imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Dennis was charged with larceny. His principal defense was that he had no intent to permanently deprive the victim of her property. The judge instructed the jury that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dennis was guilty of larceny and that the evidence tended to show that Dennis had taken some jewels belonging to the victim; but if they believed that Dennis had proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he did not intend to keep the jewels, but to return them, they should find him not guilty. Dennis was convicted of larceny. He appeals the conviction, contending that the judge erred in his instructions to the jury. Dennis's conviction will probably be:

Options:
A. Affirmed, because the jury has the power to ignore Dennis's testimony if they do not believe him.
B. Affirmed, because Dennis had failed to rebut the State's evidence tending to show that he intended to keep the jewels.
C. Reversed, because the judge cannot comment at all on the evidence.
D. Reversed, because the instructions put some of the burden of proof on Dennis.
Answer: D
Question: Justin is being tried for the murder of Harvey, which occurred during the course of the robbery of Harvey's house. Justin took the stand in his own defense. His attorney asked him about the robbery and murder, and Justin denied committing the crimes. His attorney asked him what he said to the police when he was first arrested and he said, "I told them I knew nothing of the crimes because I was in Seattle at the time." This answer should be:

Options:
A. Stricken, because it is self-serving.
B. Stricken, because it is hearsay.
C. Admissible, because Justin can competently testify to statements he made himself.
D. Admissible, as a prior consistent statement.
Answer: B
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. If Zack were to sue Funco to recover the sums paid to Susan, how would a court hold?

Options:
A. Judgment for Zack, because he was a creditor beneficiary, had notice, and had changed his position in reliance on the contract.
B. Judgment for Zack, because he was a donee beneficiary and had assented to the agreement.
C. Judgment for Funco, because Zack's rights had not vested before being extinguished by the subsequent assignment.
D. Judgment for Funco, because Zack was only an incidental beneficiary of its agreement with Wes.
Answer: C
Question: Leftacre and Rightacre are adjoining 50-acre parcels of land. For many years, Leftacre and Rightacre have been thriving dairy farms. In 1959, McWilliams, the owner of Rightacre, purchased Leftacre. She continued to operate both parcels as separate dairy farms. In 1979, McWilliams sold Rightacre to Stone, who promptly and properly recorded the deed. Since Rightacre had no direct access to a public road, McWilliams wrote into the deed, "Stone, his heirs and assigns shall have the right to use the existing dirt path along the eastern border of Leftacre for ingress and egress to Rightacre." The dirt path, which connected with a public road on the northern boundary of Leftacre, was wide enough for motored vehicle traffic and had been graded for that purpose. In 1994, Sandberg purchased Leftacre from McWilliams. In 2002, Stone died, leaving a will that devised all his interest in Rightacre to O'Toole. For this question only, assume the following facts: In 2003, O'Toole decided to subdivide Rightacre into several lots for single-family residences. O' Toole notified Sandberg that he, O'Toole, will spend the money to improve the dirt path into a private driveway by paving it and doubling its width to 24 feet. He will also provide appropriate drainage for such an improved driveway by means of ditches on either side of the pavement. Sandberg had ceased using Leftacre as a dairy farm five years earlier, and it has been vacant ever since. Sandberg instituted an appropriate action for a declaratory judgment to establish that O'Toole cannot so improve the dirt path. If Sandberg prevails in such an action, it will be because:

Options:
A. The proposed improvement exceeds the scope of an easement by necessity.
B. The proposed improvement constitutes a burden that exceeds the scope of an express easement.
C. The servient owner has the obligation for maintenance of an easement for right-of-way, and hence can control the nature of its improvement.
D. The proposed subdivision so changes the nature of the use of the dominant tenement that any easement has been abandoned.
Answer: B
Question: Pitts purchased a new Stratton Spitfire sportscar manufactured by the Stratton Corporation from a local dealership. While Pitts was driving home from the dealership, she stopped at a red light. She was struck from behind by a truck driven by Drago, who had negligently failed to stop. On impact, the door on the driver's side of the car flew open because of a defective latch. Pitts fell out the open door and was injured. Pitts fell even though she was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the impact because the seatbelt buckle was also defective and failed to hold Pitts. Assume that a local ordinance requires all automobiles to be equipped with door latches that will not open on impact, and that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. If Pitts asserts a claim against Drago, Pitts will:

Options:
A. Prevail, unless Stratton was negligent in the manufacture of the car that Pitts was driving.
B. Prevail, because Drago's negligent driving was a cause in fact of the collision.
C. Not prevail, because the door latch on Pitts's car violated a local ordinance.
D. Not prevail if Pitts would not have been injured but for the failure of the seatbelt buckle.
Answer: B
Question: Pitts purchased a new Stratton Spitfire sportscar manufactured by the Stratton Corporation from a local dealership. While Pitts was driving home from the dealership, she stopped at a red light. She was struck from behind by a truck driven by Drago, who had negligently failed to stop. On impact, the door on the driver's side of the car flew open because of a defective latch. Pitts fell out the open door and was injured. Pitts fell even though she was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the impact because the seatbelt buckle was also defective and failed to hold Pitts. Assume that a local ordinance requires all automobiles to be equipped with door latches that will not open on impact, and that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. If Pitts asserts a claim against Stratton, will Pitts prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, unless Pitts could have discovered either of the defects.
B. Yes, because the car she was driving was dangerously defective.
C. No, because Drago's negligent driving was the cause of Pitts's injuries.
D. No, unless Stratton knew or had reason to know of either of the defects.
Answer: B
Question: Ben and Sandy, brother and sister, received a $ 50,000$ inheritance from their deceased father. By mutual agreement, they used the money to purchase a 10 -acre parcel of land. Ben and Sandy took title as joint tenants. Three years after the purchase, Ben suggested to Sandy that they build an apartment house on the property. Sandy rejected this idea. Ben then asked if he could build an apartment house on his half of the property; Sandy agreed. Ben then built an apartment house on the eastern five acres of the property. Six months later, Sandy gave permission to the Boy Scouts of America to use the western half of the property as a site for weekend camping trips. Two years later, Ben died, leaving his entire estate to his son, Steven. In an appropriate action to determine the respective interests of Sandy and Steven in the property, if Steven is judged to be the owner of the eastern five acres of the property, the most likely reason for the judgment will be that:

Options:
A. Sandy's conduct during Ben's lifetime estopped her from asserting title to the eastern half of the property.
B. The taking of title as joint tenants does not conclusively presume that the property is held as joint tenants.
C. The joint tenancy was terminated by the oral agreement of Ben and Sandy at the time it was made. 
D. A joint tenant may will away his interest in property, provided it is passed on to a lineal descendant.
Answer: A
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 Allan for the damage to his garage, the theory on which he is most likely to prevail is that:

Options:
A. Allan failed to exercise due care to control the acts of his guests.
B. Allan is strictly liable for harm resulting from ultrahazardous activities performed on his land.
C. Clem had been invited to Allan's party; as an invitee, Allan owed him a duty to discover and guard against activities on his land involving an unreasonable risk of harm.
D. Allan is liable on a negligence per se theory because of the local ordinance banning the sale of fireworks within the city.
Answer: A
Question: Baker had a contract with City to supply City with five computers a month for seven months. At the start of the fourth month, Baker realized that his supply of computers had dwindled to one. Baker called his normal supplier of computers but was informed that the supplier was out of computers. Baker immediately sent a fax to Stevens explaining the situation and asking for "a price quote for 20 computers to be delivered before the first of next month." Stevens responded by fax: "I can deliver 20 computers from my present stock at a cost of $ 2,000$ per computer." Baker responded the next day with a fax that stated: "I will buy 20 computers at a cost of $ 2,000$ per computer." Assume for the purpose of this question only that a contract exists between the parties for the sale of the 20 computers. The payment provisions are $ 20,000$ upon acceptance of the contract, $ 10,000$ upon delivery of the computers, and $ 10,000$ when Baker receives his last payment from City. City defaults on its payments to Baker. Is Baker liable for the last payment of $ 10,000$ to Stevens?

Options:
A. Yes, because the provisions only set a reasonable time for payment.
B. Yes, because a buyer may not delegate the duty of payment.
C. No, because an express condition for payment to Stevens has not occurred.
D. No, because Baker has not received sufficient funds to make the payment to Stevens.
Answer: A
Question: Abco developed a new drug, $\mathrm{ZB}$, for treatment of Wegener's disease. Abco extensively tested $\mathrm{ZB}$ for several years on animals and human volunteers and had observed no undesirable side effects. The Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") then approved ZB for sale as a prescription drug. Five other drug companies, each acting independently, developed drugs identical to $\mathrm{ZB}$. Each of these drugs was also approved by the FDA for sale as a prescription drug. True Blue Drug, a wholesaler, bought identically shaped pills from all six of the manufacturers and sold the pills to drugstores as Wegener's $\mathrm{X}$. This drug had a long-delayed side effect. Sons of male users of Wegener's $X$ are sterile. One such son, Crane, brought an action against Abco for his damages. Abco, through True Blue Drug, supplied about $10 \%$ of the Wegener's X sold in the state where Crane lived. It is not possible to establish which of the five companies supplied the particular pills that Crane's father took. If Crane asserts a claim against Abco based on strict liability in tort, which of the following will be a decisive question in determining whether Crane will prevail?

