imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Acorp and Beeco are companies that each manufacture pesticide $\mathrm{X}$. Their plants are located along the same river. During a specific $24-$ hour period, each plant discharged pesticide into the river. Both plants were operated negligently and such negligence caused the discharge of the pesticide into the river. Landesmann operated a cattle ranch downstream from the plants of Acorp and Beeco. Landesmann's cattle drank from the river and were poisoned by the pesticide. The amount of the discharge from either plant alone would not have been sufficient to cause any harm to Landesmann's cattle. If Landesmann asserts a claim against Acorp and Beeco, what, if anything, will Landesmann recover?

Options:
A. Nothing, because neither company discharged enough pesticide to cause harm to Landesmann's cattle.
B. Nothing, unless Landesmann can establish how much pesticide each plant discharged.
C. One-half of Landesmann's damages from each company.
D. The entire amount of Landesmann's damages, jointly and severally, from the two companies. 
Answer: D
Question: On January 2, Hugh Homey and Sue Structo entered into a written contract in which Structo agreed to build on Homey's lot a new house for Homey, according to plans and specifications furnished by Homey's architect, Barbara Bilevel, at a contract price of $ 200,000$. The contract provided for specified progress payments and a final payment of $ 40,000$ upon Homey's acceptance of the house and issuance of a certificate of final approval by the architect. Further, under a "liquidated damages" clause in the agreement, Structo promised to pay Homey $ 500$ for each day's delay in completing the house after the following October l. Homey, however, told Structo on January 2 , before the contract was signed, that he would be on an around-the-world vacation trip most of the summer and fall and would not return to occupy the house until November 1. For this question only, assume the following facts: Structo completed the house on October 14 and, when Homey returned on November 1 , requested the final payment of $ 40,000$ and issuance of a certificate of final approval by the architect, Bilevel. Homey, however, refused to pay any part of the final installment after Bilevel told him, "Structo did a great job and I find no defects worth mentioning, but Structo's contract price was at least $ 40,000$ too high, especially in view of the big drop in housing values within the past 10 months. I will withhold the final certificate, and you just hold on to your money." If Structo sues Homey for the $ 40,000$ final payment after Bilevel's refusal to issue a final certificate, which of the following will the court probably decide?

Options:
A. Structo wins, because nonoccurrence of the condition requiring Bilevel's certificate of final approval was excused by Bilevel's bad-faith refusal to issue the certificate.
B. Structo wins, but, because all contractual conditions have not occurred, her recovery is limited to restitution of the benefit conferred on Homey, minus progress payments already received.
C. Homey wins, provided he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the fair-market value of the completed house is $ 160,000$ or less.
D. Homey wins, provided he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that total payments to Structo of $ 160,000$ will yield a fair net profit. 
Answer: A
Question: On January 15, Carpenter agreed to repair Householder's house according to certain specifications and to have the work completed by April 1. On March 1, Householder's property was inundated by flood waters which did not abate until March 15. Householder could not get the house in a condition which would permit Carpenter to begin the repairs until March 31 . On that date Carpenter notified Householder that he would not repair the house. Which one of the following facts, if it was the only one true and known to both parties on January 15, would best serve Carpenter as the basis for a defense in an action brought against him by Householder for breach of contract?

Options:
A. Carpenter's busy schedule permitted him to work on Householder's house only during the month of March.
B. Any delay in making the repairs would not seriously affect Householder's use of the property.
C. The cost of making repairs was increasing at the rate of $3 \%$ a month.
D. The area around Householder's property was frequently flooded during the month of March.
Answer: A
Question: Congress enacted a statute providing that persons may challenge a state energy law on the ground that it is in conflict with the federal Constitution in either federal or state court. According to this federal statute, any decision by a lower state court upholding a state energy law against a challenge based on the federal Constitution may be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court. The provisions of this statute that authorize direct United States Supreme Court review of specified decisions rendered by lower state courts are:

Options:
A. Constitutional, because congressional control over questions of energy use is plenary.
B. Constitutional, because Congress may establish the manner by which the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is exercised.
C. Unconstitutional, because they infringe the sovereign right of states to have their supreme courts review decisions of their lower state courts.
D. Unconstitutional, because under Article III of the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court does not have authority to review directly decisions of lower state courts.
Answer: B
Question: In March, when Ohm was 17, Stereo delivered to $\mathrm{Ohm}$ a television set. At that time Ohm agreed in writing to pay $ 400$ for the set on July 1 , when he would reach his 18 th birthday. Eighteen is the applicable statutory age of majority, and on that date $\mathrm{Ohm}$ was to receive the proceeds of a trust. On July 1, when the reasonable value of the television set was $ 250$, Ohm sent Stereo a signed letter stating, "I'll only pay you $ 300$. That is all the set is worth." In an action against $\mathrm{Ohm}$ for money damages on July 2 , what is the maximum amount that Stereo will be entitled to recover?

