued an important environmental rule. Although the rule had not yet been enforced against them, companies that would be adversely affected by the rule filed a petition for review of the rule in a court of appeals, seeking a declaration that the rule was invalid solely because it was beyond the statutory authority of the EPA. The companies made no constitutional claim. A statute specifically provides for direct review of EPA rules by a court of appeals without any initial action in a district court. The companies have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court requesting immediate review of this case by the Supreme Court before the court of appeals has actually decided the case. The EPA acknowledges that the case is important enough to warrant Supreme Court review and that it should be decided promptly, but it asks the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The best constitutional argument in support of the EPA's request is that\n\n (A) the case is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as defined by Article III, and it is not a proper subject of that court's appellate jurisdiction because it has not yet been decided by any lower court.\n (B) the case is appellate in nature, but it is beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, because Article III states that its jurisdiction extends only to cases arising under the Constitution.\n (C) Article III precludes federal courts from reviewing the validity of any federal agency rule in any proceeding other than an action to enforce the rule.\n (D) Article III provides that all federal cases, except those within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, must be initiated by an action in a federal district court.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "the case is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as defined by Article III, and it is not a proper subject of that court's appellate jurisdiction because it has not yet been decided by any lower court." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1083", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "A statute of the state of Kiowa provided state monetary grants to private dance, theater, and opera groups located in that state. The statute required recipients of such grants to use the granted monies for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of appropriate facilities for the public performance of their performing arts. The last section of the statute conditioned the award of each such grant on the recipient's agreement to refrain from all kinds of political lobbying calculated to secure additional tax support for the performing arts. The strongest constitutional basis for an attack upon the validity of the last section of the statute would be based upon the", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nA statute of the state of Kiowa provided state monetary grants to private dance, theater, and opera groups located in that state. The statute required recipients of such grants to use the granted monies for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of appropriate facilities for the public performance of their performing arts. The last section of the statute conditioned the award of each such grant on the recipient's agreement to refrain from all kinds of political lobbying calculated to secure additional tax support for the performing arts. The strongest constitutional basis for an attack upon the validity of the last section of the statute would be based upon the\n\n (A) commerce clause.\n (B) obligation of contracts clause.\n (C) Fifth Amendment.\n (D) First and Fourteenth Amendments.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "First and Fourteenth Amendments." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_842", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Is Farmer obligated to make the $4,000 payment?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nIn a single writing, Painter contracted with Farmer to paint three identical barns on her rural estate for $2,000 each. The contract provided for Farmer's payment of $6,000 upon Painter's completion of the work on all three barns. Painter did not ask for any payment when the first barn was completely painted, but she demanded $4,000 after painting the second barn.\nIs Farmer obligated to make the $4,000 payment?\n\n (A) No, because Farmer has no duty under the contract to pay anything to Painter until all three barns have been painted.\n (B) No, because Painter waived her right, if any, to payment on a per-barn basis by failing to demand $2,000 upon completion of the first barn.\n (C) Yes, because the contract is divisible.\n (D) Yes, because Painter has substantially performed the entire contract.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "No, because Farmer has no duty under the contract to pay anything to Painter until all three barns have been painted." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1014", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "If HDS denies liability on the ground that CP had orally agreed to coordinate with HDS's methods of accounting, and CP seeks in litigation to bar introduction of that agreement because of the parol evidence rule, HDS's most effective argument is that", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOn March 1, Computer Programs, Inc. (CP) orally agreed with Holiday Department Store (HDS) to write a set of programs for HDS's computer and to coordinate the programs with HDS's billing methods. A subsequent memo, signed by both parties, provided in its entirety: HDS will pay CP $20,000 in two equal installments within one month of completion if CP is successful in shortening by one-half the processing time for the financial transactions now handled on HDS's Zenon 747 computer; CP to complete by July 1. This agreement may be amended only by a signed writing. On June 6, CP demanded $10,000, saying the job was one-half done. After HDS denied liability, the parties orally agreed that HDS should deposit $20,000 in escrow, pending completion to the satisfaction of HDS's computer systems manager. The escrow deposit was thereupon made. On July 5, CP completed the programs, having used an amount of time in which it could have earned $18,000 had it devoted that time to other jobs. Tests by CP and HDS's computer systems manager then showed that the computer programs, not being perfectly coordinated with HDS's billing methods, cut processing time by only 47%. They would, however, save HDS $12,000 a year. Further, if HDS would spend $5,000 to change its invoice preparation methods, as recommended by CP, the programs would cut processing time by a total of 58%, saving HDS another $8,000 a year. HDS's computer systems manager refused in good faith to certify satisfactory completion. HDS requested the escrow agent to return the $20,000 and asserted that nothing was owed to CP even though HDS continued to use the programs.\nIf HDS denies liability on the ground that CP had orally agreed to coordinate with HDS's methods of accounting, and CP seeks in litigation to bar introduction of that agreement because of the parol evidence rule, HDS's most effective argument is that\n\n (A) the parol evidence rule does not bar the introduction of evidence for the purpose of interpreting a written agreement\n (B) the memorandum was not a completely integrated agreement\n (C) HDS detrimentally relied on the oral promise of coordination in signing the memorandum\n (D) the memorandum was not a partially integrated agreement\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "the memorandum was not a completely integrated agreement" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_231", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "For this question only, assume that on November 26 Joiner without legal excuse repudiated the contract and that Galley, after a reasonable and prolonged effort, could not find anyone to remodel his kitchen for a price approximating the price agreed to by Joiner. If one year later Galley brings an action for specific performance against Joiner, which of the following will provide Joiner with the best defense?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOn November 15, Joiner in a signed writing contracted with Galley for an agreed price to personally remodel Galley's kitchen according to specifications provided by Galley, and to start work on December 1. Joiner agreed to provide all materials for the job in addition to all of the labor required.\nFor this question only, assume that on November 26 Joiner without legal excuse repudiated the contract and that Galley, after a reasonable and prolonged effort, could not find anyone to remodel his kitchen for a price approximating the price agreed to by Joiner. If one year later Galley brings an action for specific performance against Joiner, which of the following will provide Joiner with the best defense?\n\n (A) An action for equitable relief not brought within a reasonable time is barred by laches.\n (B) Specific performance is generally not available as a remedy to enforce a contractual duty to perform personal services.\n (C) Specific performance is generally not available as a remedy in the case of an anticipatory repudiation.\n (D) Specific performance is not available as a remedy where even nominal damages could have been recovered as a remedy at law.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "Specific performance is generally not available as a remedy to enforce a contractual duty to perform personal services." