imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: A written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $ 1$ million 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. 81. 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? (A) Yes, because Vintage's performance was to run to Claret rather than to Bouquet. (B) Yes, because Bouquet and Vintage could reasonably foresee that Claret would change his position in reliance on the contract. (C) No, because Bouquet and Vintage did not expressly agree that Claret would have enforceable rights under their contract. (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. 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:

Options:
A. The Bouquet-Vintage contract did not expressly authorize an assignment of rights.
B. Bouquet and Vintage are partners, not simply debtor and creditor.
C. Amicusbank is not an assignee of Bouquet's rights under the BouquetVintage contract.
D. Amicusbank is not an intended thirdparty beneficiary of the BouquetVintage contract.
Answer: C
Question: Dino purchased a new Belchfire automobile from Dealer. Within a few days of the purchase, Dino returned the car to Dealer for repairs. Dino complained, "There's something wrong with the brakes. The car keeps pulling to the left whenever I apply them."' Dealer's mechanic readjusted the brakes but did not detect any other problem with the brake system. Dealer's mechanic told Dino, "You shouldn't have any more problems with those brakes. However, if the same problem does occur, don't panic. The car may pull to the left, but the brakes will still work, allowing you to stop the car." Dino drove the car home. It worked fine for two days, but then the brakes started pulling to the left again. As Dino was driving the car back to Dealer's shop for further repair, he saw Pedestrian crossing the street. Dino pressed his foot down on the brake pedal, but the master cylinder failed, and the car would not stop. Dino's car struck Pedestrian, injuring him. 91. If Pedestrian sues Dino for his injuries: (A) Pedestrian will prevail, because Dino knew that there was a problem with his brakes. (B) Pedestrian will prevail, because drivers have a duty to maintain their vehicles in safe working order. (C) Dino will prevail, because he had no reason to know that his brakes would not stop the car. (D) Dino will prevail, because he diligently had his brakes repaired. For this question only, assume the following facts. Because she was overextended on other construction jobs, Structo did not complete the house until October 15. Homey returned on November 1 as planned and occupied the house. Ten days later, after making the $ 40,000$ final payment to Structo, Homey learned for the first time that the house had not been completed until October 15. If Homey sues Structo for breach of contract on account of the 15-day delay in completion, which of the following will the court probably decide?

Options:
A. Homey will recover damages as specified in the contract, i.e., $ 500$ multiplied by 15 .
B. Homey will recover his actual damages, if any, caused by the delay in completion.
C. Having waived the delay by occupying the house and making the final payment, Homey will recover nothing. 
D. Homey will recover nothing because the contractual completion date was impliedly modified to November 1 when Homey on January 2 advised Structo about Homey's prospective trip and return date.
Answer: B
Question: On January 1, Awl and Howser agreed in writing that Awl would build a house on Howser's lot according to Howser's plans and specifications for $ 60,000$, the work to commence on April 1. Howser agreed to make an initial payment of $ 10,000$ on April 1, and to pay the balance upon completion of the work. On February 1, Awl notified Howser that he (Awl) would lose money on the job at that price, and would not proceed with the work unless Howser would agree to increase the price to $ 90,000$. Howser thereupon, without notifying Awl, agreed in writing with Gutter for Gutter, commencing April 1, to build the house for $ 75,000$, which was the fair market cost of the work to be done. On April 1, both Awl and Gutter showed up at the building site to begin work, Awl telling Howser that he had decided to "take the loss" and would build the house for $ 60,000$ as originally agreed. Howser dismissed Awl and allowed Gutter to begin work on the house. Ruth also sues the officer, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. Will she recover?

Options:
A. No, unless the officer knew that Ruth and Bert were husband and wife.
B. No, if the officer did not know that Ruth was watching from across the street.
C. Yes, because the officer's conduct regarding Bert was extreme and outrageous.
D. Yes, because the officer's conduct caused Ruth to be severely emotionally disturbed.
Answer: B
Question: On June 1, Kravat, a manufacturer of men's neckties, received the following order from Clothier: "Ship 500 two-inch ties, assorted stripes, your catalogue No. V34. Delivery by July $1 . "$ On June 1, Kravat shipped 500 three-inch ties that arrived at Clothier's place of business on June 3. Clothier immediately telegraphed Kravat: "Reject your shipment. Order was for two-inch ties." Clothier, however, did not ship the ties back to Kravat. Kravat replied by telegram: "Will deliver proper ties before July 1." Clothier received this telegram on June 4, but did not reply to it. On June 30, Kravat tendered 500 two-inch ties in assorted stripes, designated in his catalogue as item No. V34; but Clothier refused to accept them. After Orris's conveyance to Powell, title to Brownacre was in:

Options:
A. Hull.
B. Orris.
C. Burns.
Answer: A
Question: Congressional legislation regulating the conditions for marriages and divorces would be most likely upheld if it:

Options:
A. Applied only to marriages and divorces by members of the armed services.
B. Applied only to marriages performed by federal judges and to divorces granted by federal courts.
C. Implemented an executive agreement seeking to define basic human rights.
D. Applied only to marriages and divorces in the District of Columbia.
Answer: D
Question: A state statute requires that all buses which operate as common carriers on the highways of the state shall be equipped with seat belts for passengers. Transport Lines, an interstate carrier, challenges the validity of the statute and the right of the state to make the requirement. What is the best basis for a constitutional challenge by Transport Lines?

Options:
A. Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
B. Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. Unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
D. Difficulty of enforcement.
Answer: C
Question: Supermedia, a television station, was conducting a "person on the street" interview segment live for its evening "magazine" show and asking citizens of the community what they thought were the biggest problems facing the city. When the interviewer stopped Don and asked him the question, he replied, "Corruption in city government, particularly the mayor." William, mayor of the city, has now brought an action for defamation against Don. At trial, William has produced testimony as to his honesty and good character. Which of the following evidence could Don properly adduce at trial as part of his defense? I. The fact that William was convicted two years ago of taking a bribe to award a city contract for solid waste disposal. II. The testimony of Harold, a local newspaper editor, that William is known throughout the state as a corrupt politician. III. The testimony of Allen, a former campaign manager of William's, that William was corrupt.

Options:
A. I. only.
B. I. and II. only.
C. I. and III. only.
D. I., II., and III. 
Answer: D
Question: Chemco designed and built a large tank on its premises for the purpose of storing highly toxic gas. The tank developed a sudden leak and escaping toxic gas drifted into the adjacent premises, where Nyman lived. Nyman inhaled the gas and died as a result. In a suit brought by Nyman's personal representative against Chemco, which of the following must be established if the claim is to prevail? I. The toxic gas that escaped from Chemco's premises was the cause of Nyman's death. II. The tank was built in a defective manner. III. Chemco was negligent in designing the tank.

Options:
A. I. only.
B. I. and II. only.
C. I. and III. only.
D. I., II., and III.
Answer: A
Question: An issue in Parker's action against Daves for causing Parker's back injury was whether Parker's condition had resulted principally from a similar occurrence five years before, with which Daves had no connection. Parker called Watts, his treating physician, who offered to testify that when she saw Parker after the latest occurrence, Parker told her that before the accident he had been working fulltime, without pain or limitation of motion, in a job that involved lifting heavy boxes. Watts's testimony should be:

Options:
A. Admitted, because it is a statement of Parker's then-existing physical condition.
B. Admitted, because it is a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
C. Excluded, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. Excluded, because Parker is available as a witness.
Answer: B
Question: Phyllis was crossing the street at a crosswalk, but did not look both ways. As she walked, Phyllis was hit by a car driven by Brett, and immediately afterwards, she was struck by a car driven by Andrew. As a result of these collisions with the cars, Phyllis suffered severe injuries. Although it was impossible to determine which portion of Phyllis's injuries was caused by Andrew and which by Brett, at the trial of Phyllis's suit, the jury determined that Andrew was $20 \%$ negligent, that Brett was $40 \%$ negligent, and that Phyllis was $40 \%$ negligent. It was further determined that Phyllis had suffered $ 100,000$ in damages. Phyllis had already received $ 10,000$ from her group medical insurance plan. Andrew had a $ 500,000$ auto liability insurance policy, and Brett is now insolvent. In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, how much will Phyllis recover in damages from Andrew?

