imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Mary's doctor informed her that she had a rare blood disease that was almost always fatal. He further informed her that there was no treatment known to medical science for this disease. Out of desperation, Mary consulted Quack, who claimed to have a cure for the blood disease. Mary entered into an agreement with Quack under which Quack promised to treat Mary for the blood disease. However, no price was given for the treatment. After two months of treatment, Mary did not appear to have improved at all. Mary's father, Stu, went to see Quack and told Quack that if Quack would cure Mary of the blood disease, Stu would pay Quack $ 25,000$. Four months later, after weekly sessions with Quack, Mary again went to see her doctor. This time her doctor told her that she appeared to have recovered completely from the blood disease, because all tests for the disease proved negative; and that, in his opinion, she was completely cured. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Stu refuses to pay Quack the $ 25,000$. Quack brings suit against Stu. Quack will:

Options:
A. Recover nothing, because Stu's promise constituted no legal detriment to him.
B. Recover nothing, because Quack had a preexisting duty to Mary under their prior agreement.
C. Recover the reasonable value of his services, because they are less than $ 25,000$.
D. Recover $ 25,000$, because Stu was bargaining for Mary's recovery.
Answer: D
Question: In 1998, Jane sold Wes her resort hotel for $ 250,000$. Wes paid $ 100,000$ down and agreed to pay the balance in equal monthly installments over the next 15 years. Jane's eldest son, Luke, started law school in 1999 and, because Jane wanted to help him with his educational and living expenses, she sent a letter to Wes instructing him to send Luke $ 500$ a month from the money he owed to Jane until Jane instructed him otherwise. Wes was unable to raise the capital he needed to expand the hotel, and in 2000 he sold the resort to Funco in exchange for Funco's agreement to assume all his obligations and to provide him with a long-term contract to be the hotel's manager. Funco agreed with these terms and assumed the contract Wes had with Jane. In 2002, when Luke had completed law school, Jane's other son, Zack, was getting married. Jane knew Zack could not afford to buy a house so Jane told Zack that she would instruct Wes and Funco to send the full installments to Zack so he could buy a house if Zack agreed that Jane could have the funds back if she ever needed them. Zack agreed, and Jane wrote a letter to Wes informing him of this agreement and instructing him that the full payment should now go to Zack. Zack was given a copy of this letter. In 2003, Funco wanted to get out of the resort business, and it sold the hotel and all the obligations back to Wes. About this same time, Jane promised her sister's daughter, Susan, that if she wanted to go to Europe for several months to study art, Jane would pay her expenses. Susan agreed, and Jane sent another letter to Wes telling him to send the monthly installments to Susan until Jane told him otherwise. Wes did so. Several months later Jane died, leaving all her cash (and the balance due on the note from Wes) to Zack. Luke sued Wes, claiming he was entitled to receive $ 500$ per month from 2002 until all sums due to Jane had been paid. How would a court hold?

Options:
A. Judgment for Wes, because Luke was only a gratuitous assignee and had no protected rights against Wes.
B. Judgment for Luke, because he had changed his position in reliance upon Jane's agreement.
C. Judgment for Wes, because Jane had the right to stop making payments to Luke at anytime.
D. Judgment for Luke, because his rights were vested when Wes was instructed to make the payments to him.
Answer: C
Question: Owner and Builder executed a contract providing that Builder was to construct a residence on a specified location according to plans and specifications drawn up by Architect. The total contract price was $ 500,000$. The lot on which the residence was to be built was located on the seashore in Palm Beach, Florida and there was an existing woodframe structure that had to be demolished before the residence could be built. Owner contracted with Designer to furnish the interior of the residence after Builder completed construction, but no date was included in either contract for completion of the home. The contract between Owner and Builder stated that construction would begin within two weeks after the existing structure was demolished and the rubble removed from the lot. The contract between Owner and Builder was signed November 12, and the contract between Owner and Designer was signed November 11. Assume for the purposes of this question only that the day after the preexisting structure is demolished and the rubble removed, a severe storm causes gigantic waves that erode the seashore so that Owner's lot is now under water. Must Builder still perform the contract?