Options:
A. Nothing.
B. $ 250$, the reasonable value of the set.
C. $ 300$, the amount $\mathrm{Ohm}$ promised to pay in his letter of July 1.
D. $ 400$, the original sale price.
Answer: C
Question: Zall, a resident of the state of Paxico, brought suit in federal district court against Motors, Inc., a Paxico corporation. Zall seeks recovery of $ 12,000$ actual and $ 12,000$ punitive damages arising from Motors's sale to him of a defective automobile. Zall's suit is based only on a common law contract theory. From a constitutional standpoint, should the federal district court hear this suit on its merits?

Options:
A. Yes, because Article III vests federal courts with jurisdiction over cases involving the obligation of contracts.
B. Yes, because it is an action affecting interstate commerce.
C. No, because this suit is not within the jurisdiction of an Article III court.
D. No, because there is no case or controversy within the meaning of Article III.
Answer: C
Question: A statute of the state of Lanape flatly bans the sale or distribution of contraceptive devices to minors. Drugs, Inc., a national retailer of drugs and related items, is charged with violating the Lanape statute. Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument Drugs, Inc., could make in defending itself against prosecution for violation of this statute?

Options:
A. The statute constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce. 
B. The statute denies minors one of their fundamental rights without due process.
C. The statute denies Drugs, Inc., a privilege or immunity of state citizenship.
D. The statute violates the First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it regulates morals.
Answer: B
Question: A written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $ 1$ million in Vintage for its capital expansion and, in return, that Vintage, from grapes grown in its famous vineyards, would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under the label "Premium Vintage-Bouquet." The contract included provisions that the parties would share equally the profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by Vintage only through Claret, a wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither Bouquet nor Vintage had previously dealt with Claret. Claret learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility. 81. If Vintage refuses to distribute the wine through Claret and Claret then sues Vintage for breach of contract, is it likely that Claret will prevail? (A) Yes, because Vintage's performance was to run to Claret rather than to Bouquet. (B) Yes, because Bouquet and Vintage could reasonably foresee that Claret would change his position in reliance on the contract. (C) No, because Bouquet and Vintage did not expressly agree that Claret would have enforceable rights under their contract. (D) No, because Bouquet and Vintage, having no apparent motive to benefit Claret, appeared in making the contract to have been protecting or serving only their own interests. For this question only, assume the following facts. Soon after making its contract with Bouquet, Vintage, without Bouquet's knowledge or assent, sold its vineyards but not its winery to Agribiz, a large agricultural corporation. Under the terms of this sale, Agribiz agreed to sell to Vintage all grapes grown on the land for five years. Agribiz's employees have no experience in wine-grape production, and Agribiz has no reputation in the wine industry as a grape producer or otherwise. The BouquetVintage contract was silent on the matter of Vintage's selling any or all of its business assets. If Bouquet seeks an appropriate judicial remedy against Vintage for entering into the Vintage-Agribiz transaction, is Bouquet likely to prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, because the Vintage-Agribiz transaction created a significant risk of diminishing the profits in which Bouquet would share under his contract with Vintage.
B. Yes, because the Bouquet-Vintage contract did not contain a provision authorizing a delegation of Vintage's duties.
C. No, because Vintage remains in a position to perform under the Bouquet-Vintage contract.
D. No, because Vintage, as a corporation, must necessarily perform its contracts by delegating duties to individuals. 
Answer: A
Question: All lawyers practicing in the state of Erewhon must be members of the State Bar Association, by order of the state supreme court. Several state officials serve on the Bar Association's Board of Bar Governors. The Board of Bar Governors authorizes the payment of dues for two staff members to the Cosmopolitan Club, a private dining club licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. The Cosmopolitan Club is frequented by affluent businessmen and professionals and by legislators. It is generally known that the purpose of the membership of the Bar Association staff is to enable them to go where members of the "elite" meet and to lobby for legislation in which the Bar Association is interested. The State Association has numerous committees and subcommittees concerned with family law, real estate law, unauthorized practice, etc., and its recommendations often influence state policy. Some committee meetings are held at the Cosmopolitan Club. The club is known to have rules which restrict membership by race, religion, and sex. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, who are members of the Erewhon Bar Association, petition the Board of Bar Governors to adopt a resolution prohibiting the payment of club dues to and the holding of meetings of the Bar Association or its committees at places that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex. After substantial public discussion, the Board of Bar Governors, by a close vote, fails to pass such a resolution. These events receive extensive coverage in the local newspapers. Plaintiffs bring an action in federal court seeking an injunction against such payments and the holding of meetings in such places as the Cosmopolitan Club. Which of the following actions should a federal district court take with respect to jurisdiction?

