imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: On May 1, Selco and Byco entered into a written agreement in which Selco agreed to fabricate and sell to Byco 10,000 specially designed brake linings for a new type of power brake manufactured by Byco. The contract provided that Byco would pay half of the purchase price on May 15 in order to give Selco funds to "tool up" for the work; that Selco would deliver 5,000 brake linings on May 31; that Byco would pay the balance of the purchase price on June 5; and that Selco would deliver the balance of the brake linings on June 30 . On May 10, Selco notified Byco that it was doubtful whether Selco could perform because of problems encountered in modifying its production machines to produce the brake linings. On May 15, however, Selco assured Byco that the production difficulties had been overcome, and Byco paid Selco the first $50 \%$ installment of the purchase price. Selco did not deliver the first 5,000 brake linings on May 31 , or at any time thereafter; and on June 10, Selco notified Byco that it would not perform the contract. Which of the following is not a correct statement of the parties' legal status immediately after Selco's notice on June 10 ?

Options:
A. Byco has a cause of action for total breach of contract because of Selco's repudiation, but that cause of action will be lost if Selco retracts its repudiation before Byco changes its position or manifests to Selco that Byco considers the repudiation final.
B. Byco can bring suit to rescind the contract even if it elects to await Selco's performance for a commercially reasonable time.
C. Byco can await performance by Selco for a commercially reasonable time, but if Byco awaits performance beyond that period, it cannot recover any resulting damages that it reasonably could have avoided.
D. Byco has a cause of action for breach of contract that it can successfully assert only after it has given Selco a commercially reasonable time to perform.
Answer: D
Question: In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of common law murder?

Options:
A. During an argument in a bar, Norris punches Defendant. Defendant, mistakenly believing that Norris is about to stab him, shoots and kills Norris.
B. While committing a robbery of a liquor store, Defendant accidentally drops his revolver, which goes off. The bullet strikes and kills Johnson, a customer in the store.
C. While hunting deer, Defendant notices something moving in the bushes. Believing it to be a deer, Defendant fires into the bushes. The bullet strikes and kills Griggs, another hunter.
D. In celebration of the Fourth of July, Defendant discharges a pistol within the city limits in violation of a city ordinance. The bullet ricochets off the street and strikes and kills Abbott.
Answer: B
Question: Pratt sued Danvers for injuries suffered by Pratt when their automobiles collided. At trial, Pratt offers into evidence a properly authenticated letter from Danvers that says, "Your claim seems too high, but, because I might have been a little negligent, I'm prepared to offer you half of what you ask." The letter is:

Options:
A. Admissible as an admission by a partyopponent.
B. Admissible as a statement against pecuniary interest.
C. Inadmissible, because Danvers's statement is lay opinion on a legal issue.
D. Inadmissible, because Danvers's statement was made in an effort to settle the claim.
Answer: D
Question: At the trial of Davis for a murder that occurred in Newtown, the prosecution called Waite, who testified that she saw Davis kill the victim. Davis believed that Waite was 600 miles away in Old Town, engaged in the illegal sale of narcotics, on the day in question. On crossexamination by Davis, Waite was asked whether she had in fact sold narcotics in Old Town on that date. Waite refused to answer on the ground of self-incrimination. The judge, over the prosecutor's objection, ordered that if Waite did not testify, her direct testimony should be stricken. The order to testify or have the testimony stricken can best be supported on the basis that:

Options:
A. Waite had not been charged with any crime and, thus, could claim no privilege against self-incrimination. 
B. Waite's proper invocation of the privilege prevented adequate cross-examination.
C. The public interest in allowing an accused to defend himself or herself outweighs the interest of a nonparty witness in the privilege.
D. The trial record, independent of testimony, does not establish that Waite's answer could incriminate her.
Answer: B
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 Peg pays the purchase price and accepts a deed. Subsequently, Sue's title to the one acre proves inadequate and Opal ejects Peg from that acre. Peg sues Sue for damages. Which of the following statements applies most accurately to the determination of Peg's rights?