Options:
A. No, the contract is void because the subject of the contract was destroyed through no fault of the parties.
B. No, Builder is discharged of his obligation because of impossibility of performance.
C. Yes, if Owner obtains an alternative lot within a reasonable period of time.
D. No, the contract is void because of mutual mistake.
Answer: B
Question: Civil service rules, which have been on the books in the city of Charlesville for many years, provide that any member of the police department must serve a one-year probationary period before he or she will be considered a permanent employee. In fact, this rule was enacted before Charlesville had a police academy, and now a prospective police officer spends six months in the academy before being hired by the city. Ruby, a graduate of the police academy, was with the city police department for eight months when she was terminated. There were no city ordinances or state laws that required that Ruby be given a reason for the termination or a hearing, and she was given neither. Ruby brought suit against the city in the state court because of the termination of her employment. Which of the following would most likely give Ruby a constitutional basis to force the city to give her a statement of reasons for the termination of her employment and an opportunity for a hearing?

Options:
A. No police officer had ever been terminated during probation except where there was actual cause.
B. The six months she spent in the academy must be considered as part of her probation period.
C. The budget of the police department was recently increased to allow for the hiring of additional officers.
D. She was the only female police officer on probation and the only officer not given permanent employment.
Answer: A
Question: Telco, a local telephone company, negligently allowed one of its telephone poles, located between a street and a sidewalk, to become termite-ridden. Rhodes, who was intoxicated and driving at an excessive rate of speed, lost control of her car and hit the weakened telephone pole. One week later, the pole fell and struck Walker, a pedestrian who was walking on the sidewalk. The pole fell because of the combination of the force of the impact and the pole's termite-ridden condition. If Walker asserts a claim against Telco and Rhodes, will Walker prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, against Telco but not Rhodes.
B. Yes, against Rhodes but not Telco.
C. Yes, against Telco and Rhodes, each for one-half of his damages.
D. Yes, against both Telco and Rhodes for the full amount of his damages.
Answer: D
Question: Amp, an electrical contractor, sued Short, a homeowner. Amp alleged that Short refused to pay for extensive wiring repairs performed on Short's home by Wilson, an employee of Amp. Amp called Wilson to the stand as a witness. Wilson, under oath, testified that he did not perform any work at Short's home. Wilson also denied writing a letter to Lee telling Lee that Wilson was going to do electrical work on Short's house. Without releasing Wilson as a witness, Amp offers in evidence the letter written by Wilson to Lee. If Wilson's letter to Lee is properly authenticated, the trial court should:

Options:
A. Admit the letter for impeachment purposes only.
B. Admit the letter as both substantive and impeachment evidence.
C. Exclude the letter because a party may not impeach his own witness.
D. Exclude the letter because it is inadmissible hearsay.
Answer: B
Question: In Peck's antitrust suit against manufacturers of insulation, Peck's interrogatories asked for information concerning total sales of insulation by each of the defendant manufacturers in a particular year. The defendants replied to the interrogatories by referring Peck to the Insulation Manufacturer's Annual Journal for the information. If, at trial, Peck offers the annual as evidence of the sales volume, this evidence is:

Options:
A. Admissible, as an adoptive admission of the defendants.
B. Admissible, as a business record.
C. Inadmissible, as hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible, as lacking sufficient authentication. 
Answer: A
Question: Farmer's Garden Foods ("FGF") was a manufacturer of quality red cheese made from imported yaks' milk. In a written agreement between FGF and Gourmet Mart ("GM"), a retail seller of fine quality foods, FGF agreed to "sell all output of FGF red cheese to GM," and GM agreed to "sell FGF red cheese exclusively." The agreement went on to state that GM would pay $ 150$ for each 10 -wheel container of red cheese ordered from FGF. Under the above facts, what are the relative obligations of the parties?

