imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: For a number of years, United Leasing has been in charge of leasing the luxury skyboxes at City Sports Stadium, home of the local professional basketball team. During this time, it annually sent to chief executives of area businesses personalized "invitations" to lease skyboxes for the season. The invitations, which were always sent out several months before each season began, contained detailed price terms and language stating that the deadline for responding was 10 weeks before the start of the season and that all leases were subject to the approval of the management of United Leasing. Executives at Multimedia Marketing had always responded to their invitation immediately by registered mail because they found it very worthwhile to lease a skybox to entertain their clients. During the five years that they had responded affirmatively to the invitation, they never received any additional communications from United Leasing regarding approval, but the tickets and an invoice would arrive about a week before the season began. Several months before the current season, Multimedia received and immediately responded to its invitation. Two weeks before the season began, a stunning trade brought the league's most popular star to the City basketball team, prompting a dramatic increase in the demand for tickets. A few days later, Multimedia, which had already scheduled in a number of clients to attend games in its skybox, received a notice from United Leasing stating that management had not approved Multimedia's lease of the skybox for this season. In a separate announcement to all area businesses, United Leasing announced that all available skyboxes would be leased for three- or five-year terms, and that an auction of the leases would be conducted if the demand exceeded the supply. Multimedia decided that it was not financially feasible to commit itself to anything longer than a one-year lease. It sent a letter to United Leasing, stating that a contract was created between the parties and that United Leasing will be in breach if it does not perform. Is Multimedia correct in its assertions?

Options:
A. Yes, because United Leasing's failure to reject Multimedia's offer within a reasonable time constituted an acceptance under the circumstances.
B. Yes, because United Leasing's "invitation" to Multimedia was an offer, which Multimedia accepted.
C. No, because United Leasing was entitled to reject Multimedia's offer when it did.
D. No, but Multimedia would be able to recover reliance damages from United Leasing under a quasi-contract theory. 
Answer: A
Question: Bulky was six foot four and weighed 280 pounds. One afternoon Bulky was wandering rather aimlessly and became lost in an unfamiliar part of the city. He reached into his pocket and discovered he only had 35 cents. He wanted to take a bus back to the city center, but bus fare was $ 1$ per ride. Bulky was rather scruffily dressed and he had not had a haircut in several months. He approached Juan, a slightly built man who was standing alone at the bus stop. In a gruff voice, Bulky asked Juan, "Do you have any money?" When Juan replied, "Yes,"'Bulky said, "Give me five dollars!" Juan reached into his pocket and handed Bulky a five-dollar bill. Juan walked away from the bus and flagged down a passing patrol car. Juan told the police, "I've been robbed," and pointed out Bulky, who was still standing at the bus stop. Bulky was arrested and charged with robbery. At Bulky's trial, Bulky took the stand in his own defense. Bulky testified, "I wasn't trying to rob anybody. I was just trying to beg some money to get myself back home." If the jury believes Bulky's testimony, Bulky should be found:

Options:
A. Not guilty of robbery, because Bulky lacked the requisite criminal intent.
B. Guilty of robbery, because Bulky took Juan's money after intimidating him, and the effect of Bulky's size on Juan, rather than Bulky's intent, is controlling.
C. Not guilty of robbery, but guilty of assault, because Bulky placed Juan in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm.
D. Guilty of both robbery and assault, because assault is not a lesser included offense of robbery.
Answer: A
Question: Orville conveyed Redacre "to my best friend, Nelson, and upon Nelson's death to my daughter, Dora." Nelson took up possession of Redacre and lived there for two years. He then conveyed "my interest in Redacre" to his longtime, and much younger, mistress, Magnolia. Although Dora was fond of her father's friend, Nelson, she could not abide Magnolia, and the thought of Magnolia taking over Redacre made Dora sick. Dora tried to get Magnolia to leave Redacre, but Magnolia told Dora, "Redacre is mine until I die, and you'd better get used to that idea." Since Magnolia took up residence on Redacre, she has been sent two county property tax bills, which she has refused to pay. The county is now threatening to bring an action to force a judicial sale of Redacre to cover the tax deficiency. Dora files an appropriate suit asking the court to evict Magnolia from Redacre and to compel her to pay the taxes for her period of occupancy. The court will rule that:

