imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: The state of Floribama has recently had a problem with people dealing in, and with, its booming garment industry. The use of independent contractors by major garment makers, most of whom were headquartered out of state, had led to the hiring of illegal aliens to work under conditions reminiscent of 19 th century sweatshops. The legislature of Floribama enacted a statute to remedy the situation and to protect its citizens against the problems in the future. The statute provides: I. That all garment makers must be licensed by the state attorney general. II. That all subcontractors (defined separately in the statute) must be separately licensed by the attorney general and must have been a citizen of the United States for five years and a resident of Floribama for one year. For this question only, assume that Ohner and Byer were bound by a contract for the sale of lot 101 for $ 5,000$, that on May 3 Ohner telephoned Byer and stated that because he had just discovered that a shopping center was going to be erected adjacent to the Grove subdivision, he would "need to have $ 6,000$ for each of the lots including lot $101, "$ that Byer thereupon agreed to pay him $ 6,000$ for lot 101 , and that on May 6, Byer telegraphed, "Accept your offer with respect to the rest of the lots." Assuming that two contracts were formed and that there is no controlling statute, Byer will most likely be required to pay:

Options:
A. Only $ 5,000$ for each of the 50 lots.
B. Only $ 5,000$ for lot 101 , but $ 6,000$ for the remaining 49 lots.
C. $ 6,000$ for each of the 50 lots.
Answer: B
Question: Farquart had made a legally binding promise to furnish his son Junior and Junior's fiancee a house on their wedding day, planned for June 10 of the following year. Pursuant to that promise, Farquart telephoned his old contractor-friend Sawtooth and made the following oral agreement-each making full and accurate written notes thereof: Sawtooth was to cut 30 trees into fireplace logs from a specified portion of a certain one-acre plot owned by Farquart, and Farquart was to pay therefor $ 20$ per tree. Sawtooth agreed further to build a house on the plot conforming to the specifications of Plan OP5 published by Builders, Inc. for a construction price of $ 18,000$. Farquart agreed to make payments of $ 2,000$ on the first of every month for nine months beginning August 1 upon monthly presentation of a certificate by Builders, Inc. that the specifications of Plan OP5 were being met. Sawtooth delivered the cut logs to Farquart in July, when he also began building the house. Farquart made three $ 2,000$ payments for the work done in July, August, and September, without requiring a certificate. Sawtooth worked through October, but no work was done from November 1 to the end of February because of bad weather; and Farquart made no payments during that period. Sawtooth did not object. On March 1, Sawtooth demanded payment of $ 2,000$; but Farquart refused on the grounds that no construction work had been done for four months and Builders had issued no certificate. Sawtooth thereupon abandoned work and repudiated the agreement. What was the probable legal effect of the following? I. Sawtooth's failure to object to Farquart's making no payments on November 1, December 1, January 1 , and February 1. II. Farquart's making payments in August through October without requiring a certificate from Builders.

Options:
A. Estoppel-type waiver as to both I. and II.
B. Waiver of delay in payment as to I. and revocable waiver as to II. 
C. Mutual rescission of the contract by I. combined with II.
D. Discharge of Farquart's duty to make the four payments as to I. and estoppel-type waiver as to II.
Answer: B
Question: A federal statute requires United States civil service employees to retire at age 75 . However, that statute also states that civil service employees of the armed forces must retire at age 65 . Prentis, a 65-year-old civil service employee of the Department of the Army, seeks a declaratory judgment that would forbid his mandatory retirement until age 75 . The strongest argument that Prentis can make to invalidate the requirement that he retire at age 65 is that the law: 

Options:
A. Denies him a privilege or immunity of national citizenship.
B. Deprives him of a property right without just compensation.
C. Is not within the scope of any of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8.
D. Invidiously discriminates against him on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Answer: D
Question: The President of the United States recognizes the country of Ruritania and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government through the Secretary of State. Ruritania is governed by a repressive totalitarian government. In an appropriate federal court, Dunn brings a suit against the President and Secretary of State to set aside this action on the ground that it is inconsistent with the principles of our constitutional form of government. Dunn has a lucrative contract with the United States Department of Commerce to provide commercial information about Ruritania. The contract expressly terminates, however, "when the President recognizes the country of Ruritania and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government." Which of the following is the most proper disposition of the Dunn suit by the federal court?