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_889", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Pitt sued Dow for damages for injuries that Pitt incurred when a badly rotted limb fell from a curbside tree in front of Dow's home and hit Pitt. Dow claimed that the tree was on city property and thus was the responsibility of the city. At trial, Pitt offered testimony that a week after the accident, Dow had cut the tree down with a chainsaw. The offered evidence is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nPitt sued Dow for damages for injuries that Pitt incurred when a badly rotted limb fell from a curbside tree in front of Dow's home and hit Pitt. Dow claimed that the tree was on city property and thus was the responsibility of the city. At trial, Pitt offered testimony that a week after the accident, Dow had cut the tree down with a chainsaw. The offered evidence is\n\n (A) inadmissible, because there is a policy to encourage safety precautions\n (B) inadmissible, because it is irrelevant to the condition of the tree at the time of the accident\n (C) admissible to show the tree was on Dow's property\n (D) admissible to show the tree was in a rotted condition\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "admissible to show the tree was on Dow's property" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_414", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Homer lived on the second floor of a small convenience store/gas station that he owned. One night he refused to sell Augie a six- pack of beer after hours, saying he could not violate the state laws. Augie became enraged and deliberately drove his car into one of the gasoline pumps, severing it from its base. There was an ensuing explosion causing a ball of fire to go from the underground gasoline tank into the building. As a result, the building burned to the ground and Homer was killed. In a common-law jurisdiction, if Augie is charged with murder and arson, he should be", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nHomer lived on the second floor of a small convenience store/gas station that he owned. One night he refused to sell Augie a six- pack of beer after hours, saying he could not violate the state laws. Augie became enraged and deliberately drove his car into one of the gasoline pumps, severing it from its base. There was an ensuing explosion causing a ball of fire to go from the underground gasoline tank into the building. As a result, the building burned to the ground and Homer was killed. In a common-law jurisdiction, if Augie is charged with murder and arson, he should be\n\n (A) convicted of both offenses.\n (B) convicted of involuntary manslaughter and acquitted of arson.\n (C) convicted of arson and involuntary manslaughter.\n (D) acquitted of both offenses.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "convicted of both offenses." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1054", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "If CP in fact had half-completed the job on June 6, would it then have been entitled to $10,000 ?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOn March 1, Computer Programs, Inc. (CP) orally agreed with Holiday Department Store (HDS) to write a set of programs for HDS's computer and to coordinate the programs with HDS's billing methods. A subsequent memo, signed by both parties, provided in its entirety: HDS will pay CP $20,000 in two equal installments within one month of completion if CP is successful in shortening by one-half the processing time for the financial transactions now handled on HDS's Zenon 747 computer; CP to complete by July 1. This agreement may be amended only by a signed writing. On June 6, CP demanded $10,000, saying the job was one-half done. After HDS denied liability, the parties orally agreed that HDS should deposit $20,000 in escrow, pending completion to the satisfaction of HDS's computer systems manager. The escrow deposit was thereupon made. On July 5, CP completed the programs, having used an amount of time in which it could have earned $18,000 had it devoted that time to other jobs. Tests by CP and HDS's computer systems manager then showed that the computer programs, not being perfectly coordinated with HDS's billing methods, cut processing time by only 47%. They would, however, save HDS $12,000 a year. Further, if HDS would spend $5,000 to change its invoice preparation methods, as recommended by CP, the programs would cut processing time by a total of 58%, saving HDS another $8,000 a year. HDS's computer systems manager refused in good faith to certify satisfactory completion. HDS requested the escrow agent to return the $20,000 and asserted that nothing was owed to CP even though HDS continued to use the programs.\nIf CP in fact had half-completed the job on June 6, would it then have been entitled to $10,000 ?\n\n (A) Yes, because June 6 was within one month of completion.\n (B) Yes, because CP had done one-half the job.\n (C) No, because of a constructive condition precedent requiring at least substantial completion of the work before HDS would have a duty to pay.\n (D) No, because \"within one month of completion\" would, in these circumstances, be interpreted to mean \"within one month after completion.\"\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "No, because \"within one month of completion\" would, in these circumstances, be interpreted to mean \"within one month after completion.\"" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_232", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Suppose Peg pays the purchase price and accepts a deed. Subsequently, Sue's title to the one acre proves inadequate and Opal ejects Peg from that acre. Peg sues Sue for damages. Which of the following statements applies most accurately to the determination of Peg's rights?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nSue owned a five-acre tract of land, one acre of which had previously been owned by Opal, but to which Sue had acquired title by adverse possession. Sue contracted to convey the full five-acre tract to Peg, but the contract did not specify the quality of title Sue would convey. At closing, Peg refused the tendered deed and demanded return of her earnest money.\nSuppose Peg pays the purchase price and accepts a deed. Subsequently, Sue's title to the one acre proves inadequate and Opal ejects Peg from that acre. Peg sues Sue for damages. Which of the following statements applies most accurately to the determination of Peg's rights?\n\n (A) Sue's deed was fraudulent.\n (B) The terms of the deed control Sue's liability.\n (C) The only remedy available for breach of warranty of title is rescission.\n (D) Peg's rights are based on the implied covenant that the title conveyed shall he marketable.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "The terms of the deed control Sue's liability." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_4", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Kontractor agreed to build a power plant for a public utility. Subbo agreed with Kontractor to lay the foundation for $200,000. Subbo supplied goods and services worth $150,000, for which Kontractor made progress payments aggregating $100,000 as required by the subcontract. Subbo then breached by refusing unjustifiably to perform further. Kontractor reasonably spent $120,000 to have the work completed by another subcontractor. Subbo sues Kontractor for the reasonable value of benefits conferred, and Kontractor counterclaims for breach of contract. Which of the following should be the court's decision?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nKontractor agreed to build a power plant for a public utility. Subbo agreed with Kontractor to lay the foundation for $200,000. Subbo supplied goods and services worth $150,000, for which Kontractor made progress payments aggregating $100,000 as required by the subcontract. Subbo then breached by refusing unjustifiably to perform further. Kontractor reasonably spent $120,000 to have the work completed by another subcontractor. Subbo sues Kontractor for the reasonable value of benefits conferred, and Kontractor counterclaims for breach of contract. Which of the following should be the court's decision?\n\n (A) Subbo recovers $50,000, the benefit conferred on Kontractor for which Subbo has not been paid.\n (B) Subbo recovers $30,000, the benefit Subbo conferred on Kontractor minus the $20,000 in damages incurred by Kontractor.\n (C) Kontractor recovers $20,000, the excess over the contract price that was paid by Kontractor for the performance it had bargained to receive from Subbo.\n (D) Neither party recovers anything, because Subbo committed a material, unexcused breach and Kontractor received a $50,000 benefit from Subbo for which Subbo has not been paid.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "Kontractor recovers $20,000, the excess over the contract price that was paid by Kontractor for the performance it had bargained to receive from Subbo." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1138", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Abel owned Blackacre in fee simple. Three years ago, Abel and Betty agreed to a month- to-month tenancy with Betty paying Abel rent each month. After six months of Betty's occupancy, Abel suggested to Betty that she could buy Blackacre for a monthly payment of no more than her rent. Abel and Betty orally agreed that Betty would pay $25,000 in cash, the annual real estate taxes, the annual fire insurance premiums, and the costs of maintaining Blackacre, plus the monthly mortgage payments that Abel owed on Blackacre. They further orally agreed that within six years Betty could pay whatever mortgage balances were then due and Abel would give her a warranty deed to the property. Betty's average monthly payments did turn out to be about the same as her monthly rent. Betty fully complied with all of the obligations she had undertaken. She made some structural modifications to Blackacre. Blackacre is now worth 50% more than it was when Abel and Betty made their oral agreement. Betty made her financing arrangements and was ready to complete the purchase of Blackacre, but Abel refused to close. Betty brought an appropriate action for specific performance against Abel to enforce the agreement. The court should rule for", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAbel owned Blackacre in fee simple. Three years ago, Abel and Betty agreed to a month- to-month tenancy with Betty paying Abel rent each month. After six months of Betty's occupancy, Abel suggested to Betty that she could buy Blackacre for a monthly payment of no more than her rent. Abel and Betty orally agreed that Betty would pay $25,000 in cash, the annual real estate taxes, the annual fire insurance premiums, and the costs of maintaining Blackacre, plus the monthly mortgage payments that Abel owed on Blackacre. They further orally agreed that within six years Betty could pay whatever mortgage balances were then due and Abel would give her a warranty deed to the property. Betty's average monthly payments did turn out to be about the same as her monthly rent. Betty fully complied with all of the obligations she had undertaken. She made some structural modifications to Blackacre. Blackacre is now worth 50% more than it was when Abel and Betty made their oral agreement. Betty made her financing arrangements and was ready to complete the purchase of Blackacre, but Abel refused to close. Betty brought an appropriate action for specific performance against Abel to enforce the agreement. The court should rule for\n\n (A) Abel, because the agreements were oral and violated the statute of frauds.\n (B) Abel, subject to the return of the $25,000, because the arrangement was still a tenancy.\n (C) Betty, because the doctrine of part performance applies.\n (D) Betty, because the statute of frauds does not apply to oral purchase and sale agreements between landlords and tenants in possession.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "Betty, because the doctrine of part performance applies." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1057", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "After waiting until all the customers had left, Max entered a small grocery store just before closing time. He went up to the lone clerk in the store and said, \"Hand over all the money in the cash register or you will get hurt.\" The clerk fainted and struck his head on the edge of the counter. As Max went behind the counter to open the cash register, two customers entered the store. Max ran out before he was able to open the register drawer. On this evidence Max could be convicted of", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAfter waiting until all the customers had left, Max entered a small grocery store just before closing time. He went up to the lone clerk in the store and said, \"Hand over all the money in the cash register or you will get hurt.\" The clerk fainted and struck his head on the edge of the counter. As Max went behind the counter to open the cash register, two customers entered the store. Max ran out before he was able to open the register drawer. On this evidence Max could be convicted of\n\n (A) robbery.\n (B) assault and robbery.\n (C) attempted robbery.\n (D) assault and attempted robbery.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "attempted robbery." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_588", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Scott held up a drugstore at 10:30 at night, and drove away. His car broke down in an isolated area just outside the small city in which the crime occurred. Scott walked to the nearest house and asked Henry, the homeowner, if he could stay until the next morning, explaining that he had been searching for his sister's home and had run out of gas. Henry agreed to let him sleep on a couch in the basement. During the course of the night, Henry began to doubt the story Scott had told him. Early the next morning, Henry called the police and said he was suspicious and frightened of a stranger whom he had allowed to stay the night. The police went immediately to the house to assist Henry and walked through the open front door. They found Scott and Henry drinking coffee in the kitchen. When they saw Scott, they realized he matched the description of the drugstore robber. They arrested Scott and in his jacket they found drugs taken during the robbery. Scott moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs. If the court finds that the police did not have probable cause to believe Scott was the robber until they saw him inside Henry's house and realized he matched the description, the court should", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nScott held up a drugstore at 10:30 at night, and drove away. His car broke down in an isolated area just outside the small city in which the crime occurred. Scott walked to the nearest house and asked Henry, the homeowner, if he could stay until the next morning, explaining that he had been searching for his sister's home and had run out of gas. Henry agreed to let him sleep on a couch in the basement. During the course of the night, Henry began to doubt the story Scott had told him. Early the next morning, Henry called the police and said he was suspicious and frightened of a stranger whom he had allowed to stay the night. The police went immediately to the house to assist Henry and walked through the open front door. They found Scott and Henry drinking coffee in the kitchen. When they saw Scott, they realized he matched the description of the drugstore robber. They arrested Scott and in his jacket they found drugs taken during the robbery. Scott moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs. If the court finds that the police did not have probable cause to believe Scott was the robber until they saw him inside Henry's house and realized he matched the description, the court should\n\n (A) grant the motion, because, as a guest, Scott has sufficient standing to contest the entry of the house without a warrant.\n (B) grant the motion, because, as a guest, Scott has sufficient standing to contest the lack of probable cause at the time of the entry.\n (C) deny the motion, because Scott had no ownership or other possessory interest in the premises.\n (D) deny the motion, because the police had the permission of the owner to enter the house.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "deny the motion, because the police had the permission of the owner to enter the house." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1118", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "A state statute provides that only citizens of the United States may be employed by that state. In an action brought in a federal court, a resident alien who was prevented from obtaining state employment as a garbage collector solely because of his alien status challenged the statute's constitutionality as applied to his circumstances. Which of the following statements concerning the burden of persuasion applicable to this suit is correct?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nA state statute provides that only citizens of the United States may be employed by that state. In an action brought in a federal court, a resident alien who was prevented from obtaining state employment as a garbage collector solely because of his alien status challenged the statute's constitutionality as applied to his circumstances. Which of the following statements concerning the burden of persuasion applicable to this suit is correct?\n\n (A) The alien must demonstrate that there is no rational relationship between the citizenship requirement and any legitimate state interest.\n (B) The alien must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is not necessary to advance an important state interest.\n (C) The state must demonstrate that there is a rational relationship between the citizenship requirement and a legitimate state interest.\n (D) The state must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is necessary to advance an important state interest.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "The state must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is necessary to advance an important state interest." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_539", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Plaintiff Construction Co. sued Defendant Development Co. for money owed on a cost- plus contract that required notice of proposed expenditures beyond original estimates. Defendant asserted that it never received the required notice. At trial Plaintiff calls its general manager, Witness, to testify that it is Plaintiffs routine practice to send cost overrun notices as required by the contract. Witness also offers a photocopy of the cost overrun notice letter to Defendant on which Plaintiff is relying, and which he has taken from Plaintiff's regular business files. On the issue of giving notice, the letter copy is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nPlaintiff Construction Co. sued Defendant Development Co. for money owed on a cost- plus contract that required notice of proposed expenditures beyond original estimates. Defendant asserted that it never received the required notice. At trial Plaintiff calls its general manager, Witness, to testify that it is Plaintiffs routine practice to send cost overrun notices as required by the contract. Witness also offers a photocopy of the cost overrun notice letter to Defendant on which Plaintiff is relying, and which he has taken from Plaintiff's regular business files. On the issue of giving notice, the letter copy is\n\n (A) admissible, though hearsay, under the business record exception.