Options:
A. Sue's deed was fraudulent.
B. The terms of the deed control Sue's liability.
C. The only remedy available for breach of warranty of title is rescission.
D. Peg's rights are based on the implied covenants that the title conveyed shall be marketable.
Answer: B
Question: Oscar, the owner in fee simple, laid out a subdivision of 325 lots on 150 acres of land. He obtained governmental approval (as required by applicable ordinances) and, between 1968 and 1970 , he sold 140 of the lots, inserting in each of the 140 deeds the following provision: The Grantee, for himself and his heirs, assigns and successors, covenants and agrees that the premises conveyed herein shall have erected thereon one singlefamily dwelling and that no other structure (other than a detached garage, normally incident to a single-family dwelling) shall be erected or maintained; and, further, that no use shall ever be made or permitted to be made other than occupancy by a single family for residential purposes only. Because of difficulty encountered in selling the remaining lots for single-family use, in January 1971, Oscar advertised the remaining lots with prominent emphasis: "These lots are not subject to any restrictions and purchasers will find them adaptable to a wide range of uses." Payne had purchased one of the 140 lots and brought suit against Oscar to establish that the remaining 185 lots, as well as the 140 sold previously, can be used only for residential purposes by single families. Assuming that procedural requirements have been met, to permit adjudication of the issue Payne has tendered, which of the following is the most appropriate comment? 

Options:
A. Oscar should win because the provision binds only the grantee.
B. The outcome turns on whether a common development scheme had been established for the entire subdivision.
C. The outcome turns on whether there are sufficient land areas devoted to multiple family uses within the municipality to afford reasonable opportunity for all economic classes to move into the area so as to satisfy the standards of equal protection of the law.
D. Payne should win under an application of the doctrine, which requires construction of deeds, to resolve any doubt against the grantor.
Answer: B
Question: The owner of Newacre executed and delivered to a power company a right-of-way deed for the building and maintenance of an overhead power line across Newacre. The deed was properly recorded. Newacre then passed through several intermediate conveyances until it was conveyed to Sloan about 10 years after the date of the right-of-way deed. All the intermediate deeds were properly recorded, but none of them mentioned the right-of-way. Sloan entered into a written contract to sell Newacre to Jones. By the terms of the contract, Sloan promised to furnish an abstract of title to Jones. Sloan contracted directly with Abstract Company to prepare and deliver an abstract to Jones, and Abstract Company did so. The abstract omitted the right-of-way deed. Jones delivered the abstract to his attorney and asked the attorney for an opinion as to title. The attorney signed and delivered to Jones a letter stating that, from the attorney's examination of the abstract, it was his "opinion that Sloan had a free and unencumbered marketable title to Newacre." Sloan conveyed Newacre to Jones by a deed which included covenants of general warranty and against encumbrances. Jones paid the full purchase price. After Jones had been in possession of Newacre for more than a year, he learned about the right-of-way deed. Sloan, Jones, Abstract Company, and Jones's attorney were all without actual knowledge of the existence of the right-of-way prior to the conveyance from Sloan to Jones. If Jones sues Sloan because of the presence of the right-of-way, the most likely result will be a decision for:

Options:
A. Jones, because Sloan is liable for his negligent misrepresentation.
B. Jones, because the covenants in Sloan's deed to Jones have been breached. 
C. Sloan, because Jones relied upon Abstract Company, not Sloan, for information concerning title.
D. Sloan, because Sloan was without knowledge of any defects in the title to Newacre.
Answer: B
Question: The owner of Newacre executed and delivered to a power company a right-of-way deed for the building and maintenance of an overhead power line across Newacre. The deed was properly recorded. Newacre then passed through several intermediate conveyances until it was conveyed to Sloan about 10 years after the date of the right-of-way deed. All the intermediate deeds were properly recorded, but none of them mentioned the right-of-way. Sloan entered into a written contract to sell Newacre to Jones. By the terms of the contract, Sloan promised to furnish an abstract of title to Jones. Sloan contracted directly with Abstract Company to prepare and deliver an abstract to Jones, and Abstract Company did so. The abstract omitted the right-of-way deed. Jones delivered the abstract to his attorney and asked the attorney for an opinion as to title. The attorney signed and delivered to Jones a letter stating that, from the attorney's examination of the abstract, it was his "opinion that Sloan had a free and unencumbered marketable title to Newacre." Sloan conveyed Newacre to Jones by a deed which included covenants of general warranty and against encumbrances. Jones paid the full purchase price. After Jones had been in possession of Newacre for more than a year, he learned about the right-of-way deed. Sloan, Jones, Abstract Company, and Jones's attorney were all without actual knowledge of the existence of the right-of-way prior to the conveyance from Sloan to Jones. If Jones sues Abstract Company for damages caused to Jones by the presence of the right-of-way, the most likely result will be a decision for:

Options:
A. Jones, because Jones was a thirdparty creditor beneficiary of the contract between Sloan and Abstract Company.
B. Jones, because the abstract prepared by Abstract Company constitutes a guarantee of Jones's title to Newacre.
C. Abstract Company, because Abstract Company had no knowledge of the existence of the right-of-way.
D. Abstract Company, because there was no showing that any fraud was practiced upon Jones.
Answer: A
Question: Siddon worked as a private duty nurse and on occasion worked in Doctors' Hospital. The hospital called Registry, the private duty referral agency through which Siddon usually obtained employment, and asked that in the future she not be assigned to patients in Doctors' Hospital. Registry asked the hospital why it had made the request. Doctors' Hospital sent a letter to Registry giving as the reason for its request that significant amounts of narcotics had disappeared during Siddon's shifts from the nursing stations at which she had worked. If Siddon asserts a claim based on defamation against Doctors' Hospital, Siddon will:

Options:
A. Recover, because the hospital accused Siddon of improper professional conduct.
B. Recover if Siddon did not take the narcotics.
C. Not recover if narcotics disappeared during Siddon's shifts.
D. Not recover if the hospital reasonably believed that Siddon took the narcotics.
Answer: D
Question: Dock had been the unsuccessful suitor of Mary, who had recently announced her engagement to Paul. Angered by her engagement, Dock sent Mary the following letter: "I hope you know what you are doing. The man you think you love wears women's clothes when at home. A Friend." The receipt of this letter caused Mary great emotional distress. She hysterically telephoned Paul, read him the letter, and told him that she was breaking their engagement. The contents of the letter were not revealed to others. Paul, who was a young attorney in the state attorney's office, suffered serious humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the broken engagement. If Paul asserts a claim against Dock based on defamation and it is proved that Dock's statement was true, such proof will be:

Options:
A. A defense by itself.
B. A defense only if Dock was not actuated by malice.
C. A defense only if Dock reasonably believed it to be true.
D. No defense by itself.
Answer: A
Question: Customer, age 20 , went into Store at approximately 6:45 p.m. to look at some suits that were on sale. The clerks were busy, and one of them told him that he should wait on himself. Customer selected three suits from a rack and went into the dressing room to try them on. Signs posted on the walls of the Store state that closing time is 9 p.m.; however, because of a special awards banquet for employees, Store was closed at 7 p.m. on this day. The employees, in a hurry to get to the banquet, did not check the dressing rooms or turn off the lights before leaving. When Customer emerged from the dressing room a few minutes after 7 p.m., he was alone and locked in. Customer tried the front door but it was secured on the outside by a bar and padlock, so he went to the rear door. Customer grabbed the doorknob and vigorously shook the door. It did not open, but the activity set off a mechanism that had been installed because of several recent thefts committed by persons who had hidden in the store until after closing time. The mechanism sprayed a chemical mist in Customer's face, causing him to become temporarily blind. The mechanism also activated an alarm carried by Store's employee, Watchman, who was just coming to work. Watchman unlocked the front door, ran into the store, and grabbed Customer. Customer, who was still unable to see, struck out at this person and hit a metal rack, injuring his hand. Watchman then identified himself, and Customer did the same. After assuring himself that Customer was telling the truth, Watchman allowed him to leave. If Customer is to prevail on a claim against Store based on battery from the use of the chemical spray, Customer must establish that:

Options:
A. He suffered severe bodily harm.
B. The spray mist was an offensive or harmful contact.
C. He suffered severe emotional distress.
D. His conduct was not a factual cause of the chemical's spraying him.
Answer: B
Question: Peter was rowing a boat on a mountain lake when a storm suddenly arose. Fearful that the boat might sink, Peter rowed to a boat dock on shore and tied the boat to the dock. The shore property and dock were the private property of Owner. While the boat was tied at the dock, Owner came down and ordered Peter to remove the boat because the action of the waves was causing the boat to rub against a bumper on the dock. When Peter refused, Owner untied the boat and cast it adrift. The boat sank. Peter was wearing a pair of swimming trunks and nothing else. He had a pair of shoes and a parka in the boat, but they were lost when Owner set it adrift. Peter was staying at a cabin one mile from Owner's property. The only land routes back were a short rocky trail that was dangerous during the storm, and a 15-mile road around the lake. The storm continued with heavy rain and hail, and Peter, having informed Owner of the location of his cabin, asked Owner to take him back there in Owner's car. Owner said, "You got here by yourself and you'll have to get back home yourself." After one hour the storm stopped, and Peter walked home over the trail. 13. A necessary element in determining if Peter is liable for a trespass is whether: (A) Owner had clearly posted his property with a sign indicating that it was private property. (B) Peter knew that the property belonged to a private person. (C) Peter had reasonable grounds to believe the property belonged to a private person. (D) Peter had reasonable grounds to believe his boat might be swamped and might sink. If the claim is asserted against Dave's parents, the most likely result is they will be: 

Options:
A. Liable, because parents are strictly liable for the torts of their children.
B. Liable, because Dave's parents encouraged him to be aggressive and tough.
C. Not liable, because a child under seven is not liable in tort.
D. Not liable, because parents cannot be held liable for the tort of a child.
Answer: B
Question: Parents purchased a new mobile home from Seller. The mobile home was manufactured by Mobilco and had a ventilating system designed by Mobilco with both a heating unit and an air conditioner. Mobilco installed a furnace manufactured by Heatco and an air conditioning unit manufactured by Coolco. Each was controlled by an independent thermostat installed by Mobilco. Because of the manner in which Mobilco designed the ventilating system, the first time the ventilating system was operated by Parents, cold air was vented into Parents' bedroom to keep the temperature at $68^{\circ}$ $\mathrm{F}\left(20^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\right)$. The cold air then activated the heater thermostat, and hot air was pumped into the bedroom of Child, the six-month-old child of Parents. The temperature in Child's room reached more than $170^{\circ} \mathrm{F}\left(77^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\right)$ before Child's mother became aware of the condition and shut the system off manually. As a result, Child suffered permanent physical injury. Claims have been asserted by Child, through a duly appointed guardian, against Mobilco, Seller, Heatco, and Coolco. If Child's claim against Seller is based on negligence, the minimum proof necessary to establish Seller's liability is that the ventilating system:

Options:
A. Was defective.
B. Was defective and had not been inspected by Seller.
C. Was defective and had been inspected by Seller, and the defect was not discovered.
D. Was defective, and the defect would have been discovered if Seller had exercised reasonable care in inspecting the system.
Answer: D
Question: Pace sues Def Company for injuries suffered when Pace's car collided with Def Company's truck. Def's general manager prepared a report of the accident at the request of the company's attorney, in preparation for the trial, and delivered the report to the attorney. Pace demands that the report be produced. Will production of the report be required?