Options:
A. $ 90,000$.
B. $ 60,000$.
C. $ 50,000$.
D. $ 20,000$. 
Answer: B
Question: Dent and Wren were playing golf. After they had completed nine holes, Dent left to make a telephone call. When he returned, he told Wren, "My wife was just involved in an accident. She ran a red light and hit another car. I have to skip the back nine." After arriving at the scene of the accident, Dent, after talking with bystanders, determined that his wife had not driven through a red light. Notch, the driver of the other car, brought suit against Dent's wife for injuries suffered in the accident. To help establish liability, Notch seeks to have Wren testify as to Dent's statements on the golf course. Wren's testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible as an admission.
B. Admissible as a statement against interest.
C. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.
D. Inadmissible, because it constitutes opinion.
Answer: C
Question: Astin left her car at Garrison's Garage to have repair work done. After completing the repairs, Garrison took the car out for a test drive and was involved in an accident that caused damages to Placek. A statute imposes liability on the owner of an automobile for injuries to a third party that are caused by the negligence of any person driving the automobile with the owner's consent. The statute applies to situations of this kind, even if the owner did not specifically authorize the mechanic to test-drive the car. Placek sued Astin and Garrison jointly for damages arising from the accident. In that action, Astin cross-claims to recover from Garrison the amount of any payment Astin may be required to make to Placek. The trier of fact has determined that the accident was caused solely by negligent driving on Garrison's part, and that Placek's damages were $ 100,000$. In this action, the proper outcome will be that:

Options:
A. Placek should have judgment for $ 50,000$ each against Astin and Garrison; Astin should recover nothing from Garrison.
B. Placek should have judgment for $ 100,000$ against Garrison only.
C. Placek should have judgment for $ 100,000$ against Astin and Garrison jointly, and Astin should have judgment against Garrison for $50 \%$ of any amount collected from Astin by Placek.
D. Placek should have judgment for $ 100,000$ against Astin and Garrison jointly, and Astin should have judgment against Garrison for any amount collected from Astin by Placek. 
Answer: D
Question: A 10-lot subdivision was approved by the proper governmental authority. The authority's action was pursuant to a map filed by Diaz, which included an undesignated parcel in addition to the 10 numbered lots. The shape of the undesignated parcel is different and somewhat larger than any one of the numbered lots. Subdivision building restrictions were imposed on "all the lots shown on said map." Diaz contracts to sell the unnumbered lot, described by metes and bounds, to Butts. Is title to the parcel marketable?

Options:
A. Yes, because the undesignated parcel is not a lot to which the subdivision building restrictions apply. 
B. Yes, because the undesignated parcel is not part of the subdivision.
C. No, because the undesignated parcel has never been approved by the proper governmental authority.
D. No, because the map leaves it uncertain whether the unnumbered lot is subject to the building restrictions.
Answer: D
Question: On January 2, Hugh Homey and Sue Structo entered into a written contract in which Structo agreed to build on Homey's lot a new house for Homey, according to plans and specifications furnished by Homey's architect, Barbara Bilevel, at a contract price of $ 200,000$. The contract provided for specified progress payments and a final payment of $ 40,000$ upon Homey's acceptance of the house and issuance of a certificate of final approval by the architect. Further, under a "liquidated damages" clause in the agreement, Structo promised to pay Homey $ 500$ for each day's delay in completing the house after the following October l. Homey, however, told Structo on January 2 , before the contract was signed, that he would be on an around-the-world vacation trip most of the summer and fall and would not return to occupy the house until November 1. For this question only, assume the following facts. Because she was overextended on other construction jobs, Structo did not complete the house until October 15. Homey returned on November 1 as planned and occupied the house. Ten days later, after making the $ 40,000$ final payment to Structo, Homey learned for the first time that the house had not been completed until October 15. If Homey sues Structo for breach of contract on account of the 15-day delay in completion, which of the following will the court probably decide?

Options:
A. Homey will recover damages as specified in the contract, i.e., $ 500$ multiplied by 15 .
B. Homey will recover his actual damages, if any, caused by the delay in completion.
C. Having waived the delay by occupying the house and making the final payment, Homey will recover nothing. 
D. Homey will recover nothing because the contractual completion date was impliedly modified to November 1 when Homey on January 2 advised Structo about Homey's prospective trip and return date.
Answer: B
Question: A state statute requires the permanent removal from parental custody of any child who has suffered "child abuse." That term is defined to include "corporal punishment of any sort." Zeller very gently spanks his six-year-old son on the buttocks whenever he believes that spanking is necessary to enforce discipline on him. Such a spanking occurs no more than once a month and has never physically harmed the child. The state files suit under the statute to terminate Zeller's parental rights solely because of these spankings. Zeller defends only on the ground that the statute in question is unconstitutional as applied to his admitted conduct. In light of the nature of the rights involved, which of the following is the most probable burden of persuasion on this constitutional issue? 