\n (B) admissible, because of the routine practices of the company.\n (C) inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.\n (D) inadmissible, because it is not the best evidence of the notice.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "admissible, because of the routine practices of the company." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1071", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Yancey moves to suppress the use of the jewelry. The court should", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nThe police suspected that Yancey, a 16-year-old high school student, had committed a series of burglaries. Two officers went to Yancey's high school and asked the principal to call Yancey out of class and to search his backpack. While the officers waited, the principal took Yancey into the hall where she asked to look in his backpack. When Yancey refused, the principal grabbed it from him, injuring Yancey's shoulder in the process. In the backpack, she found jewelry that she turned over to the officers. The officers believed that the jewelry had been taken in one of the burglaries. They arrested Yancey, took him to the station, and gave him Miranda warnings. Yancey asked to see a lawyer. The police called Yancey's parents to the station. When Yancey's parents arrived, the police asked them to speak with Yancey. They put them in a room and secretly recorded their conversation with a concealed electronic device. Yancey broke down and confessed to his parents that he had committed the burglaries. Yancey was charged with the burglaries.\nYancey moves to suppress the use of the jewelry. The court should\n\n (A) deny the motion on the ground that the search was incident to a lawful arrest.\n (B) deny the motion on the ground that school searches are reasonable if conducted by school personnel on school grounds on the basis of reasonable suspicion.\n (C) grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted with excessive force.\n (D) grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted without probable cause or a warrant.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted without probable cause or a warrant." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_891", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Pawn sued Dalton for injuries received when she fell down a stairway in Dalton's apartment building. Pawn, a guest in the building, alleged that she caught the heel of her shoe in a tear in the stair carpet. Pawn calls Witt, a tenant, to testify that Young, another tenant, had said to him a week before Pawn's fall: \"When I paid my rent this morning, I told the manager he had better fix that torn carpet.\" Young's statement, reported by Witt, is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nPawn sued Dalton for injuries received when she fell down a stairway in Dalton's apartment building. Pawn, a guest in the building, alleged that she caught the heel of her shoe in a tear in the stair carpet. Pawn calls Witt, a tenant, to testify that Young, another tenant, had said to him a week before Pawn's fall: \"When I paid my rent this morning, I told the manager he had better fix that torn carpet.\" Young's statement, reported by Witt, is\n\n (A) admissible, to prove that the carpet was defective.\n (B) admissible, to prove that Dalton had notice of the defect.\n (C) admissible, to prove both that the carpet was defective and that Dalton had notice of the defect.\n (D) inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_831", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Oscar, owner of Greenacre, conveyed Greenacre by quitclaim deed as a gift to Ann, who did not then record her deed. Later, Oscar conveyed Greenacre by warranty deed to Belle, who paid valuable consideration, knew nothing of Ann's claim, and promptly and properly recorded. Next, Ann recorded her deed. Then Belle conveyed Greenacre by quitclaim deed to her son Cal as a gift. When the possible conflict with Ann was discovered, Cal recorded his deed. Greenacre at all relevant times has been vacant unoccupied land. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: \"No unrecorded conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value without notice, who shall first record.\" No other statute is applicable. Cal has sued Ann to establish who owns Greenacre. The court will hold for", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOscar, owner of Greenacre, conveyed Greenacre by quitclaim deed as a gift to Ann, who did not then record her deed. Later, Oscar conveyed Greenacre by warranty deed to Belle, who paid valuable consideration, knew nothing of Ann's claim, and promptly and properly recorded. Next, Ann recorded her deed. Then Belle conveyed Greenacre by quitclaim deed to her son Cal as a gift. When the possible conflict with Ann was discovered, Cal recorded his deed. Greenacre at all relevant times has been vacant unoccupied land. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: \"No unrecorded conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value without notice, who shall first record.\" No other statute is applicable. Cal has sued Ann to establish who owns Greenacre. The court will hold for\n\n (A) Cal, because Ann was a donee.\n (B) Cal, because Belle's purchase cut off Ann's rights.\n (C) Ann, because she recorded before Cal.\n (D) Ann, because Cal was a subsequent donee.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "Cal, because Belle's purchase cut off Ann's rights." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_910", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "The prosecution, in its case in chief, offers evidence that when Miller was arrested one day after the crime, he had a quantity of heroin and a hypodermic needle in his possession. This evidence should be", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nMiller is tried for armed robbery of the First Bank of City.\nThe prosecution, in its case in chief, offers evidence that when Miller was arrested one day after the crime, he had a quantity of heroin and a hypodermic needle in his possession. This evidence should be\n\n (A) admitted to prove Miller's motive to commit the crime\n (B) admitted to prove Miller's propensity to commit crimes\n (C) excluded, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice\n (D) excluded, because such evidence may be offered only to rebut evidence of good character offered by defendant\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "excluded, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_278", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "If County defends by offering proof of the advertisement concerning the possibility of multiple awards, should the court admit the evidence?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nResponding to County's written advertisement for bids, Tyres was the successful bidder for the sale of tires to County for County's vehicles. Tyres and County entered into a signed, written agreement that specified, \"It is agreed that Tyres will deliver all tires required by this agreement to County, in accordance with the attached bid form and specifications, for a one-year period beginning September 1, 1990.\" Attached to the agreement was a copy of the bid form and specifications. In the written advertisement to which Tyres had responded, but not in the bid form, County had stated, \"Multiple awards may be issued if they are in the best interests of County.\" No definite quantity of tires to be bought by County from Tyres was specified in any of these documents. In January 1991, Tyres learned that County was buying some of its tires from one of Tyres's competitors. Contending that the Tyres-County agreement was a requirements contract, Tyres sued County for the damages caused by County's buying some of its tires from the competitor.\nIf County defends by offering proof of the advertisement concerning the possibility of multiple awards, should the court admit the evidence?\n\n (A) Yes, because the provision in the written agreement, \"all tires required by this agreement,\" is ambiguous.\n (B) Yes, because the advertisement was in writing.\n (C) No, because of the parol evidence rule.\n (D) No, because it would make the contract illusory.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "Yes, because the provision in the written agreement, \"all tires required by this agreement,\" is ambiguous." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_766", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "PullCo sued Davidson, its former vice president, for return of $230,000 that had been embezzled during the previous two years. Called by PullCo as an adverse witness, Davidson testified that his annual salary had been $75,000, and he denied the embezzlement. PullCo calls banker Witt to show that, during the two-year period, Davidson had deposited $250,000 in his bank account. Witt's testimony is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nPullCo sued Davidson, its former vice president, for return of $230,000 that had been embezzled during the previous two years. Called by PullCo as an adverse witness, Davidson testified that his annual salary had been $75,000, and he denied the embezzlement. PullCo calls banker Witt to show that, during the two-year period, Davidson had deposited $250,000 in his bank account. Witt's testimony is\n\n (A) admissible as circumstantial evidence of Davidson's guilt.\n (B) admissible to impeach Davidson.\n (C) inadmissible, because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.