imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs 20 miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen-Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $ 1,200$ upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand. Sincerely, [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer and promise to deliver the bike as you specified. Sincerely, [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10 . Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $ 1,050$ a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said: "I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $ 1,050$. Would you consider selling me yours for $ 950$ ?" Slicker replied, "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:55 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until $12: 15 \mathrm{p}$.m. Duffer then rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's. In Duffer's letter of October 8, what was the legal effect of the language: "This offer is not subject to countermand"?

Options:
A. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the offer was irrevocable until noon, November 12.
B. Such language prevented an effective acceptance by Slicker prior to noon, November 12.
C. At common law, such language created a binding option in Slicker's favor.
D. Such language did not affect the offeror's power of revocation of the offer.
Answer: D
Question: Mater, a wealthy widow, wishing to make a substantial and potentially enduring gift to her beloved adult stepson, Prodigal, established with the Vault Savings and Loan Association a passbook savings account by an initial deposit of $ 10,000$. For this question only, assume the following facts. The passbook was issued by Vault to Mater solely in her own name. That same day, disinterested witnesses being present, she handed the passbook to Prodigal and said, "As a token of my love and affection for you, I give you this $ 10,000$ savings account." Shortly thereafter, she changed her mind and wrote Prodigal, "I hereby revoke my gift to you of the $ 10,000$ savings account with Vault Savings and Loan Association. Please return my passbook immediately. Signed: Mater." Prodigal received this letter but ignored it, and Mater died unexpectedly a few days later. In litigation between Prodigal and Mater's estate, which of the following is a correct statement of the parties' rights with respect to the money on deposit with Vault? 

Options:
A. The estate prevails, because Mater's gift to Prodigal was revocable and was terminated by her death.
B. The estate prevails, because Mater's gift to Prodigal was revocable and was terminated by her express revocation.
C. Prodigal prevails, because he took Mater's claim to the savings account by a gratuitous but effective and irrevocable assignment from Mater.
D. Prodigal prevails, because his failure to reject the gift, even if the assignment was revocable, created an estoppel against Mater and her estate.
Answer: C
Question: Tortfeasor tortiously injured Victim in an auto accident. While Victim was recovering in Hospital, Tortfeasor's liability insurer, Insurer, settled with Victim for $ 5,000$. Victim gave Insurer a signed release and received a signed memorandum wherein Insurer promised to pay Victim $ 5,000$ by check within 30 days. When Victim left Hospital two days later, Hospital demanded payment of its $ 4,000$ stated bill. Victim thereupon gave Hospital his own negotiable promissory note for $ 4,000$, payable to Hospital's order in 30 days, and also, as security, assigned to Hospital the Insurer settlement memorandum. Hospital promptly assigned for value the settlement memorandum and negotiated the note to Holder, who took the note as a holder in due course. Subsequently, Victim misrepresented to Insurer that he had lost the settlement memorandum and needed another. Insurer issued another memorandum identical to the first, and Victim assigned it to $\mathrm{ABC}$ Furniture to secure a $ 5,000$ credit sale contract. $\mathrm{ABC}$ immediately notified Insurer of this assignment. Later it was discovered that Hospital had mistakenly overbilled Victim by the amount of $ 1,000$ and that Tortfeasor was an irresponsible minor. If Victim starts an action against Insurer 40 days after the insurance settlement agreement, can Victim recover?

Options:
A. Yes, because his attempted assignments of his claim against Insurer were ineffective, inasmuch as Insurer's promise to pay "by check" created a right in Victim that was too personal to assign.
B. No, because he no longer has possession of Insurer's written memorandum.
C. No, because Tortfeasor's minority and irresponsibility vitiated the settlement agreement between Victim and Insurer.
D. No, because he has made at least one effective assignment of his claim against Insurer, and Insurer has notice thereof.
Answer: D
Question: When Esther, Gray's 21-year-old daughter, finished college, Gray handed her a signed memorandum stating that if she would go to law school for three academic years, he would pay her tuition, room, and board, and would "give her a $ 1,000$ bonus" for each "A" she got in law school. Esther's uncle, Miller, who was present on this occasion, read the memorandum and thereupon said to Esther, "and if he doesn't pay your expenses, I will." Gray paid her tuition, room, and board for her first year but died just before the end of that year. Subsequently, Esther learned that she had received two "As" in the second semester. The executor of Gray's estate has refused to pay her anything for the two "As" and has told her that the estate will no longer pay her tuition, room, and board in law school. In an action against Gray's estate for $ 2,000$ on account of the two "As," if the only defense raised is lack of consideration, Esther probably will: 

