imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Sue owned a five-acre tract of land, one acre of which had previously been owned by Opal, but to which Sue had acquired title by adverse possession. Sue contracted to convey the full five-acre tract to Peg, but the contract did not specify the quality of title Sue would convey. Suppose Sue's contract had called for the conveyance of "a good and marketable title." Pursuant to that contract, Peg paid the purchase price and accepted a deed from Sue containing no covenants of title. Sue's title to the one acre subsequently proved defective and Peg was ejected by Opal. Peg sued Sue. Which of the following results is most likely?

Options:
A. Peg will win, because Sue's deed was fraudulent.
B. Peg will win, because the terms of the deed control Sue's liability.
C. Sue will win, because the terms of the deed control her liability.
D. Sue will win, because the deed incorporates the terms of the contract.
Answer: C
Question: Henry hated Wanda, his former wife, for divorcing him and marrying John a short time thereafter. About a month after Wanda married John, Henry secretly entered Wanda and John's rented apartment during their absence by using a master key. Henry placed a microphone behind the bookstand in the bedroom of the apartment and drilled a hole in the nearby wall, with the result that the microphone appeared to be connected with wires going into the adjoining apartment. Actually, the microphone was not connected to anything. Henry anticipated that Wanda would discover the microphone in a few days and would be upset by the thought that someone had been listening to her conversations with John in their bedroom. Shortly thereafter, as he was putting a book on the stand, John noticed the wires behind the bookstand and discovered the hidden microphone. He then called Wanda and showed her the microphone and wires. Wanda fainted and, in falling, struck her head on the bookstand and suffered a mild concussion. The next day John telephoned Henry and accused him of planting the microphone. Henry laughingly admitted it. Because of his concern about Wanda and his anger at Henry, John is emotionally upset and unable to go to work. If Wanda asserts a claim against Henry based on infliction of mental distress, the fact that John was the person who showed her the microphone will:

Options:
A. Relieve Henry of liability, because John was careless in so doing.
B. Relieve Henry of liability, because John's conduct was the immediate cause of Wanda's harm.
C. Not relieve Henry of liability, because Henry's goal was achieved.
D. Not relieve Henry of liability, because the conduct of a third person is irrelevant in emotional distress cases.
Answer: C
Question: Hank owned a secondhand goods store. He often placed merchandise on the sidewalk, sometimes for short intervals, sometimes from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. Pedestrians from time to time stopped and gathered to look at the merchandise. Fred had moved into an apartment that was situated immediately above Hank's store; a street-level stairway entrance was located about 20 feet to the east. On several occasions, Fred had complained to Hank about the situation because not only were his view and peace of mind affected, but also his travel on the sidewalk was made more difficult. Fred owned and managed a restaurant two blocks to the west of his apartment and made frequent trips back and forth. There was a back entrance to his apartment through a parking lot; this entrance was about 200 feet farther in walking distance from his restaurant. Once Fred complained to the police, whereupon Hank was arrested under a local ordinance which prohibited the placing of goods or merchandise on public sidewalks and imposed, as its sole sanction, a fine for its violation. One day, the sidewalk in front of Hank's store was unusually cluttered because he was cleaning and mopping the floor of his shop. Fred and his 15-year-old son, Steve, saw a bus they wished to take, and they raced down the stairs and onto the cluttered sidewalk in front of Hank's store, Fred in the lead. While dodging merchandise and people, Fred fell. Steve tripped over him and suffered a broken arm. Fred also suffered broken bones and was unable to attend to his duties for six weeks. If, prior to the day of his personal injuries, Fred had asserted a claim based on public nuisance for injunctive relief against Hank for his obstruction of the sidewalk in violation of the ordinance, the defense on which Hank would have most likely prevailed is that:

Options:
A. Fred consented to the obstruction by continuing to rent his apartment.
B. The violation of the ordinance was not unreasonable. 
C. Remedy of abatement by self-help was adequate.
D. There was no claim for special damage.
Answer: D
Question: When Mary Weld visited Dugan's Alleys to participate in the weekly bowling league competition held there she brought her two-year-old son, Bobby, along and left him in a nursery provided by Dugan for the convenience of his customers. The children in the nursery were normally supervised by three attendants, but at this particular time, as Mary Weld knew, there was only one attendant present to care for about 20 children of assorted ages. About 30 minutes later, while the attendant was looking the other way, Bobby suddenly started to cry. The attendant found him lying on his back, picked him up, and called his mother. It was later discovered that Bobby had suffered a skull fracture. If a claim is asserted against Dugan on Bobby's behalf, will Bobby prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, because Dugan owed the child the highest degree of care.
B. Yes, because a two-year-old is incapable of contributory negligence.
C. No, unless Dugan or his employees failed to exercise reasonable care to assure Bobby's safety.
D. No, if Mary Weld assumed the risk by leaving Bobby in the nursery.
Answer: C
Question: Dent, while eating in a restaurant, noticed that a departing customer at the next table had left a five-dollar bill as a tip for the waitress. Dent reached over, picked up the five-dollar bill, and put it in his pocket. As he stood up to leave, another customer who had seen him take the money ran over to him and hit him in the face with her umbrella. Enraged, Dent choked the customer to death. Dent is charged with murder. He requests the court to charge the jury that they can find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. Dent's request should be:

Options:
A. Granted, because the jury could find that Dent acted recklessly and not with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm.
B. Granted, because the jury could find that being hit in the face with an umbrella constitutes adequate provocation.
C. Denied, because the evidence shows that Dent intended to kill or to cause serious bodily harm.
D. Denied, because the evidence shows that Dent provoked the assault on himself by his criminal misconduct.
Answer: B
Question: Linda was 15 years old, but she appeared and acted older. When asked, she always said she was 22 , and she carried false identification saying she was that old. She frequented taverns and drank heavily. One evening in a bar she became acquainted with Duke. He believed her when she told him her claimed age. They had several drinks and became inebriated. Later, they drove in Duke's car to a secluded spot. After they had necked for a while, Duke propositioned Linda and she consented. Before Duke achieved penetration, Linda changed her mind, saying, "Stop! Don't touch me! I don't want to do it." When Duke did not desist, Linda started to cry and said, "I am only 15." Duke immediately jumped from the car and ran away. Duke was indicted for attempted rape, assault with intent to rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempted statutory rape. The age of consent in the jurisdiction is 16 . With respect to the contributing charge under the statute set out in the question above, proof by Duke that he was so inebriated that he could not have formed a criminal intent would be a:

Options:
A. Good defense, because the charge requires a specific intent.
B. Good defense, because at least a general criminal intent is required for every offense.
C. Poor defense, because contributing to the delinquency of a minor is an offense against a child.
D. Poor defense, because the state of mind of the defendant is irrelevant to this offense, so long as he was legally sane.
Answer: D
Question: Statutes in the jurisdiction define criminal assault as "an attempt to commit a criminal battery" and criminal battery as "causing an offensive touching." As Edward was walking down the street, a gust of wind blew his hat off. Edward reached out, trying to grab his hat, and narrowly missed striking Margaret in the face with his hand. Margaret, fearful of being struck by Edward, pushed Edward away. If charged with criminal assault, Edward should be found:

Options:
A. Guilty, because he caused Margaret to be in apprehension of an offensive touching.
B. Guilty, because he should have realized he might strike someone by reaching out.
C. Not guilty, because he did not intend to hit Margaret.
D. Not guilty, because he did not hit Margaret.
Answer: C
Question: Polk sued DeVore on a written contract. In her case-in-chief, DeVore testified that she withdrew from the contractual arrangement, as the contract permitted, by notifying Polk by means of a letter. She testified that she put the letter in an envelope, with proper postage, addressed to Polk at his place of business, and that she placed it in a United States Post Office mailbox. In rebuttal, Polk testified that he got his mail each day from a locked post office box and that he had never received any such letter. There was no other evidence relating to receipt of the notice letter. When the case is ready to go to the jury, the trial judge should:

Options:
A. Withdraw from the jury's consideration the issue of whether Polk received the notice.
B. Instruct the jury that it may presume that Polk received the notice.
C. Instruct the jury that it should find that Polk received the notice.
D. Submit the case to the jury without instruction concerning a presumption of receipt.
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 Wheeler against Byer, Wheeler probably will recover:

Options:
A. $ 10,000$, the contract price.
B. The difference between the contract price and the market value of the chairs.
C. Nothing, because the chairs had not been delivered.
D. Nothing, because the Singer-Byer contract forbade an assignment.
Answer: A
Question: Driving down a dark road, Defendant accidentally ran over a man. Defendant stopped and found that the victim was dead. Defendant, fearing that he might be held responsible, took the victim's wallet, which contained a substantial amount of money. He removed the identification papers and put the wallet and money back into the victim's pocket. Defendant is not guilty of:

Options:
A. Larceny, because he took the papers only to prevent identification and not for his own use.
B. Larceny, because he did not take anything from a living victim.
C. Robbery, because he did not take the papers by means of force or putting in fear.
D. Robbery, because he did not take anything of monetary value.
Answer: C
Question: In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of larceny?