Options:
A. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to Zeller is necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest.
B. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to Zeller is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
C. Zeller has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to him is not necessary to vindicate an important state interest.
D. Zeller has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to him is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Answer: A
Question: Until 1954, the state of New Atlantic required segregation in all public and private schools, but all public schools are now desegregated. Other state laws, enacted before 1954 and continuing to the present, provide for free distribution of the same textbooks on secular subjects to students in all public and private schools. In addition, the state accredits schools and certifies teachers. Little White School House, a private school that offers elementary and secondary education in the state, denies admission to all non-Caucasians. Stone School is a private school that offers religious instruction. 46. Which of the following is the strongest argument against the constitutionality of free distribution of textbooks to the students at the Little White School House? (A) No legitimate educational function is served by the free distribution of textbooks. (B) The state may not in any way aid private schools. (C) The Constitution forbids private bias of any kind. (D) Segregation is furthered by the distribution of textbooks to these students. For this question only, assume that Prentis demonstrates that common carriers are permitted to transport snipe traps as cargo across Midland for delivery to another state and that, in practice, the Midland statute is enforced only against private individuals transporting those traps in private vehicles. If Prentis challenges the application of the Midland statute to her on the basis only of a denial of equal protection, this application of the statute will probably be found:

Options:
A. Constitutional, because the traps constitute contraband in which Prentis could have no protected property interest.
B. Constitutional, because there is a rational basis for differentiating between the possession of snipe traps as interstate cargo by common carriers and the possession of snipe traps by private individuals.
C. Unconstitutional, because the state cannot demonstrate a compelling public purpose for making this differentiation between common carriers and such private individuals.
D. Unconstitutional, because interstate travel is a fundamental right that may not be burdened by state law.
Answer: B
Question: In a trial between Jones and Smith, an issue arose about Smith's ownership of a horse, which had caused damage to Jones's crops. Jones offered to testify that he looked up Smith's telephone number in the directory, called that number, and that a voice answered, "This is Smith speaking." At this, Jones asked, "Was that your horse that tramped across my cornfield this afternoon?" The voice replied, "Yes." The judge should rule the testimony:

Options:
A. Admissible, because the answering speaker's identification of himself, together with the usual accuracy of the telephone directory and transmission system, furnishes sufficient authentication.
B. Admissible, because judicial notice may be taken of the accuracy of telephone directories.
C. Inadmissible unless Jones can further testify that he was familiar with Smith's voice and that it was in fact Smith to whom he spoke.
D. Inadmissible unless Smith has first been asked whether or not the conversation took place and has been given the opportunity to admit, deny, or explain.
Answer: A
Question: Don Dent was on trial for the murder of Michael Richards. At the trial, Dent put forth the defense of self-defense, claiming that Michael was about to kill him when he shot Michael. To help establish that he was in fear of Michael, Dent called Walter to testify. Walter will testify that he heard Sam Smith say to Dent, "Michael Richards is a mean, vicious killer; he has murdered three people in the past year." Walter's testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule.
B. Admissible nonhearsay.
C. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not covered by an exception.
D. Inadmissible, because it does not help establish that Dent acted in self-defense. 
Answer: B
Question: The federal government has complete jurisdiction over certain park land located within the state of Plains. To conserve the wildlife that inhabits that land, the federal government enacts a statute forbidding all hunting of animals in the federal park. That statute also forbids the hunting of animals that have left the federal park and have entered the state of Plains. Hanson has a hunting license from the state of Plains authorizing him to hunt deer anywhere in the state. On land within the state of Plains located adjacent to the federal park, Hanson shoots a deer he knows has recently left the federal land. Hanson is prosecuted for violating the federal hunting law. The strongest ground supporting the constitutionality of the federal law forbidding the hunting of wild animals that wander off federal property is that:

Options:
A. This law is a necessary and proper means of protecting United States property.
B. The animals are moving in the stream of interstate commerce.
C. The police powers of the federal government encompass protection of wild animals.
D. Shooting wild animals is a privilege, not a right.
Answer: A