imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Ogden was the fee simple owner of three adjoining vacant lots fronting on a common street in a primarily residential section of a city which had no zoning laws. The lots were identified as Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ogden conveyed Lot 1 to Akers and Lot 2 to Bell. Ogden retained Lot 3, which consisted of three acres of woodland. Bell, whose lot was between the other two, built a house on his lot. Bell's house included a large window on the side facing Lot 3 . The window provided a beautiful view from Bell's living room, thereby adding value to Bell's house. Akers erected a house on his lot. Ogden made no complaint to either Akers or Bell concerning the houses they built. After both Akers and Bell had completed their houses, the two of them agreed to and did build a common driveway running from the street to the rear of their respective lots. The driveway was built on the line between the two houses so that one-half of the way was located on each lot. Akers and Bell exchanged right-of-way deeds by which each of them conveyed to the other, his heirs and assigns, an easement to continue the right of way. Both deeds were properly recorded. After Akers and Bell had lived in their respective houses for 30 years, a new public street was built bordering on the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3 . Akers informed Bell that, since the new street removed the need for their common driveway, he considered the right-of-way terminated; therefore, he intended to discontinue its use and expected Bell to do the same. At about the same time, Ogden began the erection of a six-story apartment house on Lot 3 . If the apartment house is completed, it will block the view from Bell's window and will substantially reduce the value of Bell's lot. In an action brought by Bell to enjoin Ogden from erecting the apartment building in such a way as to obstruct the view from Bell's living room window, the decision should be for:

Options:
A. Bell, because Ogden's proposed building would be an obstruction of Bell's natural right to an easement for light and air.
B. Bell, because Bell was misled by Ogden's failure to complain when Bell was building his house.
C. Ogden if, but only if, it can be shown that Ogden's intention to erect such a building was made known to Bell at or prior to the time of Ogden's conveyance to Bell.
D. Ogden, because Bell has no easement for light, air, or view.
Answer: D
Question: Construction Company contracted to build a laundry for Wash Company on the latter's vacant lot in a residential area. As a part of its work, Construction Company dug a trench from the partially completed laundry to the edge of a public sidewalk; waterlines were to be installed in the trench. Because of the contour of the land, the trench was dug to a depth ranging from seven to nine feet. Construction Company did not place any barriers around the trench and permitted it to lie open for almost a week while waiting for the delivery of water pipes. This was known to Wash Company, but it raised no objection. During the time the trench was open, a series of heavy rains fell, causing five feet of surface water to gather in the bottom of the trench. While this condition existed, five-year-old Tommy, who was playing on the vacant lot with friends, stumbled and fell into the trench. Robert, an adult passerby, saw this and immediately lowered himself into the trench to rescue Tommy. However, his doing so caused the rain-soaked walls of the trench to collapse, killing both him and Tommy. In a claim for wrongful death by Tommy's administrator against Construction Company, the most likely result is that plaintiff will: 

Options:
A. Recover, because the defendant left the open trench unprotected.
B. Recover, because construction companies are strictly liable for inherently dangerous conditions.
C. Not recover, because Tommy was a trespasser.
D. Not recover, because Tommy's death was a result of the collapse of the trench, an independent intervening cause.
Answer: A
Question: On January 15 , in a signed writing, Artisan agreed to remodel Ohner's building according to certain specifications, Ohner to pay the agreed price of $ 5,000$ to Artisan's niece, Roberta Neese, as a birthday present. Neese did not learn of the agreement until her birthday on May 5. Before they signed the writing, Artisan and Ohner had orally agreed that their "written agreement will be null and void unless Ohner is able to obtain a $ 5,000$ loan from the First National Bank before January 31." For this question only, assume that Ohner obtained the loan, that Artisan completed the remodeling on May 1, and that on May 3 , at Artisan's request, Ohner paid the $ 5,000$ to Artisan. If Neese learns of Ohner's payment to Artisan on May 5, at the same time she learns of the written Artisan-Ohner contract, will she succeed in an action against Ohner for $ 5,000$ ?

