imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Shelley and Herman decided to get married. Both were in their final year of high school; Shelley was one month short of her 18th birthday, and Herman was 19 . They went to a local jeweler and looked at gold wedding bands, but saw nothing that appealed to them. When they discovered that the jeweler was himself a goldsmith and could make rings to order, they described what they were interested in and signed a purchase order for two rings; a woman's band for $ 500$ and a man's for $ 650$. Three weeks later, the jeweler called Shelley and informed her that the rings were ready. In the meantime, she and Herman had broken up and Herman had enlisted in the Marines and been sent to another state for training. The day after her 18th birthday, Shelley went to the jeweler and told him that they would not be needing the rings. When he protested that they were custom-made and would probably not sell to anyone else, Shelley said, "All right, I've got $ 400$ in my savings account. I'll take my ring, but you'll have to find Herman about the other one." The jeweler had Shelley sign another purchase order for the woman's band at $ 400$, payment to be made by the end of the month. When the jeweler did not hear from Shelley after another month, he brought an action for breach of contract against her. Evidence produced at trial established that the market value of the rings was $ 500$ and $ 650$ for the woman's and man's, respectively, and that the age of majority in the jurisdiction was 18. Is the jeweler entitled to recover against Shelley?

Options:
A. Yes, in the amount of $ 1,150$.
B. Yes, in the amount of $ 500$.
C. Yes, in the amount of $ 400$.
D. No.
Answer: C
Question: Zelda, a paving contractor with an excellent reputation in the community, entered into a written contract with Norman to pave the parking lot behind his new store. The contract contained no provision regarding assignment. A few days after they entered into the contract, Zelda realized that scheduling difficulties would make it impossible for her to complete the job in the time Norman needed to have the job done. Instead of running the risk of being in breach of contract, she assigned the job to one of her competitors, Kurt, whom she regarded as being almost as good as she, and who agreed to do the job for the contract price. With regard to this assignment by Zelda, which of the following statements is true?

Options:
A. The assignment is valid only if Norman agrees to accept performance by Kurt.
B. Zelda breached her contract with Norman by assigning it to Kurt without his prior consent.
C. Norman must accept performance by Kurt.
D. The assignment is valid, even if Norman objects, as long as Zelda supervises the performance of the contract by Kurt.
Answer: C
Question: Parker was a guest at Hotel, located about 200 miles from his home. After Parker had spent two nights at Hotel, he received a call at 5 a.m. from his wife, who told him that their child had just been rushed to the hospital and was in critical condition. Parker decided to hurry home. He called the airport and reserved space on the next flight out, scheduled to leave at $6: 15$ a.m. Parker packed and rushed to the lobby. However, it happened that a number of guests were checking out early that morning, and thus there was a long line ahead of him and only one cashier on duty. Parker hoped that the line would move quickly, but when he heard the first guest in line arguing with Stockton, the desk clerk, over a $25 / otin$ telephone charge, he realized that he would never make it to the airport in time if he continued to wait in line. The hotel had no express check-out service available, so he left without paying his bill and flew home. As soon as Parker's child was out of danger, he wrote a letter to Hotel, apologizing for his swift departure and enclosing payment for two nights' lodging; he also added an extra $ 25$ "to cover any inconvenience and billing expense" he may have caused. Meanwhile, Stockton discovered that Parker had left without paying. On Hotel's behalf, Stockton signed a complaint with the state police, charging Parker with theft of services. The police went to the appropriate magistrate, and a warrant was sworn out for Parker's arrest. The day after Parker left Hotel, Hotel received Parker's letter and payment. However, no one notified the police that Parker had paid his bill. Three days after Parker left Hotel, the state police, armed with a warrant, came to Parker's office and arrested him. Despite Parker's objections, he was taken to jail. Although he repeatedly told the police that he had paid his bill and suggested that they call Hotel, they refused to do so. After holding Parker for 18 hours, the police called Hotel. The manager told the police, "Yes, we got Parker's check two days ago, but we were too busy to call you." The police, with apologies, released Parker. Parker sued Hotel and the state police for false imprisonment. In Parker's action against Hotel, who will prevail?