Options:
A. Succeed under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
B. Succeed on a theory of bargained-for exchange for her father's promise.
C. Not succeed, because the $ 1,000$ for each "A" was promised only as a bonus.
D. Not succeed, because Esther was already legally obligated to use her best efforts in law school.
Answer: B
Question: Jack and Paul planned to hold up a bank. They drove to the bank in Jack's car. Jack entered while Paul remained as lookout in the car. After a few moments, Paul panicked and drove off. Jack looked over the various tellers, approached one and whispered nervously, "Just hand over the cash. Don't look around, don't make a false move-or it's your life." The teller looked at the fidgeting Jack, laughed, flipped him a dollar bill, and said, "Go on, beat it." Flustered, Jack grabbed the dollar and left. Paul's best defense to a charge of robbery would be that:

Options:
A. Jack alone entered the bank.
B. Paul withdrew, before commission of the crime, when he fled the scene.
C. Paul had no knowledge of what Jack whispered to the teller.
D. The teller was not placed in fear by Jack. 
Answer: D
Question: Adams, Bennett, and Curtis are charged in a common law jurisdiction with conspiracy to commit larceny. The state introduced evidence that they agreed to go to Nelson's house to take stock certificates from a safe in Nelson's bedroom, that they went to the house, and that they were arrested as they entered Nelson's bedroom. Adams testified that he thought the stock certificates belonged to Curtis, that Nelson was improperly keeping them from Curtis, and that he went along to aid in retrieving Curtis's property. Bennett testified that he suspected Adams and Curtis of being thieves and joined up with them in order to catch them. He also testified that he made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime and that the call caused the police to be waiting for them when they walked into Nelson's bedroom. Curtis did not testify. If the jury believes Bennett, it should find him:

Options:
A. Guilty, because there was an agreement and the entry into the bedroom is sufficient for the overt act.
B. Guilty, because he is not a police officer and thus cannot claim any privilege of apprehending criminals.
C. Not guilty, because he did not intend to steal.
D. Not guilty, because he prevented the theft from occurring.
Answer: C
Question: Paula sued for injuries she sustained in a fall in a hotel hallway connecting the lobby of the hotel with a restaurant located in the hotel building. The hallway floor was covered with vinyl tile. The defendants were Horne, owner of the hotel building, and Lee, lessee of the restaurant. The evidence was that the hallway floor had been waxed approximately an hour before Paula slipped on it, and although the wax had dried, there appeared to be excessive dried wax caked on several of the tiles. Horne's defense was that the hallway was a part of the premises leased to Lee over which he retained no control, and Lee denied negligence and alleged contributory negligence. Lee offered to prove by Marks, the restaurant manager, that in the week immediately preceding Paula's fall at least 1,000 people had used the hallway in going to and from the restaurant, and Marks had neither seen anyone fall nor received reports that anyone had fallen. The trial judge should rule this evidence:

Options:
A. Admissible, because it tends to prove that Paula did not use the care exercised by reasonably prudent people.
B. Admissible, because it tends to prove that Lee was generally careful in maintaining the floor.
C. Inadmissible, because Marks's testimony is self-serving.
D. Inadmissible, because it does not bear on the issue of Lee's exercise of due care on this specific occasion.
Answer: D
Question: Pemberton and three passengers, Able, Baker, and Charley, were injured when their car was struck by a truck owned by Mammoth Corporation and driven by Edwards. Helper, also a Mammoth employee, was riding in the truck. The issues in Pemberton $v$. Mammoth include the negligence of Edwards in driving too fast and in failing to wear glasses, and of Pemberton in failing to yield the right of way. Pemberton's counsel proffers evidence showing that shortly after the accident, Mammoth put a speed governor on the truck involved in the accident. The judge should rule the proffered evidence:

Options:
A. Admissible as an admission of a party.
B. Admissible as res gestae.
C. Inadmissible for public policy reasons.
D. Inadmissible, because it would lead to the drawing of an inference on an inference.
Answer: C
Question: The following facts concern a tract of land in a state which follows general law. Each instrument is in proper form, recorded, marital property rights were waived when necessary, and each person named was adult and competent at the time of the named transaction. In 1940, Oleg, the owner, conveyed his interest in fee simple "to my brothers Bob and Bill, their heirs and assigns as joint tenants with right of survivorship." In 1950 Bob died, devising his interest to his only child, "Charles, for life, and then to Charles's son, Sam, for life, and then to Sam's children, their heirs and assigns."In 1970 Bill died, devising his interest "to my friend, Frank, his heirs and assigns." In 1972 Frank conveyed by quitclaim deed "to Paul, his heirs and assigns, whatever right, title, and interest I own." Paul has never married. Paul has contracted to convey marketable record title in the land to Patrick. Can Paul do so?

Options:
A. Yes, without joinder of any other person in the conveyance.
B. Yes, if Charles, Sam, and Sam's only child (Gene, aged 25) will join in the conveyance. 
C. No, regardless of who joins in the conveyance, because Sam may have additional children whose interests cannot be defeated.
D. No, regardless of who joins in the conveyance, because a title acquired by quitclaim deed is impliedly unmarketable.
Answer: A
Question: Diner, a drive-in hamburger and ice cream stand, recently opened for business in the suburban town of Little City. Diner's business hours are from 9 a.m. to midnight. It is in an area that for 15 years has been zoned for small retail businesses, apartment buildings, and one- and two-family residences. The zoning code specifies that "small retail businesses" include "businesses where food and drink are dispensed for consumption on the premises." Diner was the first drive-in in Little City. For seven years Mr. and Mrs. Householder have owned and lived in their single-family residence, which is across the street from Diner. On opening day a brass band played in the parking lot of Diner until midnight, and the noise of cars and the usual activity as a result of the new business prevented the Householders from getting to sleep until well after midnight, long after their usual time. Diner is heavily patronized during the day and night by high school students. The noise of cars, the lights of the cars, the lights illuminating the parking lot at Diner, and the noise from the loudspeaker of the ordering system prevented the Householders from sleeping before midnight. Paper cups, napkins, and other items from the drive-in are regularly blown into the Householders's front yard by the prevailing wind. The traffic to and from Diner is so heavy on the street in front of their house that the Householders are afraid to allow their small children to play in the front yard. The Householders have asserted a claim against Diner based on private nuisance. The most likely effect of the fact that the Householders were in the area before Diner is that it:

Options:
A. Requires that the Householders' interest be given priority.
B. Is irrelevant because of the zoning ordinance.
C. Is irrelevant because conforming economic uses are given priority.
D. Is some, but not controlling, evidence.
Answer: D
Question: Gasco owns a storage facility where flammable gases are stored in liquefied form under high pressure in large spherical tanks. The facility was constructed for Gasco by Acme Company, a firm that specializes in the construction of such facilities. After the facility had been in use for five years, an explosion in the facility started a large fire that blanketed the surrounding countryside with a high concentration of oily smoke and soot. Farber owns a large truck farm near the facility. His entire lettuce crop was destroyed by oily deposits left by the smoke. If Farber asserts a claim against Gasco for the loss of his lettuce crop and is unable to show any negligence on the part of Gasco, will Farber prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, because the operation of the storage facility was an abnormally dangerous activity.
B. Yes, because the intrusion of the smoke onto Farber's farm amounted to a trespass.
C. No, if the explosion was caused by internal corrosion that reasonable inspection procedures would not have disclosed.
D. No, if the explosion was caused by negligent construction on Acme's part.
Answer: A
Question: Johnston purchased 100 bolts of standard blue wool, No. 1 quality, from McHugh. The sales contract provided that Johnston would make payment prior to inspection. The 100 bolts were shipped and Johnston paid McHugh. Upon inspection, however, Johnston discovered that the wool was No. 2 quality. Johnston thereupon tendered back the wool to McHugh and demanded return of his payment. McHugh refused on the ground that there is no difference between No. 1 quality wool and No. 2 quality wool. Which of the following statements regarding the contract provision for preinspection payment is correct?