Options:
A. FGF has to sell all of its output to GM; GM has to buy all of FGF's output.
B. FGF has to sell all of its output to GM; GM has to sell exclusively FGF red cheese.
C. FGF has to sell all of its output to GM; GM has to sell exclusively FGF red cheese but it does not have to buy any.
D. FGF has to sell all of its output to GM; GM has to buy all of FGF's output and has to sell exclusively FGF red cheese.
Answer: C
Question: Dag lost about $ 500$ while playing poker with several persons at Vance's house. When Dag accused Vance of cheating, Vance asked him to leave. Dag became abusive and refused to leave, so Vance and a couple of other players forced him to go. Angry and determined to get back his money, Dag went to his home and got his gun. He put his pistol into his coat pocket and headed back to Vance's house intending to shoot Vance if he did not give back the $ 500$. But, because Vance knew that Dag had a reputation for being violent, after the altercation at the house Vance had called the police. Just as Dag was about to step onto Vance's property, the police pulled up and stopped him. They frisked him, and finding the pistol in his pocket, arrested him. A state statute prohibits entry onto the property of another with the intent to commit violence thereon. If charged with attempt under this statute, most likely Dag will be found:

Options:
A. Not guilty, because this is an "attempt" statute, and there cannot be an attempt of an attempt.
B. Not guilty, because it would be an attempt to convict a person for a guilty mind.
C. Guilty, because Dag was trying to enter the property and he had the necessary state of mind.
D. Guilty, because the statute was designed to protect the public from violence, and Dag is dangerous.
Answer: C
Question: During Dan's prosecution for burglary, the prosecution calls Teddy to the stand, and the following takes place: Prosecutor: "After Dan left the room, what did Roger say to you, if anything?" Previous evidence has established that Roger and Dan had agreed, prior to the time Dan left the room, to burglarize a jewelry store. Defense counsel: "Objection!" Court: "Overruled."' Teddy then testifies about what Roger said. If defense counsel wishes to complain about the court's ruling in this matter on appeal, what more should she do before the trial concludes? 

Options:
A. Nothing.
B. Ask the court for the reasons that the objection was overruled.
C. Restate the objection for the record, stating the grounds therefor.
D. Request the trial court to order the prosecution to make an offer of proof.
Answer: C
Question: State A, suffering from a severe loss of tax revenues due to an initiative that cut state sales taxes in half, enacted legislation that ended costof-living increases in all state employees' pensions. If a state organization of employees brought suit against the appropriate state official in the federal court to reinstate the increase, the most likely result will be that:

Options:
A. The employees' organization will prevail, because the statute violates the prohibition against the impairment of the obligations of contracts by a state.
B. The employees' organization will prevail, if it can show that the statute violates the state's constitution. 
C. The employees' suit will be dismissed, because the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a state's citizens from suing a state official for official acts in a federal court.
D. The employees' organization will not prevail, because the state always has the power to amend its own legislation.
Answer: A
Question: Concerned with the rising amount of organized crime activity in this country, Congress enacts the Stop Organized Crime Act ("SOCA"), which enumerates certain activities, and states that in addition to any crimes these activities currently constitute, they will henceforth constitute the criminal act of intentional furtherance of the goals of organized crime. Among the enumerated activities is the interstate distribution of cocaine. For purposes of this question, you are to assume that the Act is constitutional and otherwise valid in all respects. Dalton is arrested by federal agents after having driven a truck containing cocaine from Florida to Illinois, where he delivered his illicit cargo to Thomas. At trial, Dalton is convicted of interstate distribution of cocaine, as well as of a violation of SOCA. Dalton may be sentenced:

Options:
A. Under either statute, but not both.
B. Under both statutes.
C. Only under the statute that carries a lesser maximum sentence.
D. Only under the statute that carries a greater maximum sentence. 
Answer: B
Question: When Sandra graduated from high school, her elderly Aunt Mildred asked her to come and live with her in the large, three-story brownstone owned by Mildred in Manhattan. Mildred had recently had hip replacement surgery and could no longer attend to even minor household activities, and needed assistance in caring for the several thousand orchids she cultivated in her rooftop greenhouse. Mildred said to Sandra, "I probably have about five years left, so if you will live here and take care of me and my flowers for the rest of my life, this house and the flowers will be yours." Sandra agreed, and moved from her parents' home in Yonkers to the brownstone in Manhattan. Mildred lived for eight years after Sandra came to live with her. Sandra attended to Mildred's personal needs, an increasing necessity as Mildred grew more frail. Sandra also maintained the household, did the shopping, cooking, etc., and cared, with less and less assistance from Mildred, for the numerous orchids. Mildred's moderate income from her investments provided the money necessary to support the household. No further discussion was ever had between Mildred and Sandra regarding conveyance of the brownstone and its contents. Shortly after Mildred died, Sandra was contacted by a Mr. Cramer, who identified himself as Mildred's lawyer and stated that he was in possession of Mildred's last will and testament and would seek to have it admitted to probate. In the subsequent proceedings, it was revealed that Mildred had devised her orchids to a Nero Wolfe, also residing in Manhattan, and her investments, the house, and the remainder of her estate, to her daughter who lived in California and whom Mildred had not seen or heard from in over 15 years. When Sandra refused to vacate the brownstone or surrender the orchids, Cramer, now representing Mildred's daughter, brought action for possession of the house. If Sandra prevails in the action brought by Mildred's daughter, it will be because:

Options:
A. She can successfully assert the doctrine of "unclean hands" to prevent Mildred's daughter from pressing her claim under the will.
B. The Statute of Frauds need not be satisfied as between family members.
C. The Statute of Frauds will not bar enforcement of Mildred's promise because her promise induced Sandra to perform, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement. 
D. The Statute of Frauds will not be applied where there has been part performance and where that performance is such as can be explained by the existence of the asserted contract and in no other way.
Answer: C
Question: Nimrod, who held a hunting license issued by the state of West, was hunting deer and elk in that state. After two days of fruitless hunting, Nimrod spied an elk. Nimrod was hunting on private land, but the elk was 200 yards away, inside a fence that surrounded a federal military base. Nimrod shot the elk from where he was standing, but entered the military base to retrieve the carcass. Nimrod took the carcass away and had it dressed and frozen for Nimrod's meals through the winter. A federal statute prohibits the removal of wild animals or the carcasses thereof from United States military bases. Nimrod is prosecuted under the statute. The best argument in favor of upholding the statute as constitutional would be based on:

Options:
A. The Supremacy Clause.
B. The Army and Navy Clause.
C. The Commerce Clause.
D. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Answer: A
Question: Sam was a famous auto racer and builder of racing cars. He and Bob signed a contract for sale of one of Sam's hand-built race cars for $ 25,000$, the price to be paid and the car to be delivered one week later. The day after the contract was signed, Sam called Bob and told him that Sam's wife, Winnie, who had a half interest in the race car, would not go along with the sale at $ 25,000$. Winnie would agree to a sale for $ 40,000$. Assume for purposes of this question only that there was an enforceable contract between Sam and Bob. Bob fails to tender $ 25,000$ to Sam on the date set for delivery and Sam does not deliver the car. On these facts:

Options:
A. Sam can recover from Bob for breach of contract.
B. Bob can recover from Sam for breach of contract.
C. Neither can recover until one of the parties tenders performance.
D. The contract is terminated.
Answer: B
Question: Owner and Builder executed a contract providing that Builder was to construct a residence on a specified location according to plans and specifications drawn up by Architect. The total contract price was $ 500,000$. The lot on which the residence was to be built was located on the seashore in Palm Beach, Florida and there was an existing woodframe structure that had to be demolished before the residence could be built. Owner contracted with Designer to furnish the interior of the residence after Builder completed construction, but no date was included in either contract for completion of the home. The contract between Owner and Builder stated that construction would begin within two weeks after the existing structure was demolished and the rubble removed from the lot. The contract between Owner and Builder was signed November 12, and the contract between Owner and Designer was signed November 11. Assume for the purposes of this question only that after Builder has completed 5\% of the residence, a severe storm causes gigantic waves that demolish the construction but leave the lot undamaged. Must Builder still perform the contract?

