imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Zeller contracted in writing to deliver to Baker 100 bushels of wheat on August 1 at $ 3.50$ per bushel. Because his suppliers had not delivered enough wheat to him by that time, Zeller on August 1 had only 95 bushels of wheat with which to fulfill his contract with Baker. If Zeller tenders 95 bushels of wheat to Baker on August 1, and Baker refuses to accept or pay for any of the wheat, which of the following best states the legal relationship between Zeller and Baker?

Options:
A. Zeller has a cause of action against Baker, because Zeller has substantially performed his contract.
B. Zeller is excused from performing his contract because of impossibility of performance.
C. Baker has a cause of action against Zeller for Zeller's failure to deliver 100 bushels of wheat.
D. Baker is obligated to give Zeller a reasonable time to attempt to obtain the other five bushels of wheat.
Answer: C
Question: Which of the following is most likely to be found to be a strict liability offense?

Options:
A. A city ordinance providing for a fine of not more than $ 200$ for shoplifting.
B. A federal statute making it a felony to possess heroin.
C. A state statute making it a felony to fail to register a firearm.
D. A state statute making the sale of adulterated milk a misdemeanor.
Answer: D
Question: A group of children, ranging in age from 8 to 15 , regularly played football on the common area of an apartment complex owned by O'Neill. Most of the children lived in the apartment complex, but some lived elsewhere. O'Neill knew that the children played on the common area and had not objected. Peter, a 13-year-old who did not live in the apartment complex, fell over a sprinkler head while running for a pass and broke his leg. Although Peter had played football on the common area before, he had never noticed the sprinkler heads, which protruded one inch above the ground and were part of a permanently installed underground sprinkler system. If a claim is asserted on Peter's behalf, Peter will:

Options:
A. Prevail, if the sprinkler head was a hazard that Peter probably would not discover.
B. Prevail, because O'Neill had not objected to children playing on the common area.
C. Not prevail, because Peter did not live in the apartment complex.
D. Not prevail, unless the sprinkler heads were abnormally dangerous to users of the common area. 
Answer: A
Question: An appropriations act passed by Congress over the President's veto directs that $ 1$ billion "shall be spent" by the federal government for the development of a new military weapons system, which is available only from the Arms Corporation. On the order of the President, the Secretary of Defense refuses to authorize a contract for purchase of the weapons system. The Arms Corporation sues the Secretary of Defense, alleging an unlawful withholding of these federal funds. The strongest constitutional argument for the Arms Corporation is that:

Options:
A. Passage of an appropriation over a veto makes the spending mandatory.
B. Congress's power to appropriate funds includes the power to require that the funds will be spent as directed.
C. The President's independent constitutional powers do not specifically refer to spending.
D. The President's power to withhold such funds is limited to cases where foreign affairs are directly involved. 
Answer: B
Question: Paulsen sued Daly for nonpayment of a personal loan to Daly, as evidenced by Daly's promissory note to Paulsen. Paulsen called Walters to testify that he knows Daly's handwriting and that the signature on the note is Daly's. On direct examination, to identify himself, Walters gave his name and address and testified that he had been employed by a roofing company for seven years. During presentation of Daly's case, Daly called Wilson to testify that she is the roofing company's personnel manager and that she had determined, by examining the company's employment records, that Walters had worked there only three years. The trial judge should rule that Wilson's testimony is:

Options:
A. Inadmissible, because it is not the best evidence.
B. Inadmissible, because it is impeachment on a collateral question.
C. Admissible as evidence of a regularly conducted activity.
D. Admissible as tending to impeach Walters's credibility.
Answer: B
Question: Acting on an anonymous telephone call, police went to Desmond's apartment, knocked on the door, and demanded to search it for narcotics. When Desmond refused, the police forced the door open and placed him under arrest. As they were removing him from the apartment, Desmond offered to give the officers "valuable information" in exchange for his release. Before he could say anything else, Desmond was given Miranda warnings by the police. Thereafter, he told the police that he had stored some heroin in his friend's apartment and that he and his friend had been going to sell it. The heroin was recovered, and Desmond was prosecuted for conspiracy to sell narcotics and for possession of narcotics. At his trial, Desmond moved to suppress his statements. Which of the following is Desmond's best argument in support of the motion to suppress?