Options:
A. Yes, because she is an intended beneficiary of the written Artisan-Ohner contract.
B. Yes, because the written Artisan-Ohner contract operated as an assignment to Neese, and Artisan thereby lost whatever rights he may have had to the $ 5,000$. 
C. No, because Neese had not furnished any consideration to support Ohner's promise to pay $ 5,000$ to her.
D. No, because on May 3, Artisan and Ohner effectively modified their written contract, thereby depriving Neese of whatever rights she may have had under that contract.
Answer: D
Question: On January 15 , in a signed writing, Artisan agreed to remodel Ohner's building according to certain specifications, Ohner to pay the agreed price of $ 5,000$ to Artisan's niece, Roberta Neese, as a birthday present. Neese did not learn of the agreement until her birthday on May 5. Before they signed the writing, Artisan and Ohner had orally agreed that their "written agreement will be null and void unless Ohner is able to obtain a $ 5,000$ loan from the First National Bank before January 31." For this question only, assume that Ohner was unable to obtain the loan and, on January 31, phoned Artisan and told him, "Don't begin the work. The deal is off." In an action for breach of contract brought against Ohner by the proper party, will Ohner be successful in asserting as a defense his inability to obtain a loan?

Options:
A. Yes, because obtaining a loan was a condition precedent to the existence of an enforceable contract.
B. Yes, because the agreement about obtaining a loan is a modification of a construction contract and is not required to be in writing.
C. No, because the agreement about obtaining a loan contradicts the express and implied terms of the writing.
D. No, because Ohner is estopped to deny the validity of the written agreement.
Answer: A
Question: The Kernel Corporation, through its president, Demeter Gritz, requested from Vault Finance, Inc., a short-term loan of $ 100,000$. On April 1, Gritz and Vault's loan officer agreed orally that Vault would make the loan on the following terms: (1) the loan would be repaid in full on or before the following July 1 and would carry interest at an annual rate of 15\% (a lawful rate under the applicable usury law); and (2) Gritz would personally guarantee repayment. The loan was approved and made on April 5. The only document evidencing the loan was a memorandum, written and supplied by Vault and signed by Gritz for Kernel, that read in its entirety: In consideration of a loan advanced on this date, Kernel Corporation hereby promises to pay Vault Finance, Inc., $ 100,000$ on September 1. Kernel Corporation by /s/ Demeter Gritz Demeter Gritz, President Kernel Corporation did not repay the loan on or before July 1, although it had sufficient funds to do so. On July 10, Vault sued Kernel as principal debtor and Gritz individually as guarantor for $ 100,000$, plus $15 \%$ interest from April 5. At the trial, can Vault prove Gritz's oral promise to guarantee the loan?

Options:
A. Yes, because Gritz signed the memorandum.
B. Yes, because, as president of the debtor-company, Gritz is a third-party beneficiary of the loan.
C. No, because there was no separate consideration for Gritz's promise.
D. No, because such proof is barred by the Statute of Frauds. 
Answer: D
Question: Tortfeasor tortiously injured Victim in an auto accident. While Victim was recovering in Hospital, Tortfeasor's liability insurer, Insurer, settled with Victim for $ 5,000$. Victim gave Insurer a signed release and received a signed memorandum wherein Insurer promised to pay Victim $ 5,000$ by check within 30 days. When Victim left Hospital two days later, Hospital demanded payment of its $ 4,000$ stated bill. Victim thereupon gave Hospital his own negotiable promissory note for $ 4,000$, payable to Hospital's order in 30 days, and also, as security, assigned to Hospital the Insurer settlement memorandum. Hospital promptly assigned for value the settlement memorandum and negotiated the note to Holder, who took the note as a holder in due course. Subsequently, Victim misrepresented to Insurer that he had lost the settlement memorandum and needed another. Insurer issued another memorandum identical to the first, and Victim assigned it to $\mathrm{ABC}$ Furniture to secure a $ 5,000$ credit sale contract. $\mathrm{ABC}$ immediately notified Insurer of this assignment. Later it was discovered that Hospital had mistakenly overbilled Victim by the amount of $ 1,000$ and that Tortfeasor was an irresponsible minor. In view of Tortfeasor's age and irresponsibility when Insurer issued his liability policy, can Holder and $\mathrm{ABC}$ Furniture recover on their assignments?

Options:
A. Neither can recover because Victim, the assignor, is a third-party beneficiary of the liability policy, whose rights thereon can be no better than Tortfeasor's.
B. Neither can recover unless Insurer knowingly waived the defense of Tortfeasor's minority and irresponsibility.
C. Neither can recover because the liability policy, and settlement thereunder, are unenforceable because of Tortfeasor's minority.
D. Either Holder or ABC Furniture, depending on priority, can recover as 
Answer: D
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 correctly states Byco's rights and obligations immediately after receipt of Selco's notice on May 10?