Options:
A. Hotel, because Hotel reasonably believed that Parker stole services. 
B. Hotel, because the police were not employees of Hotel.
C. Parker, because Hotel failed to promptly notify the police that Hotel had received Parker's check.
D. Parker, because Hotel failed to have an adequate number of cashiers on duty when Parker wanted to check out.
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 Sandy is adjudged to be the owner of all of the property, the most likely reason for the judgment will be that:

Options:
A. The Statute of Frauds prevents the enforcement of Sandy's oral agreement.
B. The record title of the property as joint tenancy can be changed only by a duly recorded instrument.
C. Ben could not unilaterally sever the joint tenancy.
D. Ben's expenditure of funds in building the apartment house in reliance on Sandy's oral promise estops her from denying the oral permission.
Answer: A
Question: Baxter was heavily in debt and was concerned that his home was about to be repossessed. To try to generate money to satisfy his creditors, Baxter promised to pay his friend Dunn $ 100$ if Dunn would enter Baxter's house that evening and take his expensive color television and stereo. Baxter explained that he would then report the items as being stolen to the insurance company and collect a settlement from them. Baxter gave Dunn directions to his home, which was one of several tract houses in a fairly new development. Baxter told Dunn to arrive at approximately 9 p.m. and to enter through a window at the rear of the house that Baxter would leave ajar. Dunn knew that since Baxter lived alone, there was no possibility that he might find someone within the house when he arrived at the appointed time. Dunn arrived at the location at approximately 9 p.m., but due to the darkness of the evening and the fact that all of the homes in the development looked the same, he mistakenly entered the house belonging to Baxter's neighbor. He found a window ajar at the rear of the neighbor's home and pushed it open. He entered and took the neighbor's television set and stereo. When he returned to the bar where Baxter was waiting for him, both men were arrested by the police. If Dunn is charged with burglary, his best argument for acquittal would be that:

Options:
A. He acted under a mistake of law.
B. There was no breaking.
C. There was no entry.
D. He reasonably thought that he was in Baxter's home.
Answer: D
Question: Jesse was a member of an extreme right-wing, paramilitary organization. While out drinking with several fellow members one evening, Jesse got into an argument with a soldier from the nearby Army base and was bested in a brief exchange of punches. Feeling humiliated, he went to a different bar and drank a considerable amount of liquor. Vowing revenge on the soldier who had beaten him, Jesse and his friends drove out to the Army base. Using infiltration tactics practiced on weekends, they surreptitiously approached what they believed to be the barracks where the soldier slept. As Jesse was climbing through the window he had jimmied, a military police officer happened by and challenged him. In a tussle with the MP, Jessie struck the MP with his own baton, killing him. Still extremely intoxicated, Jesse abandoned the idea of finding and severely beating the soldier, and staggered to a nearby armored vehicle park. Since he was a heavy equipment operator, Jesse was familiar with the operation of such vehicles, and soon was driving an armored personnel carrier through the streets of the base and then out into the city. A curious police officer followed the armored vehicle for a few blocks, then pulled alongside in an attempt to determine whether it was on official Army business. At that moment, Jesse swerved the armored personnel carrier to the left, crushing the police car as it ground to a halt. The police officer inside was killed. The jurisdiction's statutes define murder as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or the killing of another in the commission of robbery, rape, burglary, or arson." Manslaughter is defined as "the killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." Criminal recklessness is "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." The statutory definition of burglary is identical to the common law except that the prohibited conduct need not occur in the nighttime. The jurisdiction's statutes provide that intoxication is not a defense to a crime unless it negates an element of the offense. In a separate proceeding, Jesse is tried for manslaughter in connection with the death of the city police officer. The prosecution's best reply to Jesse's defense of intoxication in the charged manslaughter is that:

Options:
A. Whether Jesse was intoxicated is not the crucial issue; whether the manner in which he was operating the armored personnel carrier was criminally reckless is determinative.
B. Conscious risk taking refers to Jesse's entire course of conduct, including drinking with the knowledge that he might become intoxicated and perform an act that might severely injure or kill someone.
C. Intoxication is a defense to a crime only if the intoxication is involuntary.
D. Intoxication is not a defense to the crime charged, because at common law manslaughter is a general intent crime.
Answer: B
Question: Donald is being tried for the murder of Vincent, which occurred during the burglary of Vincent's house. In its case-in-chief, the prosecution seeks to offer evidence that Donald, who was arrested several days after the crime, had been caught with 50 grams of cocaine in his car. This evidence will most likely be:

Options:
A. Inadmissible, because Donald has not offered evidence of good character.
B. Inadmissible, because it has limited probative value and is unduly prejudicial.
C. Admissible, because it tends to show what Donald did with the money he stole.
D. Admissible, because it tends to show that Donald is capable of committing serious crimes.
Answer: B
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 no further communications between the parties. At this point has a contract been formed? 