Options:
A. Desmond is entitled to know the identity of his accuser, and the state cannot supply this information.
B. The police should have given Desmond Miranda warnings prior to entry into the apartment, and the warnings were ineffectual once Desmond offered to give the police information.
C. Desmond was intimidated by the forced entry into the apartment, and since the statements were involuntary and coerced, their use against him would violate due process of law.
D. The statements were fruits of an unlawful arrest, and though the Miranda warnings may have been sufficient to protect his right against self-incrimination, they were not sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest.
Answer: D
Question: Arthur and Celia, brother and sister, both of legal age, inherited Goodacre, their childhood home, from their father. They thereby became tenants in common. Goodacre had never been used as anything except a residence. Arthur had been residing on Goodacre with his father at the time his father died. Celia had been residing in a distant city. After their father's funeral, Arthur continued to live on Goodacre, but Celia returned to her own residence. There was no discussion between Arthur and Celia concerning their common ownership, nor had there ever been any administration of their father's estate. Arthur paid all taxes, insurance, and other carrying charges on Goodacre. He paid no rent or other compensation to Celia, nor did Celia request any such payment. Thirty years later, a series of disputes arose between Arthur and Celia for the first time concerning their respective rights to Goodacre. The jurisdiction where the land is located recognizes the usual common law types of cotenancies, and there is no applicable legislation on the subject. If Arthur claims the entire title to Goodacre in fee simple and brings an action against Celia to quiet title in himself, and if the state where the land is located has an ordinary 20 -year adverse possession statute, the decision should be for:

Options:
A. Arthur, because during the past 30 years Arthur has exercised the type of occupancy ordinarily considered sufficient to satisfy the adverse possession requirements.
B. Arthur, because the acts of the parties indicate Celia's intention to renounce her right to inheritance.
C. Celia, because there is no evidence that Arthur has performed sufficient acts to constitute her ouster.
D. Celia, because one co-tenant cannot acquire title by adverse possession against another. 
Answer: C
Question: In compliance with a federal statute requiring buildings to be made accessible to persons with disabilities, Walter installed wheelchair ramps at both entrances to his office building located on Blackacre, which he had owned for many years. One year later, Walter entered into a contract with Barbara to sell Blackacre, including the office building. After having the property surveyed, Barbara notified Walter that she was not going to complete the sale because the wheelchair ramp on the south side of the building extended over the property line and into the adjoining parcel of Whiteacre, making the title unmarketable. Walter insisted that Barbara proceed with the sale, and brought an action to compel her performance. If the court were to find that title is marketable, it will be because:

Options:
A. The wheelchair ramp is required by federal law.
B. Walter currently owns Whiteacre and acquired Whiteacre and Blackacre as part of a larger parcel.
C. The wheelchair ramp extends only 10 inches over the property line.
D. The contract between Walter and Barbara requires Walter to convey only a quitclaim deed. 
Answer: B
Question: Peters sued Dietrich, claiming that they had entered into an oral agreement whereby Dietrich agreed to hire Peters as Chief Engineer of Dietrich Products and Peters agreed to take the job at a specified salary, and that Dietrich had subsequently breached their employment contract by refusing to hire Peters. At the trial of Peters's suit, Dietrich took the stand and denied having any contract with Peters for employment or otherwise. In response, Peters offers into evidence a properly authenticated phone message to Dietrich's wife, Wanda, that Dietrich had left with the switchboard operator at her office. The message stated, "I know you won't be happy, but I've offered Peters the Chief Engineer position and he's accepted." Dietrich's attorney objects. The phone message should be ruled:

Options:
A. Admissible, because it is the statement of a party-opponent.
B. Admissible, if it is a recent perception.
C. Inadmissible, because it is a privileged communication between husband and wife.
D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.
Answer: A
Question: Plummer, a well-known politician, was scheduled to address a large crowd at a political dinner. Just as Plummer was about to sit down at the head table, Devon pushed Plummer's chair to one side. As a result, Plummer fell to the floor. Plummer was embarrassed at being made to look foolish before a large audience but suffered no physical harm. If Plummer asserts a claim against Devon for damages because of his embarrassment, will Plummer prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, if Devon knew that Plummer was about to sit on the chair.
B. Yes, if Devon negligently failed to notice that Plummer was about to sit on the chair.
C. No, because Plummer suffered no physical harm along with his embarrassment.
D. No, if in moving the chair Devon intended only a good-natured practical joke on Plummer. 
Answer: A
Question: In a civil suit by Pine against Decker, Decker called Wall, a chemist, as an expert witness and asked him a number of questions about his education and experience in chemistry. Over Pine's objection that Wall was not shown to be qualified in chemistry, the trial court permitted Wall to testify as to his opinion in response to a hypothetical question. On cross-examination, Pine asked Wall if he had failed two chemistry courses while doing his graduate work. The answer should be:

Options:
A. Admitted, because it is relevant to the weight to be given Wall's testimony.
B. Admitted, because specific acts bearing on truthfulness may be inquired about on cross-examination.
C. Excluded, because the court has determined that Wall is qualified to testify as an expert.
D. Excluded, because Wall's character has not been put in issue.
Answer: A
Question: In a writing signed by both parties, Paul Plannah, a renowned architect, agreed for a fee of $ 25,000$ to design and supervise construction of a new house for Phoebe Threedee, a famous sculptor, the fee to be paid upon completion of the house. Plannah and Threedee got along poorly and, when the design plans were about two-thirds complete, they had a heated argument over the proper location of a marble staircase. Hoping to avoid such encounters, Plannah, without Threedee's knowledge, assigned to Donna Drafty, a newly licensed architect practicing solo, "all of my rights and duties under my design and construction-supervision contract with Threedee." Drafty expressly promised Plannah to carry out the work to the best of Drafty's ability. For this question only, assume that Threedee, on learning of the assignment, refused to allow Drafty to proceed as architect and brought an action against Plannah to compel him to resume and complete performance of the contract. Is Threedee entitled to such relief?

Options:
A. Yes, because Plannah's services under the contract are unique.
B. Yes, because Plannah has personally completed two-thirds of the design work.
C. No, because the Plannah-Threedee contract is one for personal services by Plannah.
D. No, because Plannah effectively delegated his remaining duties under the Plannah-Threedee contract to Drafty.
Answer: C
Question: In a writing signed by both parties, Paul Plannah, a renowned architect, agreed for a fee of $ 25,000$ to design and supervise construction of a new house for Phoebe Threedee, a famous sculptor, the fee to be paid upon completion of the house. Plannah and Threedee got along poorly and, when the design plans were about two-thirds complete, they had a heated argument over the proper location of a marble staircase. Hoping to avoid such encounters, Plannah, without Threedee's knowledge, assigned to Donna Drafty, a newly licensed architect practicing solo, "all of my rights and duties under my design and construction-supervision contract with Threedee." Drafty expressly promised Plannah to carry out the work to the best of Drafty's ability. For this question only, assume that Threedee allowed Drafty to proceed with the design work, but that Drafty, without legal excuse, abandoned the project shortly after construction began. Which of the following legal conclusions are correct? I. Plannah is liable to Threedee for legal damages, if any, caused by Drafty's default. II. Drafty is liable to Threedee for legal damages, if any, caused by Drafty's default. III. Threedee is indebted to Drafty, on a divisible contract theory, for a prorated portion of the agreed $ 25,000$ architect's fee promised to Plannah.

Options:
A. I. and II. only.
B. I. and III. only.
C. II. and III. only.
D. I., II., and III.
Answer: A
Question: Hammond decided to kill his wife by poisoning her. He asked his friend, Jordan, a pharmacist, to obtain some curare, a deadly poison, and to give it to him without recording the transaction. Because Jordan suspected Hammond's motive, she supplied Hammond with a small quantity of Marvane, an antibiotic, instead of curare. Marvane is harmless if administered in small quantities, except for the less than $1 \%$ of the population who are allergic to the drug. Hammond injected his wife with the Marvane while she slept. She was allergic to the drug and died from the injection. Jordan was distraught and confessed the entire affair to the police, explaining that she had failed to report Hammond's conduct to the authorities because she feared that it would end their friendship if she did. Jordan is an accomplice to:

Options:
A. Murder.
B. Manslaughter.
C. Criminally negligent homicide.
D. No degree of criminal homicide.
Answer: D
Question: A newly enacted criminal statute provides, in its entirety, "No person shall utter to another person in a public place any annoying, disturbing or unwelcome language." Smith followed an elderly woman for three blocks down a public street, yelling in her ear offensive four-letter words. The woman repeatedly asked Smith to leave her alone, but he refused. In the subsequent prosecution of Smith, the first under this statute, Smith will:

Options:
A. Not prevail.
B. Prevail, because speech of the sort described here may not be punished by the state because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
C. Prevail, because though his speech may be punished by the state, the state may not do so under this statute.
D. Prevail, because the average user of a public street would think his speech/action here was amusing and ridiculous rather than "annoying," etc.
Answer: C
Question: A federal criminal law makes it a crime for any citizen of the United States not specifically authorized by the President to negotiate with a foreign government for the purpose of influencing the foreign government in relation to a dispute with the United States. The strongest constitutional ground for the validity of this law is that:

Options:
A. Under several of its enumerated powers, Congress may legislate to preserve the monopoly of the national government over the conduct of United States foreign affairs.
B. The President's inherent power to negotiate for the United States with foreign countries authorizes the President, even in the absence of statutory authorization, to punish citizens who engage in such negotiations without permission.
C. The law deals with foreign relations and therefore is not governed by the First Amendment.
D. Federal criminal laws dealing with international affairs need not be as specific as those dealing with domestic affairs.
Answer: A
Question: At trial of Pendergast's battery action against Dellacourt, arising from an incident in which Dellacourt allegedly bit off Pendergast's ear, Winchester testified that he was taking a shortcut through an urban alley one morning and heard someone cry "Help!" Rushing around the corner of a building, Winchester saw Pendergast lying on the sidewalk in a pool of blood, with his left ear missing. Dellacourt, who was standing nearby, turned quickly and made a move as if to approach Winchester, and so Winchester ran down the sidewalk away from Dellacourt to summon the police. The following exchange then occurred during cross-examination of Winchester by Dellacourt's counsel. D: "You didn't actually see my client bite off the plaintiff's ear, did you, Mr. Winchester?" W: "No." D: "For all you know, my client could have been an innocent bystander like yourself, but one who didn't run away but stayed to offer assistance." W: "I ran away because I was afraid of the defendant and because I wanted to call the police." D: "For all we know you might have been running out of that alley because you had just committed a crime yourself, Mr. Winchester." W: "Look, Dellacourt is the one who bit off the ear, not me!" D: "If you arrived on the scene after the alleged ear biting, how can you possibly know my client is the one who bit off the plaintiff's ear?"' W: "Because I read in the newspaper the next day that an eyewitness to the entire event told police that he saw Dellacourt spit the ear out after I left." Dellacourt then moved to have Winchester's last remark stricken from the record. If the trial court denies Dellacourt's motion, that ruling is most strongly supported by which of the following?

Options:
A. The report of the eyewitness was an excited utterance.
B. The report of the eyewitness was a statement of recent perception.
C. The error in admitting the statement could not be cured by an appropriate jury instruction.
D. The remark was invited by the crossexaminer's questions.
Answer: D
Question: Egbert, who was sent to prison for nine years for car theft, vowed to get even with Charles, the prosecutor at his trial. While in prison, Egbert was told by another prisoner, Duane, that when Charles was in private practice as a criminal defense attorney, he had represented Duane in a drug charge. Duane claimed that because he did not have the cash to pay Charles his fees, he offered to pay his fees with five ounces of cocaine, and Charles accepted. Although Egbert had no independent reason to believe that what Duane said was true, when he got out of prison he learned that Charles was running for District Attorney. Egbert went to one of the local papers and sold them the story for $ 1,000$. In the article that resulted, Egbert was quoted as saying "I only hope that Charles suffers like I had to suffer for the last nine years." Although the allegation was false, Charles withdrew from the race as a result of the article. In a suit by Charles against Egbert for defamation, the probable result would be:

Options:
A. Charles prevails because Egbert acted with deliberate malice towards Charles.
B. Charles prevails if Egbert should have known that the story was false.
C. Egbert prevails because the story was a matter of public concern.
D. Egbert prevails if he honestly believed the truth of the assertion made by Duane.
Answer: D
Question: Donaldson broke into Professor Ruiz's office to look at examination questions. The questions were locked in a drawer, and Donaldson could not find them. Donaldson believed that looking at examination questions was a crime, but in this belief he was mistaken. Charged with burglary, Donaldson should be:

Options:
A. Acquitted, because he did not complete the crime and he has not been charged with attempt.
B. Acquitted, because what he intended to do when he broke in was not a crime.
C. Convicted, because he had the necessary mental state and committed the act of breaking and entering.
D. Convicted, because factual impossibility is not a defense.
Answer: B
Question: Lordsville was a small, agricultural village with a population of 400 . It was a quiet, conservative town, and $90 \%$ of the inhabitants belonged to the Lordsville Church of Jesus, a whitewashed frame building located on Lordsville's main street. The Lordsville Village Council consisted of five members, all of whom were members of the Lordsville Church of Jesus. The Council unanimously appropriated $ 350$ to pay Mower to mow the lawn of the Lordsville Church of Jesus for a year. Mower was a 15-year-old resident of Lordsville and a member of the Lordsville Church of Jesus whose father had been killed the previous year when he was struck by lightning. Curmudgeon, a Lordsville resident, lived in a tiny house and paid only $200 per year in village and county property taxes, but he was incensed that any of it should go to support what he called "a bunch of holier-thanthou, superstitious, holy-rollers." Curmudgeon filed suit in federal district court to strike down the Council's appropriation to mow the church lawn. Should the court entertain Curmudgeon's suit?

Options:
A. No, because Curmudgeon paid so little in taxes that his interest in the matter, if any, is too minimal.
B. No, because taxpayers lack standing to sue over appropriations by duly constituted legislative bodies.
C. Yes, because a taxpayer may sue under the authority of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause if a fund into which he has paid is being used for religious purposes.
D. Yes, because taxpayers have standing to sue when questions involving constitutional rights are at issue.
Answer: C