Options:
A. Does the res ipsa loquitur doctrine apply?
B. Can liability be imposed on Abco without proof that Abco knew that the drug had an undesirable side effect?
C. Is Abco relieved of liability by the FDA approval of the drug?
D. Can liability be imposed on Abco without showing that its pills were used by Crane's father?
Answer: D
Question: Lonny owned Gold Acre, a 40-acre tract of land improved with a one-story house. Lonny leased Gold Acre to Truman for a 15-year period. After five years had expired, the government condemned 15 acres of the property for road construction and allocated the compensation award to Lonny and Truman according to the respective interest so taken. It so happened, however, that Truman had used the 15 acres taken by the government to store vehicles necessary in Truman's work. Truman knew of no other place nearby where he could store the vehicles. There is no applicable statute in the jurisdiction where the property is located, nor any provision in the lease relating to the condemnation. Truman quit possession, claiming that he could no longer live in the premises if he could not park the vehicles needed in his work close to where he lived. Lonny brought suit against Truman to recover rent. The most likely result of this suit is that Lonny will:

Options:
A. Prevail, because the relationship of landlord and tenant was unaffected by the condemnation, thus leaving Truman still obligated to pay rent.
B. Prevail, 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.
C. Not prevail, because there has been a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by Lonny's inability to provide Truman with possession of the whole of the property for the entire term.
D. Not prevail, because there has been a frustration of purpose that excuses Truman from further performance of his contract to pay rent.
Answer: A
Question: On November 7, Margo agreed with Oscar to paint his house for $ 10,000$, payment to be made upon completion of the job. On November 14, while the job was still incomplete, Margo told her paint supplier, Percy, that if he would give her the paint she needed, she would have Oscar pay to him directly the $ 3,000$ for paint that she owed him. Percy agreed, and Margo sent Oscar a letter setting forth this agreement. On December 1, Margo had completed the job, but Oscar refused to pay Percy any money. In a suit by Percy against Oscar, what would be Oscar's best defense?

Options:
A. Percy had already supplied the paint before the agreement, and therefore he had not relied on Oscar's promise.
B. Percy was not an intended beneficiary of the agreement between Oscar and Margo. 
C. Margo had not painted the house in a proper, workmanlike manner.
D. Margo attempted to assign her rights before completion and an assignment to receive money before personal services are performed is inoperable.
Answer: C
Question: In which of the following circumstances would Defendant most likely be guilty of common law murder?

Options:
A. Defendant and Nate are having an argument, and Nate punches Defendant. Mistakenly believing that Nate intends to stab him, Defendant shoots him.
B. At a Fourth of July celebration, Defendant fires a pistol, and the ricocheting bullet hits and kills $\mathrm{Al}$.
C. While hunting, Defendant sees a movement. Although he cannot see what moved, he believes it to be a deer and fires into the bush. In fact, the movement was caused by George, and George is killed by the bullet fired by Defendant.
D. During a robbery, Defendant accidentally drops a grenade. It goes off and a customer is killed. 
Answer: D
Question: Alice owned Lot A, and Barry owned the adjacent Lot B. Both lots were located in State Red, which has a 20 -year adverse possession statute. In 1970, Alice married and left State Red to reside in State Blue. Alice did not return to view the property during her period of residence in State Blue. In 1971, Barry built a driveway on Lot B. The driveway extended three feet over onto Lot A. Barry mistakenly believed that this three-foot strip of land was his property. Barry regularly used the driveway and continued to use it when Alice, having been widowed, returned to State Red in 2002 . Alice discovered the encroachment upon her return. If Alice consults you as to her rights against Barry, how should you advise her?