Options:
A. Magnolia has a life estate in Redacre for the period of her own life, and Magnolia must pay the taxes on the property.
B. Magnolia has a life estate in Redacre for the period of Nelson's life, and Magnolia must pay the taxes on the property.
C. Magnolia has a life estate in Redacre for the period of Nelson's life, but Magnolia does not have to pay the taxes on the property, because taxes are the responsibility of the remainder grantee.
D. Dora owns Redacre, because Nelson could not convey his interest to Magnolia.
Answer: B
Question: In 2000, Rogan Josh, then age 15, emigrated with his family from Dopyaza, an Asian country. Although Josh maintained Dopyazan citizenship, he held resident alien status and complied with all federal laws and regulations regarding maintenance of resident alien status. Upon arrival in the United States, Josh, his parents, and his siblings took up residence in the state of New Jingo. In 2003, Rogan Josh began'a course of studies in petroleum engineering at New Jingo University, a state institution. Because he was a resident of New Jingo, Josh qualified for the "in-state" tuition rate. The "nonresident" tuition rate was 10 times the in-state rate, and it would be impossible for Josh to attend New Jingo University if he were required to pay the nonresident tuition. In 2005, the legislature of New Jingo passed a statute denying in-state tuition rates at any statesupported college or university for any resident aliens who were citizens of "any country which, during the previous five-year period, has held citizens of the United States as hostages." Due to an international dispute between the United States and the government of Dopyaza, the Dopyazan government had held six American citizens as hostages for a four-month period in 2002. The registrar of New Jingo University, where Josh has successfully completed two years of study, informed Josh that he would have to pay the nonresident tuition rate in order to begin his junior year. Josh cannot afford to pay the tuition. If Josh files an appropriate suit asking the federal courts to strike down the New Jingo statute, which of the following is his best argument? 

Options:
A. Because higher education is now so important for earning a livelihood, it has become a fundamental right protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. Resident aliens cannot be blamed in retrospect for actions of their governments and, therefore, the New Jingo statute violates the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws.
C. Alienage is a suspect category under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and New Jingo has not met the appropriate standard to burden Josh.
D. Attending a state-supported university in a state where one is a legal resident is a property right that may not be taken away without due process of law. 
Answer: C
Question: Bernaise, the sole proprietor of Bernaise Distributors, a food service and food brokerage concern, entered into oral negotiations with Hollandaise, president and chief executive officer of Holsauce, a corporation that manufactured gourmet food products for restaurants and select retail outlets. Bernaise wished to secure an exclusive distributorship for Holsauce products in the six New England states. After some discussion, Bernaise and Hollandaise agreed on all salient points and shook hands on the deal. They agreed further that Hobson, Holsauce's general counsel, would reduce the agreement to writing and that the agreement would become effective after it was drawn up and initialed by Hobson and by Barker, Bernaise's counsel. Hobson duly committed the agreement to writing and sent the writing to Barker, but without initialing it first. Barker looked over the agreement, made no changes, initialed it, and mailed the agreement to Hobson on May 1. On May 2, Hollandaise decided that Bechamel would be a better distributor than Bernaise. Therefore, also on May 2, Hollandaise had Hobson telephone Barker, telling him, "The deal's off." Barker responded, "The heck it is. We have an enforceable contract." Hobson received the written agreement with Barker's initials on it on May 3. According to Hollandaise's instructions, Holsauce began to distribute its products in New England through Bechamel. If Bernaise files suit against Hollandaise and Holsauce for breach, he is likely to:

Options:
A. Prevail, because the mailing of the written agreement to Barker constituted an irrevocable offer.
B. Prevail, because Bernaise and Hollandaise entered into a valid oral contract.
C. Not prevail, because Hobson never initialed the written agreement and there was, therefore, failure of an express condition.
D. Not prevail, because Hobson's phone call to Barker constituted a valid revocation before acceptance.
Answer: B
Question: Babe was a professional baseball player who was known both for his prowess at the plate and his perceived "heart of gold." One day, Babe was visiting a sick boy named Jimmy in the hospital. Babe was touched by Jimmy's will to live despite a very poor prognosis. In a moment of weakness, Babe told Jimmy that in consideration of Jimmy's courage, he would do anything that Jimmy asked. Jimmy's eyes momentarily gleamed as he asked Babe to "hit a homer for me in your next game." Babe replied, "Sure kid." As Babe was leaving Jimmy's hospital room, Jimmy's father, Joe, pulled Babe aside and told Babe, "It would mean a lot to Jimmy if you would hit a home run for him in your next game. The medicinal value of raising Jimmy's spirits would be priceless." Babe replied, "Hey man, we all have problems. I don't work for the Make a Wish Foundation." Undaunted, Joe repeated that it would really raise Jimmy's spirits if Babe would hit a homer, and as incentive, Joe told Babe that he would pay Babe $ 5,000$ if Babe did hit a home run in his next game. Babe replied, "You've got a deal." To raise his chances of collecting the $ 5,000$ from Joe, Babe took extra batting practice before his next game, and the practice paid off because in his next game, Babe hit two home runs. During a post-game interview, Babe explained, "I did it for little Jimmy, who is in the hospital." After showering, Babe went directly to Joe's house and asked Joe for $ 5,000$. Babe's contract with his ball club does not forbid him from accepting money from fans for good performance. If Joe refuses to pay and Babe brings an action against Joe for damages, which of the following is correct under the modern trend in contract law?

Options:
A. Babe can recover the $ 5,000$ because the preexisting duty rule does not apply where the duty is owed to a third person.
B. Babe can recover the $ 5,000$ if he can prove that the value of the home run to Jimmy is at least $ 5,000$. 
C. Babe cannot recover from Joe because Babe had a preexisting duty to use his best efforts to hit home runs.
D. Babe cannot recover from Joe because, even under the modern trend, moral consideration is not valid.
Answer: A
Question: Dassent was on trial on a hit and run charge, whereby the prosecution asserts that, while driving his vehicle, Dassent struck and injured Proctor, an elderly pedestrian, and then sped away from the scene of the accident without stopping to assess Proctor's injuries or to render assistance. During the prosecution's presentation of its case, three eyewitnesses testified that the car that struck Proctor had the license plate number DASS 53. A witness from the State Department of Motor Vehicles produced records showing that a vehicle with license number DASS 53 was registered in Dassent's name and that Dassent claimed on his driver's license application that he was born in 1953. Dassent took the stand in his own defense. He admitted that a car meeting the description of the vehicle given by the eyewitnesses and bearing a license plate with the number DASS 53 belonged to him, but Dassent denied having driven the vehicle on the day that Proctor was injured. Without releasing Dassent as a witness, his lawyer called Father White, an Episcopal priest, to the stand. White is ready to testify that he has known Dassent for 12 years, that Dassent has performed many charitable acts, and that Dassent is a highly responsible person "who would not run away from his obligations by leaving the scene of an accident." If the prosecution objects to White's proposed testimony, should the court bar White from testifying?