Options:
A. Defendant took Sue's television set, with the intention of returning it the next day. However, he dropped it and damaged it beyond repair.
B. Defendant went into Tom's house and took $ 100$ in the belief that Tom had damaged Defendant's car to that amount.
C. Mistakenly believing that larceny does not include the taking of a dog, Defendant took his neighbor's dog and sold it.
D. Unreasonably mistaking George's car for his own, Defendant got into George's car in a parking lot and drove it home. 
Answer: C
Question: Pack sued Donlon for slander, alleging that Donlon had publicly accused Pack of being a thief. In his answer, Donlon admitted making the accusation, but alleged that it was a true statement. At trial, Donlon offers evidence that Pack stole a ring worth $ 10,000$ from a jewelry store. Evidence concerning this theft should be:

Options:
A. Admitted, because specific instances of conduct may be proved when character is directly in issue.
B. Admitted, because Pack's actions constituted a felony.
C. Excluded, because character must be shown by reputation or opinion.
D. Excluded, because its relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Answer: A
Question: Morgan conveyed Greenacre, her one-family residence, to "Perez for life, remainder to Rowan, her heirs and assigns, subject, however, to First Bank's mortgage thereon." There was an unpaid balance on the mortgage of $ 10,000$, which is payable in $ 1,000$ annual installments plus interest at $6 \%$ on the unpaid balance, with the next payment due on July 1 . Perez is now occupying Greenacre. The reasonable rental value of the property exceeds the sum necessary to meet all current charges. There is no applicable statute. Under the rules governing contributions between life tenants and remaindermen, how should the burden for payment be allocated? 

Options:
A. Rowan must pay the principal payment, but Perez must pay the interest to First Bank.
B. Rowan must pay both the principal and interest payments to First Bank.
C. Perez must pay both the principal and interest payments to First Bank.
D. Perez must pay the principal payment, but Rowan must pay the interest to First Bank.
Answer: A
Question: Anders conveyed her only parcel of land to Burton by a duly executed and delivered warranty deed, which provided: To have and to hold the described tract of land in fee simple, subject to the understanding that within one year from the date of the instrument said grantee shall construct and thereafter maintain and operate on said premises a public health center. The grantee, Burton, constructed a public health center on the tract within the time specified and operated it for five years. At the end of this period, Burton converted the structure into a senior citizens' recreational facility. It is considered by all parties in interest that a senior citizens' recreational facility is not a public health center. In an appropriate action, Anders seeks a declaration that the change in the use of the facility has caused the land and structure to revert to her. In this action, Anders should:

Options:
A. Win, because the language of the deed created a determinable fee, which leaves a possibility of reverter in the grantor.
B. Win, because the language of the deed created a fee subject to condition subsequent, which leaves a right of entry or power of termination in the grantor. 
C. Lose, because the language of the deed created only a contractual obligation and did not provide for retention of property interest by the grantor.
D. Lose, because an equitable charge is enforceable only in equity.
Answer: C
Question: Doctor, a licensed physician, resided in her own home. The street in front of the home had a gradual slope. Doctor's garage was on the street level, with a driveway entrance from the street. At two in the morning, Doctor received an emergency call. She dressed and went to the garage to get her car and found a car parked in front of her driveway. That car was occupied by Parker, who, while intoxicated, had driven to that place and now was in a drunken stupor in the front seat. Unable to rouse Parker, Doctor pushed him into the passenger's side of the front seat and got in on the driver's side. Doctor released the brake and coasted the car down the street, planning to pull into a parking space that was open. When Doctor attempted to stop the car, the brakes failed to work, and the car crashed into the wall of Owner's home, damaging Owner's home and Parker's car and injuring Doctor and Parker. Subsequent examination of the car disclosed that the brake linings were badly worn. A state statute prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle unless the brakes are capable of stopping the vehicle within specified distances at specified speeds. The brakes on Parker's car were incapable of stopping the vehicle within the limits required by the statute. Another state statute makes it a criminal offense to be intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle. The state follows traditional contributory negligence rules. If Parker asserts a claim against Doctor for his injuries, Parker will probably:

Options:
A. Recover, because Doctor was negligent as a matter of law.
B. Recover, because Doctor had no right to move the car.
C. Not recover, because his brakes were defective.
D. Not recover, because he was in a drunken stupor when injured.
Answer: C
Question: When Denton heard that his neighbor, Prout, intended to sell his home to a minority purchaser, Denton told Prout that Prout and his wife and children would meet with "accidents" if he did so. Prout then called the prospective purchaser and told him that he was taking the house off the market. If Prout asserts a claim against Denton for assault, Prout will:

Options:
A. Recover if Denton intended to place Prout in fear of physical harm.
B. Recover, because Denton's conduct was extreme and outrageous.
C. Not recover if Denton took no action that threatened immediate physical harm to Prout.
D. Not recover, because Prout's action removed any threat of harmful force. 
Answer: C
Question: Linda was 15 years old, but she appeared and acted older. When asked, she always said she was 22 , and she carried false identification saying she was that old. She frequented taverns and drank heavily. One evening in a bar she became acquainted with Duke. He believed her when she told him her claimed age. They had several drinks and became inebriated. Later, they drove in Duke's car to a secluded spot. After they had necked for a while, Duke propositioned Linda and she consented. Before Duke achieved penetration, Linda changed her mind, saying, "Stop! Don't touch me! I don't want to do it." When Duke did not desist, Linda started to cry and said, "I am only 15." Duke immediately jumped from the car and ran away. Duke was indicted for attempted rape, assault with intent to rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempted statutory rape. The age of consent in the jurisdiction is 16 . If the contributing charge were based on a statute reading, "Whoever shall commit an act affecting the morals of a minor under 16 years of age shall be deemed guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period not to exceed 5 years," Duke's best legal defense would be that:

Options:
A. The statute is unconstitutionally vague.
B. Linda consented to his actions.
C. He was entrapped by Linda's appearance.
D. He did not intend to contribute to her delinquency.
Answer: A
Question: Alex and Sam were arrested for holding up a gas station. They were taken to police headquarters and placed in a room for interrogation. As a police officer addressing both started to give them Miranda warnings prior to the questioning, Alex said, "Look, Sam planned the damned thing and I was dumb enough to go along with it. We robbed the place-what else is there to say?" Sam said nothing. Sam was escorted into another room and a full written confession was then obtained from Alex. If Sam is brought to trial on an indictment charging him with robbery, the fact that Sam failed to object to Alex's statement and remained silent after Alex had implicated him in the crime should be ruled:

Options:
A. Admissible, because his silence was an implied admission by Sam that he had participated in the crime.
B. Admissible, because a statement of a participant in a crime is admissible against another participant.
C. Inadmissible, because under the circumstances there was no duty or responsibility on Sam's part to respond.
D. Inadmissible, because whatever Alex may have said has no probative value in a trial against Sam.
Answer: C
Question: Post sued Dean for personal injury alleged to have been caused by Dean's negligence. A major issue at trial was whether Post's disability was caused solely by trauma or by a preexisting condition of osteoarthritis. Post called Dr. Cox, who testified that the disability was caused by trauma. On crossexamination, Dr. Cox testified that a medical textbook entitled Diseases of the Joints was authoritative and that she agreed with the substance of passages from the textbook that she was directed to look at, but that the passages were inapplicable to Post's condition because they dealt with rheumatoid arthritis rather than with the osteoarthritis that Post was alleged to have. Dean then called his expert, Dr. Freed, who testified that, with reference to the issue being litigated, there is no difference between the two kinds of arthritis. Dean's counsel then asks permission to read to the jury the textbook passages earlier shown to Dr. Cox. The judge should rule the textbook passages:

Options:
A. Admissible only for the purpose of impeaching Cox. 
B. Admissible as substantive evidence if the judge determines that the passages are relevant.
C. Inadmissible, because they are hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible, because Cox contended that they are not relevant to Post's condition.
Answer: B
Question: Alice was held up at the point of a gun, an unusual revolver with a red-painted barrel, while she was clerking in a neighborhood grocery store. Dennis is charged with armed robbery of Alice. The prosecutor calls Winthrop to testify that, a week after the robbery of Alice, he was robbed by Dennis with a pistol that had red paint on the barrel. Winthrop's testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible as establishing an identifying circumstance.
B. Admissible as showing that Dennis was willing to commit robbery.
C. Inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence.
D. Inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Answer: A
Question: Rider, a bus passenger, sued Transit Company for injuries to his back from an accident caused by Transit's negligence. Transit denies that Rider received any injury in the accident. Rider's counsel seeks to introduce an affidavit he obtained in preparation for trial from Dr. Bond, who has since died. The affidavit avers that Dr. Bond examined Rider two days after the Transit Company accident and found him suffering from a recently incurred back injury. The judge should rule the affidavit:

Options:
A. Admissible as a statement of present bodily condition made to a physician. 
B. Admissible as prior recorded testimony.
C. Inadmissible, because it is irrelevant.
D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Answer: D
Question: Andres conveyed Applewood Farm "to Bogatz, her heirs and assigns, so long as the premises are used for residential and farm purposes, then to Cohen and his heirs."' The common law Rule Against Perpetuities, unmodified by statute, is part of the law of the jurisdiction in which Applewood Farm is located. As a consequence of the conveyance, Cohen's interest in Applewood Farm is:

Options:
A. Nothing.
B. A valid executory interest.
C. A possibility of reverter.
D. A right of entry for condition broken.
Answer: A