Options:
A. It constitutes an acceptance of the goods.
B. It constitutes a waiver of the buyer's remedy of private sale in the case of nonconforming goods.
C. It does not impair a buyer's right of inspection or his remedies.
D. It is invalid.
Answer: C
Question: Furrow leased in writing a 100 -acre farm from Quark for five years at $ 2,000$ per year, with an option to purchase "five acres of the land for $ 10,000$ cash" at the end of the lease term. Before the lease was executed, Quark orally promised to have a five-acre parcel surveyed before the end of the lease term. Furrow took possession of the farm and paid the rent for five years. During the fifth year, having decided that he would exercise the purchase option, Furrow planted several fruit trees and built a large grain silo on the property. At the end of the term, Furrow tendered Quark $ 10,000$ and demanded a conveyance, but Quark repudiated the option agreement and retook possession of the farm. He had never had the five-acre parcel surveyed. Assume for this question only that Quark is not liable to Furrow for breach of a landsale contract. In an action by Furrow against Quark for the reasonable value of the improvements that Furrow added to the farm, which of the following theories would best support Furrow's claim?

Options:
A. Quasi-contract, for benefits unofficiously and non-gratuitously conferred upon Quark by Furrow. 
B. Tort, for conversion by Quark in retaking possession of the improvements.
C. Breach of trust by Quark as trustee of a resulting trust of the improvements.
D. Breach by Quark of an implied-in-fact promise (manifested by his retaking possession of the farm and improvements) to compensate Furrow for the improvements. 
Answer: A
Question: The Kernel Corporation, through its president, Demeter Gritz, requested from Vault Finance, Inc., a short-term loan of $ 100,000$. On April 1, Gritz and Vault's loan officer agreed orally that Vault would make the loan on the following terms: (1) the loan would be repaid in full on or before the following July 1 and would carry interest at an annual rate of 15\% (a lawful rate under the applicable usury law); and (2) Gritz would personally guarantee repayment. The loan was approved and made on April 5. The only document evidencing the loan was a memorandum, written and supplied by Vault and signed by Gritz for Kernel, that read in its entirety: In consideration of a loan advanced on this date, Kernel Corporation hereby promises to pay Vault Finance, Inc., $ 100,000$ on September 1. Kernel Corporation by /s/ Demeter Gritz Demeter Gritz, President Kernel Corporation did not repay the loan on or before July 1, although it had sufficient funds to do so. On July 10, Vault sued Kernel as principal debtor and Gritz individually as guarantor for $ 100,000$, plus $15 \%$ interest from April 5. At the trial, can Vault prove Kernel's oral commitment to repay the loan on or before July 1 ?