Options:
A. No, because the testimony shows that Dassent is a person of good character.
B. No, because the testimony is habit evidence tending to show that it was unlikely that Dassent was the perpetrator.
C. Yes, because one may not use character evidence to bolster one's own testimony.
D. Yes, because the prosecution has not made an issue of Dassent's character.
Answer: A
Question: In response to growing concern over public health issues, Congress passed legislation permitting states to completely ban the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The legislation was subsequently upheld by the United States Supreme Court. The state of Jefferson, like most states, did not enact a complete ban on tobacco products. However, it passed a compromise measure that banned all ads for cigarettes and tobacco products by any print or broadcast media located in the state. A state tobacco distributor that wished to advertise in local newspapers brings an action in federal court to challenge the state statute. The court will probably find the statute:

Options:
A. Unconstitutional, because by choosing not to exercise its right to impose a complete ban on the sale of tobacco products, the state can no longer claim that the regulation of advertising serves a substantial government interest.
B. Unconstitutional, because the right to ban all truthful advertising for a product is not automatically justified by the right to ban the sale of a product entirely.
C. Constitutional, because the state's power to ban advertising for a product is implicit in its power to ban the product altogether.
D. Constitutional, because the ban on advertising constitutes a restriction on commercial speech that is rationally related to the legitimate state interest in reducing the use of tobacco products. 
Answer: B
Question: Mommy's young son, Boy, accidentally swallowed a coin while playing. Boy had to be rushed to the hospital, and although Boy recovered, Mommy has suffered feelings of anxiety, worrying that her child might be injured again. Mommy's husband, Hal, talked Mommy into going to a movie to have a relaxing evening out. She agreed after her mother agreed to watch Boy for the evening. Mommy was enjoying the movie when Hal left his seat to get some popcorn from the concession stand. Hal ordered a large popcorn with extra butter. While handling change, Dizzie, the concession stand attendant, carelessly dropped a quarter into Hal's popcorn. After taking a couple of handfuls for himself, Hal returned to his seat and gave the popcorn box to Mommy. Mommy began to eat the popcorn. However, as she began to munch her third handful of popcorn, she bit the quarter that Dizzie had dropped into the box. Mommy did not swallow the quarter, nor did she bite on it hard enough to injure her teeth or gums, but the feel of the coin brought back all her anxieties about Boy's injury. That night Mommy could not sleep, and the few times that she did nod off for a second, a horrible nightmare recalling her son's injury because of the coin would occur. If Mommy sues the movie theater for her emotional distress, she will:

Options:
A. Win, because Dizzie was negligent.
B. Win, because Mommy suffered emotional distress.
C. Lose, unless a reasonable person would have suffered similar distress after finding a coin in the popcorn and biting on it.
D. Lose, because Mommy suffered no actionable harm. 
Answer: D
Question: Penquist was exiting from a parking garage owned and operated by the city of Durham when he discovered that the exit ramp was blocked by construction barricades and a pile of broken-up concrete. No workers or detour signs were around and Penquist was in a hurry, so he backed up and drove down an entrance ramp that was clearly marked as such. As he came around a corner, his car was broadsided by a pickup truck driven by Totten. Penquist was seriously injured in the collision. A statute in the jurisdiction requires drivers to obey all traffic directional markings in both public and private parking lots and garages. The jurisdiction retains traditional contributory negligence rules and retains governmental immunity for municipalities. If Penquist brings a lawsuit against the city to recover for his injuries, which of the following facts will be least helpful in the city's defense?

Options:
A. Penquist was aware that another exit on the other side of the garage was open.
B. The construction workers responsible for blocking off the exit ramp were employees of an independent contractor rather than the city.
C. The city does not collect fees or make a profit in the operation of the garage.
D. Totten could have avoided Penquist but recognized him as an old enemy and deliberately ran into him.
Answer: B
Question: Patrice sued David on a breach of contract theory. Winston testified for Patrice. On crossexamination, which of the following questions is the trial judge most likely to rule improper?