Options:
A. Hear the case on the merits, because a federal claim is presented.
B. Hear the case on the merits, because the expenditure of state funds in support of segregation is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment.
C. Abstain from jurisdiction, because the constitutional issue should be litigated first in a state court.
D. Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, because the issue of Bar Association activities is solely within the domain of state law.
Answer: A
Question: Although by all appearances Herb and Edna, an elderly couple, were destitute, they had, in fact, substantial cash in the bank. Their new neighbors, the Smiths, feeling sorry for them on Thanksgiving, bought a month's supply of food and gave it to Herb and Edna. Later, Edna confided in the Smiths that she and Herb had money and told them that, because they had been so kind, she was leaving them money in her will. All of Herb's and Edna's bank accounts were held in joint tenancy. When Edna died, at the Smiths' request Herb gave the Smiths the following signed instrument: "In consideration of my wife's promise to the Smiths, and their agreement not to sue her estate, I agree to pay them the sum of $ 5,000$." When Herb died of a heart attack several days later, the Smiths asked the administrator of his estate to pay them the $ 5,000$. The administrator refused on the ground that there was no consideration for the agreement. On which of the following theories would it be most likely that the Smiths would recover?

Options:
A. Herb's written instrument was a binding unilateral contract.
B. Herb's acceptance of the food was fraudulent.
C. Herb is bound by promissory estoppel.
D. Herb and the Smiths entered into a valid compromise.
Answer: D
Question: Johnston purchased 100 bolts of standard blue wool, No. 1 quality, from McHugh. The sales contract provided that Johnston would make payment prior to inspection. The 100 bolts were shipped and Johnston paid McHugh. Upon inspection, however, Johnston discovered that the wool was No. 2 quality. Johnston thereupon tendered back the wool to McHugh and demanded return of his payment. McHugh refused on the ground that there is no difference between No. 1 quality wool and No. 2 quality wool. What is Johnston's remedy because the wool was nonconforming?

Options:
A. Specific performance.
B. Damages measured by the difference between the value of the goods delivered and the value of conforming goods.
C. Damages measured by the price paid plus the difference between the contract price and the cost of buying substitute goods.
D. None, since he waived his remedies by agreeing to pay before inspection.
Answer: C
Question: Assume for the purposes of this question that you are counsel to the state legislative committee that is responsible for real estate laws in your state. The committee wants you to $\mathrm{draft}$ legislation to make all restrictions on land use, imposed by deeds (now or hereafter recorded), unenforceable in the future so that public landuse planning through zoning will have exclusive control in matters of land use. Which of the following is least likely to be a consideration in the drafting of such legislation?

Options:
A. Compensation for property rights taken by public authority.
B. Impairment of contract.
C. Sovereign immunity.
D. Police power.
Answer: C
Question: The state of Missoula has enacted a new election code designed to increase voter responsibility in the exercise of the franchise and to enlarge citizen participation in the electoral process. None of its provisions conflict with federal statutes. The Missoula election code provides that in a special-purpose election for directors of a state watershed improvement district, the franchise is limited to landowners within the district, because they are the only ones directly affected by the outcome. Each vote is weighted according to the proportion of the holding of that individual in relation to the total affected property. The best argument in support of the statute and against the application of the "one person, one vote" principle in this situation is that the principle:

Options:
A. Applies only to election of individuals to statewide public office.
B. Does not apply where property rights are involved.
C. Does not apply because the actions of such a district principally affect landowners.
D. Does not apply because of rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
Answer: C
Question: Osif owned Broadacres in fee simple. For a consideration of $ 5,000$, Osif gave Bard a written option to purchase Broadacres for $ 300,000$. The option was assignable. For a consideration of $ 10,000$, Bard subsequently gave an option to Cutter to purchase Broadacres for $ 325,000$. Cutter exercised his option. Bard thereupon exercised his option. Bard paid the agreed price of $ 300,000$, and took title to Broadacres by deed from Osif. Thereafter, Cutter refused to consummate his purchase. Bard brought an appropriate action against Cutter for specific performance, or, if that should be denied, then for damages. Cutter counterclaimed for return of the $ 10,000$. In this action, the court will:

Options:
A. Grant money damages only to Bard.
B. Grant specific performance to Bard.
C. Grant Bard only the right to retain the $ 10,000$.
D. Require Bard to refund the $ 10,000$ to Cutter.
Answer: B
Question: Drake owned a small warehouse that he leased to Teague, who used it as a storage and distribution center for fresh cut flowers being shipped to area florists. Drake wanted to put Teague out of business so that he could lease the warehouse to someone else at a higher rent. $\mathrm{He}$ entered the warehouse one night using a master key, and turned off the cooling system to destroy the flowers. To ensure that all of Teague's inventory would be destroyed, he also deployed several kerosene space heaters. While he was filling one, a small amount of kerosene spilled and was ignited by an ash from his cigarette. Although the fire that started was small at first, Drake panicked when he saw the flames and ran out of the building. The fire eventually spread to the walls of the building and heavily damaged it before being extinguished by firefighters. If Drake is charged with arson, can he be found guilty?