Options:
A. Yes, because the oral agreement was supported by an independent consideration.
B. Yes, because evidence of the parties' negotiations is relevant to their contractual intent concerning maturity of the debt.
C. No, because such evidence is barred by the preexisting duty rule.
D. No, because such evidence contradicts the writing and is barred by the parol evidence rule.
Answer: D
Question: On October 1, Toy Store, Inc., entered into a written contract with Fido Factory, Inc., for the purchase at $ 20$ per unit of 1,000 mechanical dogs, to be specially manufactured by Fido according to Toy Store's specifications. Fido promised to deliver all of the dogs "not later than November 15, for the Yule shopping season,"' and Toy Store promised to pay the full $ 20,000$ price upon delivery. In order to obtain operating funds, Fido as borrower entered into a written loan agreement on October 5 with the High Finance Company. In relevant part, this agreement recited, "Fido Factory hereby transfers and assigns to High Finance its (Fido Factory's) October 1 mechanical dog contract with Toy Store, as security for a 50 -day loan of $ 15,000$, the advance and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged by Fido Factory. ..." No copy of this agreement, or statement relating to it, was filed in an office of public record. On October 15, Fido notified Toy Store, "We regret to advise that our master shaft burned out last night because our night supervisor let the lubricant level get too low. We have just fired the supervisor, but the shaft cannot be repaired or replaced until about January 1. We can guarantee delivery of your order, however, not later than January 20." Toy Store rejected this proposal as unacceptable and immediately contracted with the only other available manufacturer to obtain the 1,000 dogs at $ 30$ per unit by November 15 . For this question only, assume that on November 1, Toy Store sues Fido for damages and alleges the above facts, except those relating to the Fido-High Finance loan agreement. Upon Fido's motion to dismiss the complaint, the court should:

Options:
A. Sustain the motion, because Fido on October 15 stated its willingness, and gave assurance of its ability, to perform the contract in January.
B. Sustain the motion, because Toy Store's lawsuit is premature in any case until after November 15.
C. Deny the motion, because Toy Store's complaint alleges an actionable tort by Fido.
D. Deny the motion, because Toy Store's complaint alleges an actionable breach of contract by Fido.
Answer: D
Question: In a written contract Singer agreed to deliver to Byer 500 described chairs at $ 20$ each F.O.B. Singer's place of business. The contract provided that "neither party will assign this contract without the written consent of the other." Singer placed the chairs on board a carrier on January 30. On February 1, Singer said in a signed writing, "I hereby assign to Wheeler all my rights under the Singer-Byer contract." Singer did not request and did not get Byer's consent to this transaction. On February 2, the chairs, while in transit, were destroyed in a derailment of the carrier's railroad car. In an action by Byer against Singer for breach of contract, Byer probably will:

Options:
A. Succeed, because the carrier will be deemed to be Singer's agent. 
B. Succeed, because the risk of loss was on Singer.
C. Not succeed, because of impossibility of performance.
D. Not succeed, because the risk of loss was on Byer.
Answer: D
Question: Drew is charged with the murder of Pitt. The prosecutor introduced testimony of a police officer that Pitt told a priest administering the last rites, "I was stabbed by Drew. Since I am dying, tell him I forgive him." Thereafter, Drew's attorney offers the testimony of Wall that the day before, when Pitt believed he would live, he stated that he had been stabbed by Jack, an old enemy. The testimony of Wall is:

Options:
A. Admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule.
B. Admissible to impeach the dead declarant.
C. Inadmissible, because it goes to the ultimate issue in the case.
D. Inadmissible, because irrelevant to any substantive issue in the case.
Answer: B
Question: Owner and his employee, Driver, consult Attorney about a motor vehicle collision resulting in a suit by Litigant against Owner and Driver as joint defendants. Attorney calls Irving, his investigator, into the conference to make notes of what is said, and those present discuss the facts of the collision and Owner's insurance. Owner thereafter files a cross-claim against Driver for indemnity for any damages obtained by Litigant. Driver calls Irving in his defense against the cross-claim. He seeks to have Irving testify to admissions made by Owner in the conference. On objection by Owner, the court should rule Irving's testimony:

Options:
A. Admissible, because the attorney-client privilege does not apply, in suits between those conferring with him, to joint consultations with an attorney.
B. Admissible, because the attorney-client privilege does not apply to testimony by one who does not stand in a confidential relationship with the person against whom the evidence is offered. 
C. Admissible, because the conference was not intended to be confidential, since it concerned anticipated testimony in open court.
D. Inadmissible, because Owner has not waived the attorney-client privilege.
Answer: A