\n (D) inadmissible, because the deposits could have come from legitimate sources.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "admissible as circumstantial evidence of Davidson's guilt." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1019", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "The United States Department of Energy regularly transports nuclear materials through Centerville on the way to a nuclear weapons processing plant it operates in a nearby state. The city of Centerville recently adopted an ordinance prohibiting the transportation of any nuclear materials in or through the city. The ordinance declares that its purpose is to protect the health and safety of the residents of that city. May the Department of Energy continue to transport these nuclear materials through the city of Centerville?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nThe United States Department of Energy regularly transports nuclear materials through Centerville on the way to a nuclear weapons processing plant it operates in a nearby state. The city of Centerville recently adopted an ordinance prohibiting the transportation of any nuclear materials in or through the city. The ordinance declares that its purpose is to protect the health and safety of the residents of that city. May the Department of Energy continue to transport these nuclear materials through the city of Centerville?\n\n (A) No, because the ordinance is rationally related to the public health and safety of Centerville residents.\n (B) No, because the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states certain unenumerated sovereign powers.\n (C) Yes, because the Department of Energy is a federal agency engaged in a lawful federal function and, therefore, its activities may not be regulated by a local government without the consent of Congress.\n (D) Yes, because the ordinance enacted by Centerville is invalid because it denies persons transporting such materials the equal protection of the laws.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "Yes, because the Department of Energy is a federal agency engaged in a lawful federal function and, therefore, its activities may not be regulated by a local government without the consent of Congress." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_798", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "At a party for coworkers at Defendant's home, Victim accused Defendant of making advances toward his wife. Victim and his wife left the party. The next day at work, Defendant saw Victim and struck him on the head with a softdrink bottle. Victim fell into a coma and died two weeks after the incident. This jurisdiction defines aggravated assault as an assault with any weapon or dangerous implement and punishes it as a felony. It defines murder as the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought or in the course of an independent felony. Defendant may be found guilty of murder", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAt a party for coworkers at Defendant's home, Victim accused Defendant of making advances toward his wife. Victim and his wife left the party. The next day at work, Defendant saw Victim and struck him on the head with a softdrink bottle. Victim fell into a coma and died two weeks after the incident. This jurisdiction defines aggravated assault as an assault with any weapon or dangerous implement and punishes it as a felony. It defines murder as the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought or in the course of an independent felony. Defendant may be found guilty of murder\n\n (A) only if the jury finds that Defendant intended to kill Victim.\n (B) only if the jury finds that Defendant did not act in a rage provoked by Victim's accusations.\n (C) if the jury finds that Defendant intended either to kill or to inflict serious bodily harm.\n (D) if the jury finds that the killing occurred in the course of an aggravated assault.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "if the jury finds that Defendant intended either to kill or to inflict serious bodily harm." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_653", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "On cross-examination of Miller, the prosecutor asks Miller whether he was convicted the previous year of tax fraud. This question is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nMiller is tried for armed robbery of the First Bank of City.\nOn cross-examination of Miller, the prosecutor asks Miller whether he was convicted the previous year of tax fraud. This question is\n\n (A) proper to show that Miller is inclined to lie\n (B) proper to show that Miller is inclined to steal money\n (C) improper, because the conviction has insufficient similarity to the crime charged\n (D) improper, because the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "proper to show that Miller is inclined to lie" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_282", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "At the request of police, the teller who was robbed prepared a sketch bearing a strong likeness to Miller, but the teller died in an automobile accident before Miller was arrested. At trial the prosecution offers the sketch. The sketch is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nMiller is tried for armed robbery of the First Bank of City.\nAt the request of police, the teller who was robbed prepared a sketch bearing a strong likeness to Miller, but the teller died in an automobile accident before Miller was arrested. At trial the prosecution offers the sketch. The sketch is\n\n (A) admissible as an identification of a person after perceiving him\n (B) admissible as past recollection recorded\n (C) inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception\n (D) inadmissible as an opinion of the teller\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_280", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Plaintiff sued Defendant Auto Manufacturing for his wife's death, claiming that a defective steering mechanism on the family car caused it to veer off the road and hit a tree when his wife was driving. Defendant claims that the steering mechanism was damaged in the collision and offers testimony that the deceased wife was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Testimony concerning the wife's intoxication is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nPlaintiff sued Defendant Auto Manufacturing for his wife's death, claiming that a defective steering mechanism on the family car caused it to veer off the road and hit a tree when his wife was driving. Defendant claims that the steering mechanism was damaged in the collision and offers testimony that the deceased wife was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Testimony concerning the wife's intoxication is\n\n (A) admissible to provide an alternate explanation of the accident's cause.\n (B) admissible as proper evidence of the wife's character.\n (C) inadmissible, because it is improper to prove character evidence by specific conduct.\n (D) inadmissible, because it is substantially more prejudicial than probative.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "admissible to provide an alternate explanation of the accident's cause." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1069", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "A city owns and operates a large public auditorium. It leases the auditorium to any group that wishes to use it for a meeting, lecture, concert, or contest. Each user must post a damage deposit and pay rent, which is calculated only for the actual time the building is used by the lessee. Reservations are made on a first-come, first-served basis. A private organization that permits only males to serve in its highest offices rented the auditorium for its national convention. The organization planned to install its new officers at that convention. It broadly publicized the event, inviting members of the general public to attend the installation ceremony at the city auditorium. No statute or administrative rule prohibits the organization from restricting its highest offices to men. An appropriate plaintiff sues the private organization seeking to enjoin it from using the city auditorium for the installation of its new officers. The sole claim of the plaintiff is that the use of this auditorium by the organization for the installation ceremony is unconstitutional because the organization disqualifies women from serving in its highest offices. Will the plaintiff prevail?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nA city owns and operates a large public auditorium. It leases the auditorium to any group that wishes to use it for a meeting, lecture, concert, or contest. Each user must post a damage deposit and pay rent, which is calculated only for the actual time the building is used by the lessee. Reservations are made on a first-come, first-served basis. A private organization that permits only males to serve in its highest offices rented the auditorium for its national convention. The organization planned to install its new officers at that convention. It broadly publicized the event, inviting members of the general public to attend the installation ceremony at the city auditorium. No statute or administrative rule prohibits the organization from restricting its highest offices to men. An appropriate plaintiff sues the private organization seeking to enjoin it from using the city auditorium for the installation of its new officers. The sole claim of the plaintiff is that the use of this auditorium by the organization for the installation ceremony is unconstitutional because the organization disqualifies women from serving in its highest offices. Will the plaintiff prevail?