Options:
A. Yes, because Drake caused the fire during the commission of a malicious felony.
B. Yes, because Drake did nothing when the kerosene caught on fire.
C. No, because Drake did not intend to set the building on fire.
D. No, because Drake cannot be liable for arson of a building that he owned.
Answer: B
Question: Harold and Wanda, once married to each other, had gone through a bitter divorce. The divorce decree awarded custody of the couple's four-year-old son Jake to Wanda, with Harold receiving visitation rights. On the first opportunity that Harold had to take Jake for the weekend, Harold disappeared with Jake. Wanda was greatly distressed and called Harold's parents, Grandmaw and Grandpaw, on a weekly basis, always asking if they knew anything about the whereabouts of Harold and Jake. Grandmaw and Grandpaw knew quite well where Harold and Jake were, and they often sent money to help support Harold while he was on the run. However, they always insisted that they knew nothing about the child. Four years after Jake was abducted, the police arrested Harold and returned Jake to his mother. Wanda files an action against Grandmaw and Grandpaw alleging infliction of emotional distress. Will Wanda prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, because Grandmaw and Grandpaw acted in deliberate disregard of a high probability that their actions would cause Wanda to suffer emotional distress.
B. Yes, but only if Grandmaw and Grandpaw actually knew that their actions would cause Wanda to suffer emotional distress.
C. No, unless Wanda can prove that she suffered physical harm.
D. No, because Wanda never was in a zone of danger.
Answer: A
Question: Four years ago, Owen held Blackacre, a tract of land, in fee simple absolute. In that year he executed and delivered to Price a quitclaim deed which purported to release and quitclaim to Price all of the right, title, and interest of Owen in Blackacre. Price accepted the quitclaim and placed the deed in his safe deposit box. Owen was indebted to Crider in the amount of $ 35,000$. In September of the current year, Owen executed and delivered to Crider a warranty deed, purporting to convey the fee simple to Blackacre, in exchange for a full release of the debt he owed to Crider. Crider immediately recorded his deed. In December, Price caused his quitclaim deed to Blackacre to be recorded and notified Crider that he (Price) claimed title. Assume that there is no evidence of occupancy of Blackacre and assume, further, that the jurisdiction where Blackacre is situated has a recording statute which required good faith and value as elements of the junior claimant's priority. Which of the following is the best comment concerning the conflicting claims of Price and Crider?

Options:
A. Price cannot succeed, because the quitclaim deed through which he claims prevents him from being bona fide (in good faith).
B. The outcome will turn on the view taken as to whether Crider paid value within the meaning of the statute requiring this element.
C. The outcome will turn on whether Price paid value (a fact not given in the statement).
D. Price's failure to record until December of the current year estops him from asserting title against Crider.
Answer: B
Question: Otto conveyed Goldacre to "Andy, his heirs and assigns, but if Andy dies and is not survived by children by his present wife, Jane, then to Bob and his heirs and assigns." Shortly after taking possession, Andy discovered rich metal deposits on the land, opened a mining operation, and removed and sold a considerable quantity of valuable ore without giving Bob any notice of his action. Andy has no children. Andy, Jane, and Bob are all still living. Bob brought an action in equity for an accounting of the value of the ore removed and for an injunction against further removal. If the decision is for Andy, it will be because:

Options:
A. Bob has no interest in Goldacre.
B. The right to take minerals is an incident of a defeasible fee simple.
C. The right to take minerals is an incident of the right to possession.
D. There was no showing that Andy acted in bad faith. 
Answer: B
Question: Duncan was charged with aggravated assault. At trial Duncan did not testify; however, he sought to offer opinion evidence of his good character for truth and veracity. This testimony should be:

Options:
A. Admitted, because a criminal defendant is entitled to offer evidence of his good character.
B. Admitted, because a party's credibility is necessarily in issue.
C. Excluded, because evidence of character is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith.
D. Excluded, because it is evidence of a trait not pertinent to the case.
Answer: D
Question: Dray was prosecuted for bank robbery. At trial, the bank teller, Wall, was unable to identify Dray, now bearded, as the bank robber. The prosecutor then showed Wall a group of photographs, and Wall testified that she had previously told the prosecutor that the middle picture (concededly a picture of Dray before he grew a beard) was a picture of the bank robber. Wall's testimony is:

Options:
A. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
B. Inadmissible, because it is a violation of Dray's right of confrontation.
C. Admissible as prior identification by the witness.
D. Admissible as past recollection recorded.
Answer: C