Options:
A. Suit dismissed, because Dunn does not have standing to bring this action.
B. Suit dismissed, because there is no adversity between Dunn and the defendants.
C. Suit dismissed, because it presents a nonjusticiable political question.
D. Suit decided on the merits.
Answer: C
Question: Congress enacts a criminal statute prohibiting "any person from interfering in any way with any right conferred on another person by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Application of this statute to Jones, a private citizen, would be most clearly constitutional if Jones, with threats of violence, coerces:

Options:
A. A public school teacher to exclude black pupils from her class, solely because of their race.
B. Black pupils, solely because of their race, to refrain from attending a privately owned and operated school licensed by the state.
C. The bus driver operating a free school bus service under the sponsorship of a local church to refuse to allow black pupils on the bus, solely because of their race.
D. The federal official in charge of distributing certain federal benefits directly to students from distributing them to black pupils, solely because of their race. 
Answer: A
Question: Technix, Inc. produces the most up-to-date, high-speed mainframe computers on the market, and Cruncher Corporation is on the cutting edge of data storage technology. Technix and Cruncher contracted to purchase/sell a "Yellow Giant" computer. The written contract stated that Cruncher would purchase "one Technix 'Yellow Giant' computer at a price of $ 175,000$." At the time, the going price for Yellow Giant computers was $ 150,000$. When Technix delivered a Yellow Giant on the specified date, Cruncher refused to accept delivery and refused to pay. Technix sued Cruncher for breach, claiming that its expensive computers were manufactured to order and so it was forced to dispose of the Yellow Giant at a price far below fair market value. In defending the suit, Cruncher's president wishes to testify that Cruncher rejected the Yellow Giant because both parties knew that Cruncher really wanted a "Purple Giant," a machine much faster than the Yellow Giant, but which the parties agreed would be called in the contract a "Yellow Giant" to keep competitors in the dark as to Cruncher's new capabilities, and that the parties had executed contracts in the past that had specified a less powerful computer than the model that was actually delivered. Should the testimony of Cruncher's president be admitted?

Options:
A. Yes, because Cruncher is entitled to reformation of the contract.
B. Yes, because the president's testimony would explain the meaning of a disputed contract term.
C. No, because the parol evidence rule applies and the president's testimony contradicts a term in the written contract.
D. No, because the Statute of Frauds applies, since the contract is for a large amount of money.
Answer: B
Question: Which of the following is least likely to be the underlying felony in a prosecution for felony murder?

Options:
A. Arson.
B. Manslaughter.
C. Attempted rape.
D. Burglary.
Answer: B
Question: Potts, a building contractor, sued Dennis for failure to pay on a small cost-plus construction contract. At trial, Potts, who personally supervised all of the work, seeks to testify to what he remembers about the amount of pipe used, the number of workers used on the job, and the number of hours spent grading. Dennis objects on the ground that Potts had routinely recorded these facts in notebooks which are in Potts's possession. Potts's testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible as a report of regularly conducted business activity.
B. Admissible as based on firsthand knowledge.
C. Inadmissible, because it violates the best evidence rule.
D. Inadmissible, because a summary of writings cannot be made unless the originals are available for examination.
Answer: B
Question: Fernwood Realty Company developed a residential development, known as the Fernwood Development, which included single-family dwellings, town houses, and high-rise apartments for a total of 25,000 dwelling units. Included in the deed to each unit was a covenant under which the grantee and the grantee's "heirs and assigns" agreed to purchase electrical power only from a plant Fernwood promised to build and maintain within the development. Fernwood constructed the plant and the necessary power lines. The plant did not supply power outside the development. An appropriate and fair formula was used to determine price. After constructing and selling 12,500 of the units, Fernwood sold its interest in the development to Gaint Realty Investors. Gaint operated the power plant and constructed and sold the remaining 12,500 units. Each conveyance from Gaint contained the same covenant relating to electrical power that Fernwood had included in the 12,500 conveyances it had made. Page bought a dwelling unit from Olm, who had purchased it from Fernwood. Subsequently, Page, whose lot was along the boundary of the Fernwood development, ceased buying electrical power from Gaint and began purchasing power from General Power Company, which provided such service in the area surrounding the Fernwood development. Both General Power and Gaint have governmental authorization to provide electrical services to the area. Gaint instituted an appropriate action against Page to enjoin her from obtaining electrical power from General Power. If judgment is for Page, it most likely will be because:

Options:
A. The covenant does not touch and concern the land.
B. The mixture of types of residential units is viewed as preventing one common development scheme.
C. The covenant is a restraint on alienation.
D. There is no privity of estate between Page and Gaint.
Answer: A
Question: Pullen used aluminum brackets in her business. On the telephone listed as hers in the telephone book, Pullen received a call in which the caller said, "This is John Denison of Denison Hardware Company. We have a special on aluminum brackets this week at $30 \%$ off." Pullen ordered brackets from the caller. When the brackets were never delivered, Pullen sued Denison for breach of contract. At trial, Denison, who denies having made the telephone call, objects to Pullen's testimony concerning it. When asked, Pullen testifies that, aside from the telephone call, she had never heard Denison speak until she met him in the judge's chambers before the trial and that, in her opinion, the voice on the telephone was Denison's. The strongest argument for admission of Pullen's testimony concerning the telephone call is that:

Options:
A. The call related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
B. The call was received at a number assigned to Pullen by the telephone company.
C. After hearing Denison speak in chambers, Pullen recognized Denison's voice as that of the person on the telephone.
D. Self-identification is sufficient authentication of a telephone call. 
Answer: C
Question: Ben contracted to buy Woodacre, a parcel of land, from Owen, with deed to be delivered and money paid on August 1 . Ben planned to build a high-rise building on Woodacre. Ben had visually inspected the land, but did not take any special notice of the fact that a stream flowed up to the eastern property line of Woodacre and reappeared just beyond the western property line. In fact, there was a conduit under the surface of Woodacre through which the waters of the stream were diverted. On July 28 , one of Ben's friends mentioned the existence of the conduit to Ben. Ben was amazed, and when Owen tendered a deed to Woodacre on August 1, Ben refused to accept it, stating, "I wouldn't have tried to buy Woodacre if I'd known about that conduit." Owen files suit, demanding performance by Ben or damages for breach. Who should prevail?

Options:
A. Owen, because Ben had ample opportunity to discover the existence of the conduit before he agreed to buy Woodacre.
B. Owen, because the purpose for which Ben intended to use Woodacre is irrelevant.
C. Ben, because Owen had a duty to provide a marketable title.
D. Ben, because of the doctrine of frustration of purpose.
Answer: A
Question: After being notified by Dr. Josephs that Nurse Norris's employment with his office was terminated, Norris applied for a position with Hospital. In her application, Norris listed her former employment with Josephs. Josephs, in response to a telephone inquiry from Hospital, stated that "Norris lacked professional competence." Although Josephs believed that to be a fair assessment of Norris, his adverse rating was based on one episode of malpractice for which he blamed Norris but which in fact was chargeable to another doctor. Because of Josephs's adverse comment on her qualifications, Norris was not employed by Hospital. If Norris asserts a claim based on defamation against Josephs, will Norris prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, because Josephs was mistaken in the facts on which he based his opinion of Norris's competence.
B. Yes, because Josephs's statement reflected adversely on Norris's professional competence.
C. No, if Norris authorized Hospital to make inquiry of her former employer.
D. No, if Josephs had reasonable grounds for his belief that Norris was not competent.
Answer: D
Question: Allen and Barker are equal tenants in common of a strip of land 10 feet wide and 100 feet deep which lies between the lots on which their respective homes are situated. Both Allen and Barker need the use of the 10 -foot strip as a driveway; and each fears that a new neighbor might seek partition and leave him with an unusable five-foot strip. The best measure to solve their problem is:

Options:
A. A covenant against partition.
B. An indenture granting cross-easements in the undivided half interest of each.
C. A partition into two separate five-foot-wide strips and an indenture granting crosseasements.
D. A trust to hold the strip in perpetuity.
Answer: C
Question: Pursuant to a state statute, Clovis applied for tuition assistance to attend the Institute of Liberal Arts. He was qualified for such assistance in every way except that he was a resident alien who did not intend to become a United States citizen. The state's restriction of such grants to United States citizens or resident aliens seeking such citizenship is probably:

Options:
A. Valid, because aliens are not per se "a discrete and insular minority" specially protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. Valid, because the line drawn by the state for extending aid was reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.
C. Invalid, because the justifications for this restriction are insufficient to overcome the burden imposed on a state when it uses such an alienage classification.
D. Invalid, because the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV does not permit such an arbitrary classification. 
Answer: C
Question: Light Company is the sole distributor of electrical power in City. The company owns and maintains all of the electric poles and equipment in City. Light Company has complied with the National Electrical Safety Code, which establishes minimum requirements for the installation and maintenance of power poles. The Code has been approved by the federal and state governments. Light Company has had to replace insulators on its poles repeatedly because unknown persons repeatedly shoot at and destroy them. This causes the power lines to fall to the ground. On one of these occasions, Paul, Faber's five-yearold son, wandered out of Faber's yard, intentionally touched a downed wire, and was seriously burned. If a claim on Paul's behalf is asserted against Light Company, the probable result is that Paul will:

Options:
A. Recover if Light Company could have taken reasonable steps to prevent the lines from falling when the insulators were destroyed.
B. Recover, because a supplier of electricity is strictly liable in tort.
C. Not recover unless Light Company failed to exercise reasonable care to stop the destruction of the insulators.
D. Not recover, because the destruction of the insulators was intentional. 
Answer: A
Question: Vincent was engaged in a telephone conversation with Walter. At one point in the conversation, Vincent said to Walter, "There's my doorbell. Hold the line a minute while I go see who it is." Two minutes later Vincent returned to the phone. He told Walter, "Dornbach is here. I'll have to hang up. Talk to you later." The next morning, Vincent's housekeeper found him dead and obviously the victim of foul play. Dornbach was arrested and charged with Vincent's murder. The prosecution seeks to have Walter testify at Dornbach's trial as to Walter's telephone conversation with Vincent. The prosecution's attempt is met by an objection from the defense. How should the court rule on Walter's testimony?