\n\n (A) Yes, because the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits such an organization from discriminating against women in any of its activities to which it has invited members of the general public.\n (B) Yes, because the organization's use of the city auditorium for this purpose subjects its conduct to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n (C) No, because the freedom of association protected by the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the city from interfering in any way with the organization's use of city facilities.\n (D) No, because this organization is not a state actor and, therefore, its activities are not subject to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "No, because this organization is not a state actor and, therefore, its activities are not subject to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1167", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Dexter, a physician, and Caroline, his patient, had sexual intercourse in his office. Caroline is a married woman and if charged with the crime of adultery, her best defense would be which of the following?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDexter, a physician, and Caroline, his patient, had sexual intercourse in his office. Caroline is a married woman and if charged with the crime of adultery, her best defense would be which of the following?\n\n (A) She promptly reported the incident to her husband, who condoned her conduct\n (B) Dexter induced her to believe that a natural cure through sexual intercourse was best for her condition.\n (C) Dexter induced her to believe that was pregnant, that childbirth would dangerous to her life, and that he c( abort the pregnancy by sexual in course.\n (D) Dexter induced her to believe he using a medical instrument.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "Dexter induced her to believe he using a medical instrument." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_66", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Anna entered a hospital to undergo surgery and feared that she might not survive. She instructed her lawyer by telephone to prepare a deed conveying Blackacre, a large tract of undeveloped land, as a gift to her nephew, Bernard, who lived in a distant state. Her instructions were followed, and, prior to her surgery, she executed a document in a form sufficient to constitute a deed of conveyance. The deed was recorded by the lawyer promptly and properly as she instructed him to do. The recorded deed was returned to the lawyer by the land record office, Anna, in fact, recovered from her surgery and the lawyer returned the recorded deed to her. Before Anna or the lawyer thought to inform Bernard of the conveyance, Bernard was killed in an auto accident. Bernard's will left all of his estate to a satanic religious cult. Anna was very upset at the prospect of the cult's acquiring Blackacre. The local taxing authority assessed the next real property tax bill on Blackacre to Bernard's estate. Anna brought an appropriate action against Bernard's estate and the cult to set aside the conveyance to Bernard. If Anna loses, it will be because", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAnna entered a hospital to undergo surgery and feared that she might not survive. She instructed her lawyer by telephone to prepare a deed conveying Blackacre, a large tract of undeveloped land, as a gift to her nephew, Bernard, who lived in a distant state. Her instructions were followed, and, prior to her surgery, she executed a document in a form sufficient to constitute a deed of conveyance. The deed was recorded by the lawyer promptly and properly as she instructed him to do. The recorded deed was returned to the lawyer by the land record office, Anna, in fact, recovered from her surgery and the lawyer returned the recorded deed to her. Before Anna or the lawyer thought to inform Bernard of the conveyance, Bernard was killed in an auto accident. Bernard's will left all of his estate to a satanic religious cult. Anna was very upset at the prospect of the cult's acquiring Blackacre. The local taxing authority assessed the next real property tax bill on Blackacre to Bernard's estate. Anna brought an appropriate action against Bernard's estate and the cult to set aside the conveyance to Bernard. If Anna loses, it will be because\n\n (A) the gift of Blackacre was inter vivos rather than causa mortis.\n (B) the showing of Bernard's estate as the owner of Blackacre on the tax rolls supplied what otherwise would be a missing essential element for a valid conveyance.\n (C) disappointing Bernard's devisee would violate the religious freedom provisions of the First Amendment to the Constitution.\n (D) delivery of the deed is presumed from the recording of the deed.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "delivery of the deed is presumed from the recording of the deed." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_557", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "The Sports Championship Revenue Enhancement Act is a federal statute that was enacted as part of a comprehensive program to eliminate the federal budget deficit. That act imposed, for a period of five years, a 50% excise tax on the price of tickets to championship sporting events. Such events included the World Series, the Super Bowl, major college bowl games, and similar championship sports events. This federal tax is probably", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nThe Sports Championship Revenue Enhancement Act is a federal statute that was enacted as part of a comprehensive program to eliminate the federal budget deficit. That act imposed, for a period of five years, a 50% excise tax on the price of tickets to championship sporting events. Such events included the World Series, the Super Bowl, major college bowl games, and similar championship sports events. This federal tax is probably\n\n (A) constitutional, because the compelling national interest in reducing the federal budget deficit justifies this tax as a temporary emergency measure.\n (B) constitutional, because an act of Congress that appears to be a revenue raising measure on its face is not rendered invalid because it may have adverse economic consequences for the activity taxed.\n (C) unconstitutional, because a 50% tax is likely to reduce attendance at championship sporting events and, therefore, is not rationally related to the legitimate interest of Congress in eliminating the budget deficit.\n (D) unconstitutional, because Congress violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment by singling out championship sporting events for this tax while failing to tax other major sporting, artistic, or entertainment events to which tickets are sold.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "constitutional, because an act of Congress that appears to be a revenue raising measure on its face is not rendered invalid because it may have adverse economic consequences for the activity taxed." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_782", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Alpha's removal of the shed from the parking area of the apartment house is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAlpha and Beta made a written contract pursuant to which Alpha promised to convey a specified apartment house to Beta in return for Beta's promise (1) to convey a 100-acre farm to Alpha and (2) to pay Alpha $1,000 in cash six months after the exchange of the apartment house and the farm. The contract contained the following provision: \"It is understood and agreed that Beta's obligation to pay the $1,000 six months after the exchangeof the apartment house and the farm shall be voided if Alpha has not, within three months after the aforesaid exchange, removed the existing shed in the parking area in the rear of the said apartment house.\"\nAlpha's removal of the shed from the parking area of the apartment house is\n\n (A) a condition subsequent in form but precedent in substance to Beta's duty to pay the $1,000\n (B) a condition precedent in form but subsequent in substance to Beta's duty to pay the 1,000\n (C) a condition subsequent to Beta's duty to pay the $1,000\n (D) not a condition, either precedent or subsequent, to Beta's duty to pay the $1,000\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "a condition subsequent in form but precedent in substance to Beta's duty to pay the $1,000" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_138", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Denn is on trial for arson. In its case in chief, the prosecution offers evidence that Denn had secretly obtained duplicate insurance from two companies on the property that burned and that Denn had threatened to kill his ex-wife if she testified for the prosecution. The court should admit evidence of", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDenn is on trial for arson. In its case in chief, the prosecution offers evidence that Denn had secretly obtained duplicate insurance from two companies on the property that burned and that Denn had threatened to kill his ex-wife if she testified for the prosecution. The court should admit evidence of\n\n (A) Denn's obtaining duplicate insurance only.\n (B) Denn's threatening to kill his ex-wife only.\n (C) both Denn's obtaining duplicate insurance and threatening to kill his ex-wife.\n (D) neither Denn's obtaining duplicate insurance nor threatening to kill his ex-wife.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "both Denn's obtaining duplicate insurance and threatening to kill his ex-wife." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_734", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Grace, while baby-sitting one night, noticed that Sam, who lived next door, had left his house but that the door did not close completely behind him. Grace said to Roy, the 11-year-old boy she was baby-sitting with, \"Let's play a game. You go next door and see if you can find my portable television set, which I lent to Sam, and bring it over here.\" Grace knew that Sam had a portable television set and Grace planned to keep the set for herself. Roy thought the set belonged to Grace, went next door, found the television set, and carried it out the front door. At that moment, Sam returned home and discovered Roy in his front yard with the television set. Roy explained the \"game\" he and Grace were playing. Sam took back his television set and called the police. Grace is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nGrace, while baby-sitting one night, noticed that Sam, who lived next door, had left his house but that the door did not close completely behind him. Grace said to Roy, the 11-year-old boy she was baby-sitting with, \"Let's play a game. You go next door and see if you can find my portable television set, which I lent to Sam, and bring it over here.\" Grace knew that Sam had a portable television set and Grace planned to keep the set for herself. Roy thought the set belonged to Grace, went next door, found the television set, and carried it out the front door. At that moment, Sam returned home and discovered Roy in his front yard with the television set. Roy explained the \"game\" he and Grace were playing. Sam took back his television set and called the police. Grace is\n\n (A) not guilty of larceny or attempted larceny, because Roy did not commit any crime.\n (B) not guilty of larceny but guilty of attempted larceny, because she never acquired possession of the television set.\n (C) guilty of larceny as an accessory to Roy.\n (D) guilty of larceny by the use of an innocent agent.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "guilty of larceny by the use of an innocent agent." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1101", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Sam told Horace, his neighbor, that he was going away for two weeks and asked Horace to keep an eye on his house. Horace agreed. Sam gave Horace a key to use to check on the house. Horace decided to have a party in Sam's house. He invited a number of friends. One friend, Lewis, went into Sam's bedroom, took some of Sam's rings, and put them in his pocket. Which of the following is true?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nSam told Horace, his neighbor, that he was going away for two weeks and asked Horace to keep an eye on his house. Horace agreed. Sam gave Horace a key to use to check on the house. Horace decided to have a party in Sam's house. He invited a number of friends. One friend, Lewis, went into Sam's bedroom, took some of Sam's rings, and put them in his pocket. Which of the following is true?\n\n (A) Horace and Lewis are guilty of burglary.\n (B) Horace is guilty of burglary and Lewis is guilty of larceny.\n (C) Horace is guilty of trespass and Lewis is guilty of larceny.\n (D) Lewis is guilty of larceny and Horace is not guilty of any crime.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "Lewis is guilty of larceny and Horace is not guilty of any crime." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_850", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "After cashing the check, Ames sued Bell for $200. Ames probably will", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAmes had painted Bell's house under a contract which called for payment of $2,000. Bell, contending in good faith that the porch had not been painted properly, refused to pay anything. On June 15, Ames mailed a letter to Bell stating, \"I am in serious need of money. Please send the $2,000 to me before July 1.\" On June 18, Bell replied, \"I will settle for $1,800 provided you agree to repaint the porch.\" Ames did not reply to this letter. Thereafter Bell mailed a check for $1,800 marked \"Payment in full on the Ames-Bell painting contract as per letter dated June 18.\" Ames received the check on June 30. Because he was badly in need of money, Ames cashed the check without objection and spent the proceeds but has refused to repaint the porch.\nAfter cashing the check, Ames sued Bell for $200. Ames probably will\n\n (A) succeed if he can prove that he had painted the porch according to specifications\n (B) succeed, because he cashed the check under economic duress\n (C) not succeed, because he cashed the check without objection\n (D) not succeed, because he is entitled to recover only the reasonable value of his services\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "not succeed, because he cashed the check without objection" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_157", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "In exchange for a valid and sufficient consideration, Goodbar orally promised Walker, who had no car and wanted a minivan, \"to pay to anyone from whom you buy a minivan within the next six months the full purchase-price thereof.\" Two months later, Walker bought a used minivan on credit from Minivanity Fair, Inc., for $8,000. At the time, Minivanity Fair was unaware of Goodbar's earlier promise to Walker, but learned of it shortly after the sale. Can Minivanity Fair enforce Goodbar's promise to Walker?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nIn exchange for a valid and sufficient consideration, Goodbar orally promised Walker, who had no car and wanted a minivan, \"to pay to anyone from whom you buy a minivan within the next six months the full purchase-price thereof.\" Two months later, Walker bought a used minivan on credit from Minivanity Fair, Inc., for $8,000. At the time, Minivanity Fair was unaware of Goodbar's earlier promise to Walker, but learned of it shortly after the sale. Can Minivanity Fair enforce Goodbar's promise to Walker?\n\n (A) Yes, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.\n (B) Yes, because Minivanity Fair is an intended beneficiary of the Goodbar- Walker contract.\n (C) No, because Goodbar's promise to Walker is unenforceable under the suretyship clause of the statute of frauds.\n (D) No, because Minivanity Fair was neither identified when Goodbar's promise was made nor aware of it when the minivan- sale was made.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "Yes, because Minivanity Fair is an intended beneficiary of the Goodbar- Walker contract." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1165", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "In a collision case, Plaintiff offers in evidence a photograph showing the scene of the accident while the cars were still in place. A proper foundation must include, as a minimum, testimony by which of the following?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nIn a collision case, Plaintiff offers in evidence a photograph showing the scene of the accident while the cars were still in place. A proper foundation must include, as a minimum, testimony by which of the following?\n\n (A) The photographer\n (B) A person who was present at the time the photograph was taken\n (C) A person who observed the cars while they were still in place\n (D) A person in whose custody the photograph has been since it was developed\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "A person who observed the cars while they were still in place" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_215", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Miller testified on direct examination that he had never been in the First Bank of City. His counsel asks, \"What, if anything, did you tell the police when you were arrested?\" If his answer would be, \"I told them I had never been in the bank,\" this answer would be", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nMiller is tried for armed robbery of the First Bank of City.\nMiller testified on direct examination that he had never been in the First Bank of City. His counsel asks, \"What, if anything, did you tell the police when you were arrested?\" If his answer would be, \"I told them I had never been in the bank,\" this answer would be\n\n (A) admissible to prove Miller had never been in the bank\n (B) admissible as a prior consistent statement\n (C) inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception\n (D) inadmissible, because it was a self-serving statement by a person with a substantial motive to fabricate\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_281", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Lester, the owner in fee simple of a small farm consisting of thirty acres of land improved with a house and several outbuildings, leased the same to Tanner for a ten-year period. After two years had expired, the government condemned twenty acres of the property and allocated the compensation award to Lester and Tanner according to their respective interest so taken. It so happened, how. ever, that the twenty acres taken embraced all of the farm's tillable land, leaving only the house, outbuildings, and a small woodlot. There is no applicable statute in the jurisdiction where the property is located nor any provision in the lease relating to condemnation. Tanner quit possession, and Lester brought suit against him to recover rent, Lester will", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nLester, the owner in fee simple of a small farm consisting of thirty acres of land improved with a house and several outbuildings, leased the same to Tanner for a ten-year period. After two years