Options:
A. Yes, because business reports are not generally privileged.
B. No, because it is a privileged communication from client to the attorney.
C. No, because such reports contain hearsay.
D. No, because such reports are self-serving.
Answer: B
Question: Homer conveyed his home to his wife Wanda, for life, remainder to his daughter, Dixie. There was a $ 20,000$ mortgage on the home, requiring monthly payment covering interest to date plus a portion of the principal. Which of the following statements about the monthly payment is correct?

Options:
A. Wanda must pay the full monthly payment.
B. Wanda must pay a portion of the monthly payment based on an apportionment of the value between Wanda's life estate and Dixie's remainder.
C. Wanda must pay the portion of the monthly payment that represents interest.
D. Dixie must pay the full monthly payment.
Answer: C
Question: Metterly, the owner in fee simple of Brownacre, by quitclaim deed conveyed Brownacre to her daughter, Doris, who paid no consideration for the conveyance. The deed was never recorded. About a year after the delivery of the deed, Metterly decided that this gift had been ill-advised. She requested that Doris destroy the deed, which Doris dutifully and voluntarily did. Within the month following the destruction of the deed, Metterly and Doris were killed in a common disaster. Each of the successors in interest claimed title to Brownacre. In an appropriate action to determine the title to Brownacre, the probable outcome will be that:

Options:
A. Metterly was the owner of Brownacre, because Doris was a donee and therefore could not acquire title by quitclaim deed.
B. Metterly was the owner of Brownacre, because title to Brownacre reverted to her upon the voluntary destruction of the deed by Doris. 
C. Doris was the owner of Brownacre, because her destruction of the deed to Brownacre was under the undue influence of Metterly.
D. Doris was the owner of Brownacre, because the deed was merely evidence of her title, and its destruction was insufficient to cause title to pass back to Metterly.
Answer: D
Question: Owen held in fee simple Farmdale, a large tract of vacant land. The state wherein Farmdale is situated has a statute which provides, in substance, that unless the conveyance is recorded, every deed or other conveyance of an interest in land is void as to a subsequent purchaser who pays value without notice of such conveyance. The following transactions occurred in the order given. First: Owen conveyed Farmdale, for a fair price, to Allred by general warranty deed. Allred did not immediately record. Second: Owen executed a mortgage to secure repayment of a loan concurrently made to Owen by Leon. Leon had no notice of the prior conveyance to Allred and promptly recorded the mortgage. Third: Owen, by general warranty deed, gratuitously conveyed to Niece, who promptly recorded the deed. Fourth: Allred recorded his deed from Owen. Fifth: $\quad$ Niece, by general warranty deed, conveyed Farmdale to Barrett. Barrett had no actual notice of any of the prior transactions, paid full value, and promptly recorded the deed. Assume for this question only that Niece had not conveyed to Barrett. After Allred recorded his deed from Owen, Allred, asserting that Allred's title was held free of any claim by Niece, instituted suit against Niece to recover title to Farmdale. Judgment should be for:

Options:
A. Niece, because she had no notice of Allred's rights when she accepted the deed from Owen.
B. Niece, because she recorded her deed before Allred recorded his.
C. Allred, because Niece was not a bona fide purchaser who paid value.
D. Allred, because he had paid value for Farmdale and had no actual or constructive notice of the deed to Niece.
Answer: C
Question: Trease owned Hilltop in fee simple. By his will, he devised as follows: "Hilltop to such of my grandchildren who shall reach the age of 21 ; and by this provision I intend to include all grandchildren whenever born." At the time of his death, Trease had three children and two grandchildren. Which of the following additions to or changes in the facts of the preceding question would produce a violation of the common law Rule Against Perpetuities?

Options:
A. A posthumous child was born to Trease.
B. Trease's will expressed the intention to include all afterborn grandchildren in the gift.
C. The instrument was an inter vivos conveyance rather than a will.
D. Trease had no grandchildren living at the time of his death.
Answer: C