Options:
A. No, the contract is void because the subject of the contract was destroyed through no fault of the parties.
B. No, Builder is discharged of his obligation because of impossibility of performance.
C. Yes, but he is entitled to a quantum meruit recovery for the work done prior to the destruction of the construction.
D. Yes, Builder must perform the original contract without any compensation for the destruction of the construction.
Answer: D
Question: Fred is arrested and charged with the burglary of Sam's warehouse. At trial, prosecution offers evidence that when Fred was arrested, shortly after the crime had been committed, he had a large amount of cocaine hidden in the trunk of his car. This evidence should be:

Options:
A. Admitted to prove Fred's propensity to commit crimes.
B. Admitted to prove Fred's general bad character.
C. Excluded because such evidence may be offered only to rebut evidence of good character offered by the defendant.
D. Excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Answer: D
Question: Allan invited all of his neighbors to a July 4 th party in his backyard. Practically the entire neighborhood showed up, except for Clem, who lived next door. Clem was an elderly man with a known heart condition who chose not to participate in neighborhood social functions. That evening, after a full day of festivities and much beer drinking, someone at the party suggested, "We ought to set off some fireworks!" Bob, another guest, thereupon produced a large skyrocket, which he lit. However, the skyrocket failed to climb properly and crashed into Clem's garage, starting a fire. Clem rushed out of his house and attempted to put out the flames, but he suffered a heart attack and was rendered unconscious. The garage burned to the ground before the fire department arrived. Fortunately, however, the firefighters were able to revive Clem, and he has since recovered from the heart attack. A local ordinance made it a misdemeanor to sell fireworks within the city limits. If Clem sues Bob for the damage to his garage on a theory of negligence, which of the following arguments, if sustained by the facts, would be most helpful for Bob to avoid liability?

Options:
A. The setting off of skyrockets on July 4 th is an accepted custom in the community.
B. The skyrocket was aimed by Bob to avoid crashing into Clem's garage.
C. The fire that started would have burned itself out but for the fact that Clem's garage was built out of substandard, highly flammable material.
D. Bob was a guest on Allan's property and entitled to the same restricted scope of liability as Allan. 
Answer: B
Question: Driver knew that children frequently played in the street along Elm Street. As Driver was operating his vehicle along Elm Street, he saw a ball roll into the street. A few seconds later, Child darted out into the street after the ball. Pedestrian, a passerby, saw Driver's vehicle bearing down on Child. Concerned that Child would be hurt, Pedestrian rushed into the street to try to save Child. Just as Pedestrian reached Child, Pedestrian tripped and fell down in the street. Driver's car struck both Pedestrian and Child, and both were injured. The jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. 143. Assuming that Child is four years old, will Child prevail in a personal injury suit against Driver? (A) Yes, because Driver knew that children played in Elm Street. (B) Yes, unless Driver was going no faster than the posted speed limit. (C) No, because Child negligently darted into the street. (D) No, because Child's parents were negligent in not properly supervising Child. On December 1, Diane died without children and without a will. The applicable law of intestate succession provides that George is Diane's only heir. Sam claims that George has no interest in the land. Title to the avocado ranch is held by whom?

Options:
A. George, because of the doctrine of merger.
B. George, because Diane died intestate and her fee simple passed to him as her intestate heir.
C. Sam, because the interest granted to Diane's spouse is void under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
D. Sam, because Diane, although survived by her spouse, died without children.
Answer: D