Options:
A. Admissible, as a present sense impression.
B. Admissible, as evidence of the victim's state of mind.
C. Admissible, as a prior identification.
D. Inadmissible, as hearsay not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. 
Answer: A
Question: In the recently enacted Fair Opportunity Act, the United States Congress provided, among other things, that an employer whose products are in any way used by or sold to the federal government must meet certain very specific standards for integration of its workforce and affirmative action programs. Both civil and criminal penalties are established for violation of the Act, and it permits private civil suits for injunctive relief or for damages to enforce its provisions. The city of Davis, California also enacted a jobs opportunity ordinance effective the same year, requiring that any employer doing business with the city have a workforce consonant with the ethnic and gender composition of the population of the city. The local ordinance permits employers to apply for exemptions from its requirements if they can demonstrate that the pool of potential qualified employees has a different mix of ethnicity or gender than the general population. The population of Davis is approximately $55 \%$ female and $45 \%$ male, $75 \%$ white, $10 \%$ Asian, 7\% black, 7\% Hispanic, and $1 \%$ other ethnic backgrounds. Watson Janitorial Service, a private employer located in the city of Davis, does contract cleaning and maintenance for both the local United States Department of Agriculture office and for the City Jail. Its workforce is $95 \%$ male, $55 \%$ black, $40 \%$ Hispanic, and $5 \%$ other ethnic backgrounds. The city of Davis notified the company that it would either have to bring its workforce into compliance with the local job opportunity ordinance or its contract with the City Jail would be terminated. The United States Department of Justice has notified Watson Janitorial that it meets the guidelines of the Fair Opportunity Act, and that the contract with the Department of Agriculture is not in jeopardy. 6. Watson Janitorial brings an action in state court to enjoin enforcement of the Davis ordinance. It argues that the local rule is invalid since it conflicts with the federal statute by creating more stringent standards. The trial court should rule: (A) There is no conflict, since Congress intended only that the Fair Opportunity Act apply to employers who dealt exclusively with the federal government. (B) There is no conflict, since Davis is permitted to impose more strict requirements to a local problem than those established by the federal government. (C) The federal act preempts the local ordinance and thus the latter cannot be enforced. (D) The federal act preempts the local ordinance only insofar as it attempts to regulate employers who do business with the federal government, so the ordinance may not be enforced only as to Watson Janitorial, but is otherwise valid. Jordan is an accomplice to:

Options:
A. Murder.
B. Manslaughter.
C. Criminally negligent homicide.
D. No degree of criminal homicide.
Answer: D
Question: On May 1, Ohner telegraphed Byer, "Will sell you any or all of the lots in Grove subdivision at $ 5,000$ each. Details follow in letter." The letter contained all the necessary details concerning terms of payment, insurance, mortgages, etc., and provided, "This offer remains open until June 1.' On May 2, after he had received the telegram but before he had received the letter, Byer telegraphed Ohner, "Accept your offer with respect to lot 101." Both parties knew that there were 50 lots in the Grove subdivision and that they were numbered 101 through 150 . For this question only, assume that on May 6, Byer telegraphed Ohner, "Will take the rest of the lots," and that on May 8, Ohner discovered that he did not have good title to the remaining lots. Which of the following would provide the best legal support to Ohner's contention that he was not liable for breach of contract as to the remaining 49 lots?

Options:
A. Impossibility of performance.
B. Unilateral mistake as to basic assumption.
C. Termination of the offer by Byer's having first contracted to buy lot 101 .
D. Excuse by failure of an implied condition precedent.
Answer: C
Question: A state accredits both public and private schools, licenses their teachers, and supplies textbooks on secular subjects to all such schools. Country Schoolhouse, a private school that offers elementary and secondary education in the state, denies admission to all non-Caucasians. In a suit to enjoin as unconstitutional the continued racially exclusionary admissions policy of the Country Schoolhouse, which of the following is the strongest argument against the school?

Options:
A. Because education is a public function, the Country Schoolhouse may not discriminate on racial grounds.
B. The state is so involved in school regulation and support that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is applicable to the school.
C. The state is constitutionally obligated to eliminate segregation in all public and private educational institutions within the state.
D. Any school with teachers who are licensed by the state is forbidden to discriminate on racial grounds.
Answer: B
Question: Congress passes a law regulating the wholesale and retail prices of "every purchase or sale of oil, natural gas, and electric power made in the United States." The strongest argument in support of the constitutionality of this statute is that:

Options:
A. The Constitution expressly empowers Congress to enact laws for "the general welfare."
B. Congress has the authority to regulate such products' interstate transportation and importation from abroad.
C. Congress may regulate the prices of every purchase and sale of goods and services made in this country, because commerce includes buying and selling.
D. In inseverable aggregates, the domestic purchases or sales of such products affect interstate or foreign commerce.
Answer: D