had expired, the government condemned twenty acres of the property and allocated the compensation award to Lester and Tanner according to their respective interest so taken. It so happened, how. ever, that the twenty acres taken embraced all of the farm's tillable land, leaving only the house, outbuildings, and a small woodlot. There is no applicable statute in the jurisdiction where the property is located nor any provision in the lease relating to condemnation. Tanner quit possession, and Lester brought suit against him to recover rent, Lester will\n\n (A) lose, because there has been a frustration of purpose which excuses Tanner from further performance of his contract to pay rent\n (B) lose, because there has been a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by Lester 's inability to provide Tanner with possession of the whole of the property for the entire term\n (C) win, because of the implied warranty on the part of the tenant to return the demised premises in the same condition at the end of the term as they were at the beginning\n (D) win, because the relationship of landlord and tenant was unaffected by the condemnation, thus leaving Tanner still obligated to pay rent\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "win, because the relationship of landlord and tenant was unaffected by the condemnation, thus leaving Tanner still obligated to pay rent" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_313", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Pedersen's counsel wants to have Sheriff testify to the following statement made to him by Walter Passenger, out of the presence of Carr: \"We were returning from a party at which we had all been drinking.\" The trial judge should rule this testimony", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nCarr ran into and injured Pedersen, a pedestrian. With Carr in his car were Wanda and Walter Passenger. Passerby saw the accident and called the police department, which sent Sheriff to investigate. All of these people are available as potential witnesses in the case of Pedersen v. Carr. Pedersen alleges that Carr, while drunk, struck Pedersen who was in a duly marked crosswalk.\nPedersen's counsel wants to have Sheriff testify to the following statement made to him by Walter Passenger, out of the presence of Carr: \"We were returning from a party at which we had all been drinking.\" The trial judge should rule this testimony\n\n (A) admissible as an admission of a party\n (B) admissible as a declaration against interest\n (C) inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception\n (D) inadmissible because it would lead the court into nonessential side issues\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_380", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Purvis purchased a used car from Daley, a used car dealer. Knowing that they were false, Daley made the following statements to Purvis prior to the sale: Statement 1. This car has never been involved in an accident. Statement 2. This car gets 25 miles to the gallon on the open highway. Statement 3. This is as smooth-riding a car as you can get. If Purvis asserts a claim against Daley based on deceit, which of the false statements made by Daley would support Purvis' claim?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nPurvis purchased a used car from Daley, a used car dealer. Knowing that they were false, Daley made the following statements to Purvis prior to the sale: Statement 1. This car has never been involved in an accident. Statement 2. This car gets 25 miles to the gallon on the open highway. Statement 3. This is as smooth-riding a car as you can get. If Purvis asserts a claim against Daley based on deceit, which of the false statements made by Daley would support Purvis' claim?\n\n (A) Statement 1 only.\n (B) Statement 2 only.\n (C) Statements 1 and 2 only.\n (D) Statements 2 and 3 only.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "Statements 1 and 2 only." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_956", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Alex and Sam were arrested for holding up a gas station. They were taken to police headquarters and placed in a room for interrogation. As a police officer addressingboth started to give them the Miranda warnings prior to the questioning, Alex said, \"Look, Sam planned the damned thing and I was dumb enough to go along with it. We robbed the place-what else is there to say?\" Sam said nothing. Sam was escorted into another room and a full written confession was then obtained from Alex. If Sam is brought to trial on an indictment charging him with robbery, the fact that Sam failed to object to Alex's statement and remained silent after Alex had implicated him in the crime should be ruled", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAlex and Sam were arrested for holding up a gas station. They were taken to police headquarters and placed in a room for interrogation. As a police officer addressingboth started to give them the Miranda warnings prior to the questioning, Alex said, \"Look, Sam planned the damned thing and I was dumb enough to go along with it. We robbed the place-what else is there to say?\" Sam said nothing. Sam was escorted into another room and a full written confession was then obtained from Alex. If Sam is brought to trial on an indictment charging him with robbery, the fact that Sam failed to object to Alex's statement and remained silent after Alex had implicated him in the crime should be ruled\n\n (A) admissible because his silence was an implied admission by Sam that he had participated in the crime\n (B) admissible because a statement of a participant in a crime is admissible against another participant\n (C) inadmissible because, under the circumstances, there was no duty or responsibility on Sam's part to respond\n (D) inadmissible because whatever Alex may have said has no probative value in a trial against Sam\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "inadmissible because, under the circumstances, there was no duty or responsibility on Sam's part to respond" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_29", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "In an action by Bell against Ames for any provable damages Bell sustained because the porch was not repainted, Bell probably will", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAmes had painted Bell's house under a contract which called for payment of $2,000. Bell, contending in good faith that the porch had not been painted properly, refused to pay anything. On June 15, Ames mailed a letter to Bell stating, \"I am in serious need of money. Please send the $2,000 to me before July 1.\" On June 18, Bell replied, \"I will settle for $1,800 provided you agree to repaint the porch.\" Ames did not reply to this letter. Thereafter Bell mailed a check for $1,800 marked \"Payment in full on the Ames-Bell painting contract as per letter dated June 18.\" Ames received the check on June 30. Because he was badly in need of money, Ames cashed the check without objection and spent the proceeds but has refused to repaint the porch.\nIn an action by Bell against Ames for any provable damages Bell sustained because the porch was not repainted, Bell probably will\n\n (A) succeed, because by cashing the check Ames impliedly promised to repaint the porch\n (B) succeed, because Ames accepted Bell's offer by not replying to the letter of June 18\n (C) not succeed, because Bell's letter of June 18 was a counter-offer which Ames never accepted\n (D) not succeed, because there is no consideration to support Ames's promise, if any\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "succeed, because by cashing the check Ames impliedly promised to repaint the porch" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_158", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Which one of the following scenarios would best support an action by Sherwood, rather than Walker, to rescind the sale?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nWalker, who knew nothing about horses, inherited Aberlone, a thoroughbred colt whose disagreeable behavior made him a pest around the barn. Walker sold the colt for $1,500 to Sherwood, an experienced racehorse-trainer who knew of Walker's ignorance about horses. At the time of sale, Walker said to Sherwood, \"I hate to say it, but this horse is bad-tempered and nothing special.\"\nWhich one of the following scenarios would best support an action by Sherwood, rather than Walker, to rescind the sale?\n\n (A) In his first race after the sale, Aberlone galloped to a huge lead but dropped dead 100 yards from the finish line because of a rare congenital heart defect that was undiscoverable except by autopsy.\n (B) Aberlone won $5 million for Sherwood over a three-year racing career but upon being retired was found to be incurably sterile and useless as a breeder.\n (C) After Aberlone had won three races for Sherwood, it was discovered that by clerical error, unknown to either party, Aberlone's official birth registration listed an undistinguished racehorse as the sire rather than the famous racehorse that in fact was the sire.\n (D) A week after the sale, Aberlone went berserk and inflicted injuries upon Sherwood that required his hospitalization for six months and a full year for his recovery.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "In his first race after the sale, Aberlone galloped to a huge lead but dropped dead 100 yards from the finish line because of a rare congenital heart defect that was undiscoverable except by autopsy." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_812", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| } | |
| ] |