Options:
A. Alice has no action against Barry, because Barry's title to the three-foot strip has been established by adverse possession.
B. Alice has no action against Barry, because her prolonged absence from State Red establishes a presumption of abandonment of her rights in the property.
C. Alice has an action against Barry, because Alice had no knowledge of Barry's encroachment.
D. Alice has an action against Barry, because Barry mistakenly thought the three-foot strip was his.
Answer: A
Question: Under which of the following circumstances would the named defendant be least likely to be convicted of the charged offense?

Options:
A. Walter, a chemical engineer, painstakingly constructs an explosive device from readily available materials and secretes it beneath the house where his ex-wife and her boyfriend are living. He waits until he is sure both have had time to get home from their jobs, and then detonates the device by remote control, totally demolishing the house. Unknown to Walter, his ex-wife and her boyfriend had impulsively decided to spend the evening at a motel downtown. Walter is charged with attempted murder.
B. Yvette attempts to charge an expensive leather coat using a credit card that her boyfriend obtained when he stole a woman's purse. The store's electronic credit reporting system indicates the account is defunct, and the store clerk refuses to complete the transaction. Yvette is charged with attempting to obtain property by false pretenses.
C. Hazel, seeing a well-heeled couple cross the park, decides to rob them and use the money for groceries. Hazel approaches the couple, pulls out a gun, and tells them to hand over all of their money and valuables. The couple was having an unusually bad day: they had just been mugged five minutes before and were on their way to notify the police when Hazel approached them. Consequently, they had no money or valuables. Hazel is charged with attempted robbery.
D. Farley, a married man who believes adultery to be a felony, begins a torrid affair with Edna, his best friend's wife. Unknown to either of them, the jurisdiction they reside in has a statute that expressly makes noncriminal any sexual act between consenting adults in private. Farley is charged with attempted adultery.
Answer: D
Question: Prentiss was a salesman and assistant manager of Pretty Petals, a retail florist. He was employed by Lilac, the owner of Pretty Petals. Lilac owned the land and building. A large wholesale nursery was located directly across the street from Pretty Petals. Although other effective fertilizers were available at comparable prices, Doreen, the owner of the nursery, liked to use "Chemgrow," a brand-name artificial fertilizer, to nourish her young plants and trees. She stored a large quantity of Chemgrow granules in a mountainous heap on an empty lot adjacent to the nursery office. The Chemgrow gave off fumes that caused Prentiss to suffer eye, lung, and sinus irritation. Occasionally, Prentiss's irritations became so bad that he had to take off from work and seek medical attention. After losing a few hundred dollars in wages and amassing a few hundred dollars in medical expenses, Prentiss sued Doreen for damages. The court is likely to rule in favor of:

Options:
A. Prentiss, because Doreen had equally effective fertilizers available at comparable prices to Chemgrow. 
B. Prentiss, because Doreen is strictly liable for injuries caused by emissions from her property.
C. Doreen, if the selection of Chemgrow was reasonable and it was stored in a reasonable manner.
D. Doreen, because Prentiss is merely an employee of Pretty Petals and does not own the property upon which the shop is located.
Answer: C
Question: A construction crew for the Municipal Telephone Company was sent out to install new fiberoptic cables at a downtown intersection on a vacant lot where an old building that had been demolished had stood. The telephone workers had to dig out the old copper cables, install new sheathing, and then connect and insert the new cables. Because they ran into some portions of the old sidewalk that had been in front of the old building and that had been buried over the years, the excavating took much longer than planned, and by the end of the day they had just finished removing the old copper cables. The foreman of the crew put up a couple of wooden barriers around the trench, which was about 12 feet deep, 6 feet wide, and 30 feet long, and posted signs on each of the barriers reading, "Open trench, do not approach." Marcus and a few friends had been playing basketball after they got out of their seventh grade classes and passed by the excavation on their way home. Marcus could not quite make out what the signs on the barriers said in the deepening dusk, so he walked over to the nearest one and read it. His friends, who had continued walking, called for him to hurry along, and as he ran toward where they had moved ahead on the street, the soft edge of the excavation gave way and Marcus fell into the trench, severely injuring himself. If Marcus's mother brings an action against the telephone company, what will be the probable outcome of her litigation? Assume that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence and assumption of risk rules.

Options:
A. She will lose, because the construction foreman posted a warning notice that Marcus read and understood.
B. She will lose, because Marcus assumed the risk of injury when, after reading the warning notice, he carelessly ran along the trench after his friends.
C. She will win, if the trier of fact concludes that the construction crew was negligent in leaving the open trench without additional protection for passersby.
D. She will win, because the telephone company is strictly liable for the injuries to Marcus.
Answer: C