Options:
A. Byco can treat the notice as an anticipatory repudiation, and has a cause of action on May 10 for breach of the entire contract.
B. Byco can treat the notice as an anticipatory repudiation, and can sue at once to enjoin an actual breach by Selco on May 31.
C. Byco has no cause of action for breach of contract, but can suspend its performance and demand assurances that Selco will perform.
D. Byco has no cause of action for breach of contract, and must pay the installment of the purchase price due on May 15 to preserve its rights under the contract.
Answer: C
Question: Patty sues Mart Department Store for personal injuries, alleging that while shopping she was knocked to the floor by a merchandise cart being pushed by Handy, a stock clerk, and that as a consequence her back was injured. Handy testified that Patty fell near the cart but was not struck by it. Thirty minutes after Patty's fall, Handy, in accordance with regular practice at Mart, had filled out a printed form, "Employee's Report of Accident-Mart Department Store," in which he stated that Patty had been leaning over to spank her young child and in so doing had fallen near his cart. Counsel for Mart offers in evidence the report, which had been given him by Handy's supervisor. The judge should rule the report offered by Mart:

Options:
A. Admissible as res gestae.
B. Admissible as a business record. 
C. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible, because Handy is available as a witness.
Answer: C
Question: In Peel's personal injury action, Wilson, a physician who had no previous knowledge of the matter, sat in court and heard all of the evidence about Peel's symptoms and conditions. Wilson is called to give her opinion whether Peel's injuries are permanent. May Wilson so testify?

Options:
A. Yes, provided she first identifies the data on which her opinion is based.
B. Yes, because an expert may base her opinion on facts made known to her at the trial.
C. No, because she has no personal knowledge of Peel's condition.
D. No, because permanence of injury is an issue to be decided by the jury.
Answer: B
Question: Peters sued Davis for $ 100,000$ for injuries received in a traffic accident. Davis charges Peters with contributory negligence and alleges that Peters failed to have his lights on at a time when it was dark enough to require them. Davis calls Bystander to testify that Passenger, who was riding in Peters's automobile and who was injured, confided to him at the scene of the accident that "we should have had our lights on." Bystander's testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible as an admission of a party opponent.
B. Admissible as a statement against interest.
C. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible, because it is opinion.
Answer: C
Question: By her validly executed will, Sallie devised a certain tract of land to her son, Ben, for his life with remainder to such of Ben's children as should be living at his death, "Provided, however, that no such child of Ben shall mortgage or sell, or attempt to mortgage or sell, his or her interest in the property prior to attaining 25 years of age; and, if any such child of Ben shall violate this provision, then upon such violation his or her interest shall pass to and become the property of the remaining children of Ben then living, share and share alike." Sallie's will included an identical provision for each of her four other children concerning four other tracts of land. The residuary clause of the will gave the residuary estate to Sallie's five children equally. Sallie died and was survived by the five children named in her will and by 11 grandchildren. Several additional grandchildren have since been born. In an action for a declaration of rights, it was claimed that the attempted gifts to Sallie's grandchildren were entirely void and that the interests following the life estates to Sallie's children passed to the children absolutely by the residuary clause. Assuming that the action was properly brought with all necessary parties and with a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the interests of unborn and infant grandchildren, the decision should be that:

Options:
A. The attempted gifts to grandchildren are void under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
B. The attempted gifts to grandchildren are void as unlawful restraints on alienation. 
C. The provisions concerning grandchildren are valid and will be upheld according to their terms.
D. Even if the provisions against sale or mortgage by the grandchildren are void, the remainders to grandchildren are otherwise valid and will be given effect.
Answer: D
Question: Householder hired Contractor to remodel Householder's kitchen. She had learned of him through a classified advertisement he placed in the local newspaper. During the telephone conversation in which she hired him, he stated he was experienced and qualified to do all necessary work. Because of his low charge for his work, they agreed in writing that on acceptance of his job by Householder, he would have no further liability to her or to anyone else for any defects in materials or workmanship, and that she would bear all such costs. Householder purchased a dishwasher manufactured by Elex Company from Dealer, who was in the retail electrical appliance business. The washer was sold by Dealer with only the manufacturer's warranty and with no warranty by Dealer; Elex Company restricted its warranty to 90 days on parts and labor. Contractor installed the dishwasher. Two months after Householder accepted the entire job, she was conversing in her home with Accountant, an acquaintance who had agreed to prepare her income tax return gratuitously. As they talked, they noticed that the dishwasher was operating strangely, repeatedly stopping and starting. At Householder's request, Accountant gave it a cursory examination and, while inspecting it, received a violent electrical shock which did him extensive harm. The dishwasher had an internal wiring defect that allowed electrical current to be carried into the framework and caused the machine to malfunction. The machine had not been adequately grounded by Contractor during installation; if it had been, the current would have been led harmlessly away. The machine carried instructions for correct grounding, which Contractor had not followed. If Accountant asserts a claim based on strict liability against Elex Company for damages, the probable result is that Accountant will:

Options:
A. Recover, because the dishwasher was defectively made.
B. Recover, because Elex Company is vicariously liable for the improper installation.
C. Not recover, because he assumed the risk by inspecting the machine.
D. Not recover, because he was not the purchaser.
Answer: A
Question: In City of State Y, Maple Street is a local public thoroughfare, designated as a one-way street for northbound traffic. Pine Street is a public thoroughfare, designated as a one-way street for eastbound traffic. Maple and Pine Streets intersect at right angles. The intersection is controlled by traffic lights. There are two sets of lights, one at the northeast corner and one at the northwest corner, for traffic on Maple Street. There are two sets of lights, one at the northeast corner and one at the southeast corner, for traffic on Pine Street. Trucker was making a delivery to a market on the east side of Maple Street, just north of its intersection with Pine Street. There being insufficient space for his truck and enclosed trailer, he parked it with the rear of the trailer extending entirely across the crosswalk on the north side of the intersection. The height of the trailer was such that it entirely obscured the traffic light on the northeast corner from the view of traffic moving east on Pine Street. Unknown to Trucker, the traffic light at the southeast corner was not functioning, because a collision 72 hours earlier had knocked down the pole from which the light was suspended. Visitor, on his first trip to City, was driving east on Pine Street. Not seeing any traffic light or pole, he entered the intersection at a time when the light was red for eastbound traffic and green for northbound traffic. Driver, proceeding north on Maple Street and seeing the green light, entered the intersection without looking for any cross traffic and struck Visitor's car. Driver received personal injuries, and Visitor's car was damaged severely as a result of the impact. Statutes of State Y make it a misdemeanor (1) to park a motor vehicle so that any part projects into a crosswalk and (2) to enter an intersection contrary to a traffic signal. If Driver asserts a claim against City, the theory on which he has the best chance of prevailing is that City:

Options:
A. Is strictly liable for harm caused by a defective traffic signal.
B. Was negligent in not replacing the broken pole within 72 hours.
C. Had an absolute duty to maintain installed signals in good operating order.
D. Created a dangerous trap by not promptly replacing the broken pole.
Answer: B
Question: Gasco owns a storage facility where flammable gases are stored in liquefied form under high pressure in large spherical tanks. The facility was constructed for Gasco by Acme Company, a firm that specializes in the construction of such facilities. After the facility had been in use for five years, an explosion in the facility started a large fire that blanketed the surrounding countryside with a high concentration of oily smoke and soot. Farber owns a large truck farm near the facility. His entire lettuce crop was destroyed by oily deposits left by the smoke. If Farber asserts a claim against Acme Company for the loss of his lettuce crop, will Farber prevail?

Options:
A. No, if Acme did not design the storage facility. 
B. No, because Acme was an independent contractor.
C. Yes, because the operation of the storage facility was an abnormally dangerous activity.
D. Yes, if the explosion resulted from a defect of which Acme was aware.
Answer: D
Question: Mater, a wealthy widow, wishing to make a substantial and potentially enduring gift to her beloved adult stepson, Prodigal, established with the Vault Savings and Loan Association a passbook savings account by an initial deposit of $ 10,000$. For this question only, assume the following facts. The passbook was issued solely in Prodigal's name; but Mater retained possession of it, and Prodigal was not then informed of the savings account. Subsequently, Mater became disgusted with Prodigal's behavior and decided to give the same savings account solely to her beloved adult daughter Distaff. As permitted by the rules of Vault Savings and Loan, Mater effected this change by agreement with Vault. This time she left possession of the passbook with Vault. Shortly thereafter, Prodigal learned of the original savings account in his name and the subsequent switch to Distaff's name. If Prodigal now sues Vault Savings and Loan for $ 10,000$ plus accrued interest, will the action succeed?

Options:
A. Yes, because Prodigal was a thirdparty intended beneficiary of the original Mater-Vault deposit agreement.
B. Yes, because Prodigal was a constructive assignee of Mater's claim, as depositor, to the savings account.
C. No, because Prodigal never obtained possession of the passbook.
D. No, because Prodigal's right, if any, to the funds on deposit was effectively abrogated by the second Mater-Vault deposit agreement.
Answer: D