Options:
A. "Weren't you convicted last year of forgery?"
B. "Isn't it true that you and Patrice have been best friends for many years?"
C. "Isn't it true that you are known in the community as an alcoholic?"'
D. "Didn't you cheat your business partner out of a large amount of money last month?'
Answer: C
Question: Fred, a licensed real estate broker, and Tom, a homeowner, entered into a written listing agreement in which, among other things, Tom promised to pay Fred a commission of $6 \%$ of the selling price of Tom's home if Fred obtained a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase it. Tom's home was listed in a service made available to real estate professionals, with an asking price of $ 80,000$. Murray, looking for a home to buy, went to Fred's real estate office and was shown Tom's home. He submitted a written offer to purchase the home for $ 80,000$, but Tom rejected this offer by, according to its terms, not accepting it within a stated period. Tom did not want to sell to Murray because, given the amount Murray had intended to borrow, Tom would have had to take back a second mortgage for a portion of his equity, and he did not consider Murray a good credit risk. Murray brings an action against Tom for specific performance, seeking to compel him to sell the home. What is the probable outcome of this litigation?

Options:
A. Tom will win, because no writing or writings constitute a memorandum sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.
B. Tom will win, because Murray's remedy at law is adequate.
C. Murray will win, because he is a thirdparty beneficiary of the agreement between Tom and Fred.
D. Murray will win, because there is a memorandum that satisfies the Statute of Frauds.
Answer: A
Question: Both Kenton and Evan owned their own homes on large tracts of land next to each other in the country. Evan, a physics teacher at the local college, was also a model rocket enthusiast. On many occasions he would launch one of his rockets from the back area of his property, and although none of Evan's rockets ever came near Kenton's property, Kenton was understandably upset. Kenton complained to Evan several times about his hobby and the fact that Evan stored flammable fuels in his house. Once, Kenton complained to the county sheriff, whereupon Evan was charged with violating a local ordinance that prohibits the improper storage of flammable liquids on residential property. He was given a warning and told that he must have proper storage permits and facilities if he intended to keep the fuels for his model rockets on his property. Although Evan obtained the proper permits to build underground storage tanks for his fuels, he continued to store them in 55gallon drums in a shed located on the edge of his property farthest away from Kenton. Eventually, Kenton brought a suit based on public nuisance against Evan. If Kenton is seeking an injunction against Evan to prevent his storing flammable liquids on his property and his launching model rockets, the defense by which Evan most likely would prevail is that:

Options:
A. He obtained a permit from the city to build storage tanks for the fuels.
B. There is no showing that Kenton suffered any special damage.
C. This is not a residential neighborhood.
D. There is no specific ordinance that prohibits Evan from launching model rockets on his own property.
Answer: B
Question: The Federal Endangered Species Act imposes criminal penalties for killing certain specified animals that have been determined by Congress to be of importance to the tourism industry in the region in which the animal is located. Among the animals protected are the Puce Bandicoots of the Great Spotted Valley area of the state of Wilderness. The state of Wilderness classifies Puce Bandicoots as varmints that may be destroyed at will by anyone with a general hunting license. Rancher, who possesses a valid state of Wilderness general hunting license, regularly shoots and kills Puce Bandicoots that prey upon his artichoke plants. If Rancher is prosecuted under the federal statute, and challenges the constitutionality of the law, which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument in support of the federal statute?

Options:
A. The commerce power.
B. The Necessary and Proper Clause.
C. The police power.
D. The power to regulate federal lands.
Answer: A
Question: Plumber, a plumbing contractor, sued Drain, a homeowner. Plumber alleged that Drain refused to pay for extensive pipe repairs performed on Drain's home by Wilson, an employee of Plumber. Plumber called Wilson to the stand as a witness. Wilson, under oath, testified that he did not perform any work at Drain's home. Wilson also denied writing a letter to Lorca telling Lorca that Wilson was going to do plumbing work on Drain's house. Without releasing Wilson as a witness, Plumber offers in evidence the letter written by Wilson to Lorca. Which of the following is not a proper basis for admitting Wilson's letter?

Options:
A. Testimony by Wilson's wife that she recognizes Wilson's handwriting.
B. Lorca's testimony that the statements in the letter are responsive to a prior letter from Lorca to Wilson.
C. Comparison by the jury of the Wilson- Lorca letter with another letter that Wilson has admitted writing.
D. In-court comparison by Lorca, a nonexpert, of the Wilson-Lorca letter with another letter that Wilson has admitted writing. 
Answer: D