Options:
A. Yes, because Baker's fax ordering the computers was an acceptance of Stevens's offer.
B. Yes, because Stevens's fax was an acceptance of the offer in Baker's first fax.
C. No, because the fax sent by Baker was an offer that was never accepted by Stevens.
D. No, because none of the communications were worded in such a way as to be definite and certain enough to be offers.
Answer: A
Question: Dennis got into a fight with his former roommate Tom over some money that Dennis claimed Tom owed for some long distance telephone calls. When Tom refused to pay the money, Dennis took two tickets that Tom had purchased for the All Star game, intending to give them back to Tom the day after the game. Dennis is charged with larceny. Most likely Dennis will be found:

Options:
A. Not guilty, because he intended to return the tickets to Tom.
B. Not guilty, because he believed that Tom owed him money.
C. Guilty, because he intended to deprive Tom of the value of the tickets.
D. Guilty, because the intent to return is not a good defense.
Answer: C
Question: At the intersection of First and Main Streets, a large truck owned by Ace Meat Packing Co. collided with a car driven by Sam. At the time of the accident, Wilber, the driver of the truck, said to Sam, "The accident was my fault; I wasn't paying any attention. Don't worry, my company will make it right."' The subsequent investigation of the accident by Ace revealed that Wilber had been drinking on the day of the accident. Wilber was fired. Sam brings an appropriate action against Ace for damages resulting from the accident. Wilber has disappeared. Sam seeks to testify as to what Wilber said at the time of the accident. The evidence is:

Options:
A. Admissible, as an admission by an employee of the defendant.
B. Admissible, as an excited utterance.
C. Inadmissible, because Wilber is no longer employed by Ace.
D. Inadmissible, unless Ace authorized Wilber to speak on its behalf.
Answer: A
Question: The Social Security Act provided that surviving spouses and stepchildren would be denied benefits unless the decedent wage-earner spouse had been married at least nine months prior to death. Sal married her husband, who was in apparent good health, five months before his death. Sal was denied survivor benefits by the Social Security Administration. She now brings an action to compel the Social Security Administration to award her benefits. The decision of the court should be that:

Options:
A. Sal should be awarded benefits, because the nine-month period is arbitrary, capricious, and without any rational justification.
B. Sal should be awarded benefits, because the classification is an invidious scheme and violates her rights to equal protection.
C. Sal should not be given benefits, because the nine-month period in question is reasonably calculated to achieve a permissible governmental end. 
D. Sal should not be awarded benefits, because it would be an undue burden on the public treasury to allow all wives survivor benefits.
Answer: C
Question: Jesse was a member of an extreme right-wing, paramilitary organization. While out drinking with several fellow members one evening, Jesse got into an argument with a soldier from the nearby Army base and was bested in a brief exchange of punches. Feeling humiliated, he went to a different bar and drank a considerable amount of liquor. Vowing revenge on the soldier who had beaten him, Jesse and his friends drove out to the Army base. Using infiltration tactics practiced on weekends, they surreptitiously approached what they believed to be the barracks where the soldier slept. As Jesse was climbing through the window he had jimmied, a military police officer happened by and challenged him. In a tussle with the MP, Jessie struck the MP with his own baton, killing him. Still extremely intoxicated, Jesse abandoned the idea of finding and severely beating the soldier, and staggered to a nearby armored vehicle park. Since he was a heavy equipment operator, Jesse was familiar with the operation of such vehicles, and soon was driving an armored personnel carrier through the streets of the base and then out into the city. A curious police officer followed the armored vehicle for a few blocks, then pulled alongside in an attempt to determine whether it was on official Army business. At that moment, Jesse swerved the armored personnel carrier to the left, crushing the police car as it ground to a halt. The police officer inside was killed. The jurisdiction's statutes define murder as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or the killing of another in the commission of robbery, rape, burglary, or arson." Manslaughter is defined as "the killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." Criminal recklessness is "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." The statutory definition of burglary is identical to the common law except that the prohibited conduct need not occur in the nighttime. The jurisdiction's statutes provide that intoxication is not a defense to a crime unless it negates an element of the offense. Jesse is charged with the murder of the military police officer. At his trial on this charge, the court should instruct the jury on the issue of the defense of intoxication that:

Options:
A. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to the crime of murder if Jesse would not have killed the MP but for the intoxication.
B. Jesse is guilty of murder despite his intoxication only if the prosecution proves by clear and convincing evidence that Jesse acted with premeditation and intentionally.
C. Voluntary intoxication is no defense to the crime of murder.
D. Intoxication is a defense to the crime of burglary if it prevented Jesse from forming the intent to commit a crime inside the barracks, in which case he could only be convicted of murder upon the requisite showing of intentional action and premeditation.
Answer: D
Question: Donald is being tried for the murder of Vincent, which occurred during the burglary of Vincent's house. Wilson, who knew Donald, is called to testify that on the day after the robbery he saw Donald buying some groceries, and when Donald removed a large roll of money, Wilson had asked, "You didn't steal that from someone, did you?" Donald nodded. This evidence is:

Options:
A. Admissible, as an excited utterance.
B. Admissible, because it is not hearsay.
C. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible, because Donald had no reason to respond to this statement.
Answer: B
Question: Percy was shopping in ValuMart, a large department store. ValuMart was remodeling its menswear department and had hired Contractor to do the work. Cora, a carpenter employed by Contractor, was working on the ValuMart job. When Cora left ValuMart to take her lunch break, she left a carpenter's level projecting out into one of the aisles. Before Cora returned from lunch, Percy came down that aisle and tripped over the level. Percy fell and struck his head on the sharp corner of a display case. Percy required hospitalization and sued ValuMart for his injuries. Will Percy prevail in his suit against ValuMart?

Options:
A. Yes, because Contractor's employee left the level in the aisle.
B. Yes, if ValuMart's employees had a reasonable time to discover the level before Percy fell.
C. No, because ValuMart's employees did not leave the level in the aisle.
D. No, if ValuMart's employees were unaware that the level was in the aisle. 
Answer: A
Question: Dennis robbed a bank and fled in a getaway car driven by an accomplice, not realizing that one of the bundles of money he took had the serial numbers recorded and had a tiny tracking device attached to the wrapper. The bank contacted its security consultant, who obtained portable tracking equipment and was able to trace the bundle of money to Dennis's house. The police were notified and they arrived at Dennis's house a few hours after the robbery. They knocked on the door and announced their presence, and saw someone matching the description of the robber in the hallway. They entered and arrested the suspect, Dennis, and then conducted a protective sweep of the house for the accomplice, who they believed had a gun. They did not find him, but while checking a closet they discovered several of the bundles of money from the bank and a gun Dennis had used in the robbery. The police also discovered two clear plastic bags of what appeared to be marijuana sitting on top of a dresser. They seized the money, the gun, and the two bags; later testing confirmed that the substance in the bags was marijuana. Dennis was charged with the bank robbery and with possession of the marijuana. At a preliminary hearing, he moves to suppress introduction of the money, gun, and marijuana. The court should:

Options:
A. Grant the motion as to the marijuana but not as to the money or the gun because the money and gun were found as a result of the protective sweep for Dennis's accomplice.
B. Grant the motion as to the money and the gun but not as to the marijuana because the bags containing the marijuana were clearly visible on the dresser during the search.
C. Grant the motion as to all of the evidence seized.
D. Deny the motion as to all of the evidence seized. 
Answer: C
Question: Truffle agreed in writing to lease a restaurant site in a newly constructed mall from Lentil, the owner of the property. The term of the tenancy was two years, and rent was payable in monthly installments at the beginning of each month. At the end of the second year, there had been no discussions between Truffle and Lentil regarding renewal or termination. Truffle did not vacate the premises at the end of the term; instead, she sent a check for the next month's rent to Lentil. Lentil cashed the check after the term had expired but informed Truffle that his acceptance of the check did not mean that he was going to renew the lease or let Truffle stay. At the end of that month, Lentil seeks advice on whether he can evict Truffle. How should Lentil be advised to proceed?

Options:
A. Lentil must give Truffle a full 30 days' notice before beginning eviction proceedings because a month-to-month periodic tenancy has been created.
B. Lentil may begin eviction proceedings as soon as the additional month has expired.
C. Lentil may not evict Truffle for 11 months and must give six months' notice before beginning eviction proceedings because a year-to-year periodic tenancy has been created.
D. Lentil may not evict Truffle for 11 months but need not give any notice prior to eviction because a tenancy for years for a term of one year has been created. 
Answer: B