instruction
stringlengths 53
4.17k
| response
stringlengths 1
3.48k
|
|---|---|
Abco developed a new drug, $\mathrm{ZB}$, for treatment of Wegener's disease. Abco extensively tested $\mathrm{ZB}$ for several years on animals and human volunteers and had observed no undesirable side effects. The Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") then approved ZB for sale as a prescription drug. Five other drug companies, each acting independently, developed drugs identical to $\mathrm{ZB}$. Each of these drugs was also approved by the FDA for sale as a prescription drug. True Blue Drug, a wholesaler, bought identically shaped pills from all six of the manufacturers and sold the pills to drugstores as Wegener's $\mathrm{X}$. This drug had a long-delayed side effect. Sons of male users of Wegener's $X$ are sterile. One such son, Crane, brought an action against Abco for his damages. Abco, through True Blue Drug, supplied about $10 \%$ of the Wegener's X sold in the state where Crane lived. It is not possible to establish which of the five companies supplied the particular pills that Crane's father took. If Crane asserts a claim against Abco based on strict liability in tort, which of the following will be a decisive question in determining whether Crane will prevail?
Options:
A. Does the res ipsa loquitur doctrine apply?
B. Can liability be imposed on Abco without proof that Abco knew that the drug had an undesirable side effect?
C. Is Abco relieved of liability by the FDA approval of the drug?
D. Can liability be imposed on Abco without showing that its pills were used by Crane's father? | D |
Lonny owned Gold Acre, a 40-acre tract of land improved with a one-story house. Lonny leased Gold Acre to Truman for a 15-year period. After five years had expired, the government condemned 15 acres of the property for road construction and allocated the compensation award to Lonny and Truman according to the respective interest so taken. It so happened, however, that Truman had used the 15 acres taken by the government to store vehicles necessary in Truman's work. Truman knew of no other place nearby where he could store the vehicles. There is no applicable statute in the jurisdiction where the property is located, nor any provision in the lease relating to the condemnation. Truman quit possession, claiming that he could no longer live in the premises if he could not park the vehicles needed in his work close to where he lived. Lonny brought suit against Truman to recover rent. The most likely result of this suit is that Lonny will:
Options:
A. Prevail, because the relationship of landlord and tenant was unaffected by the condemnation, thus leaving Truman still obligated to pay rent.
B. Prevail, because of the implied warranty on the part of the tenant to return the demised premises in the same condition at the end of the term as they were at the beginning.
C. Not prevail, because there has been a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by Lonny's inability to provide Truman with possession of the whole of the property for the entire term.
D. Not prevail, because there has been a frustration of purpose that excuses Truman from further performance of his contract to pay rent. | A |
On November 7, Margo agreed with Oscar to paint his house for $ 10,000$, payment to be made upon completion of the job. On November 14, while the job was still incomplete, Margo told her paint supplier, Percy, that if he would give her the paint she needed, she would have Oscar pay to him directly the $ 3,000$ for paint that she owed him. Percy agreed, and Margo sent Oscar a letter setting forth this agreement. On December 1, Margo had completed the job, but Oscar refused to pay Percy any money. In a suit by Percy against Oscar, what would be Oscar's best defense?
Options:
A. Percy had already supplied the paint before the agreement, and therefore he had not relied on Oscar's promise.
B. Percy was not an intended beneficiary of the agreement between Oscar and Margo.
C. Margo had not painted the house in a proper, workmanlike manner.
D. Margo attempted to assign her rights before completion and an assignment to receive money before personal services are performed is inoperable. | C |
In which of the following circumstances would Defendant most likely be guilty of common law murder?
Options:
A. Defendant and Nate are having an argument, and Nate punches Defendant. Mistakenly believing that Nate intends to stab him, Defendant shoots him.
B. At a Fourth of July celebration, Defendant fires a pistol, and the ricocheting bullet hits and kills $\mathrm{Al}$.
C. While hunting, Defendant sees a movement. Although he cannot see what moved, he believes it to be a deer and fires into the bush. In fact, the movement was caused by George, and George is killed by the bullet fired by Defendant.
D. During a robbery, Defendant accidentally drops a grenade. It goes off and a customer is killed. | D |
Alice owned Lot A, and Barry owned the adjacent Lot B. Both lots were located in State Red, which has a 20 -year adverse possession statute. In 1970, Alice married and left State Red to reside in State Blue. Alice did not return to view the property during her period of residence in State Blue. In 1971, Barry built a driveway on Lot B. The driveway extended three feet over onto Lot A. Barry mistakenly believed that this three-foot strip of land was his property. Barry regularly used the driveway and continued to use it when Alice, having been widowed, returned to State Red in 2002 . Alice discovered the encroachment upon her return. If Alice consults you as to her rights against Barry, how should you advise her?
Options:
A. Alice has no action against Barry, because Barry's title to the three-foot strip has been established by adverse possession.
B. Alice has no action against Barry, because her prolonged absence from State Red establishes a presumption of abandonment of her rights in the property.
C. Alice has an action against Barry, because Alice had no knowledge of Barry's encroachment.
D. Alice has an action against Barry, because Barry mistakenly thought the three-foot strip was his. | A |
Under which of the following circumstances would the named defendant be least likely to be convicted of the charged offense?
Options:
A. Walter, a chemical engineer, painstakingly constructs an explosive device from readily available materials and secretes it beneath the house where his ex-wife and her boyfriend are living. He waits until he is sure both have had time to get home from their jobs, and then detonates the device by remote control, totally demolishing the house. Unknown to Walter, his ex-wife and her boyfriend had impulsively decided to spend the evening at a motel downtown. Walter is charged with attempted murder.
B. Yvette attempts to charge an expensive leather coat using a credit card that her boyfriend obtained when he stole a woman's purse. The store's electronic credit reporting system indicates the account is defunct, and the store clerk refuses to complete the transaction. Yvette is charged with attempting to obtain property by false pretenses.
C. Hazel, seeing a well-heeled couple cross the park, decides to rob them and use the money for groceries. Hazel approaches the couple, pulls out a gun, and tells them to hand over all of their money and valuables. The couple was having an unusually bad day: they had just been mugged five minutes before and were on their way to notify the police when Hazel approached them. Consequently, they had no money or valuables. Hazel is charged with attempted robbery.
D. Farley, a married man who believes adultery to be a felony, begins a torrid affair with Edna, his best friend's wife. Unknown to either of them, the jurisdiction they reside in has a statute that expressly makes noncriminal any sexual act between consenting adults in private. Farley is charged with attempted adultery. | D |
Prentiss was a salesman and assistant manager of Pretty Petals, a retail florist. He was employed by Lilac, the owner of Pretty Petals. Lilac owned the land and building. A large wholesale nursery was located directly across the street from Pretty Petals. Although other effective fertilizers were available at comparable prices, Doreen, the owner of the nursery, liked to use "Chemgrow," a brand-name artificial fertilizer, to nourish her young plants and trees. She stored a large quantity of Chemgrow granules in a mountainous heap on an empty lot adjacent to the nursery office. The Chemgrow gave off fumes that caused Prentiss to suffer eye, lung, and sinus irritation. Occasionally, Prentiss's irritations became so bad that he had to take off from work and seek medical attention. After losing a few hundred dollars in wages and amassing a few hundred dollars in medical expenses, Prentiss sued Doreen for damages. The court is likely to rule in favor of:
Options:
A. Prentiss, because Doreen had equally effective fertilizers available at comparable prices to Chemgrow.
B. Prentiss, because Doreen is strictly liable for injuries caused by emissions from her property.
C. Doreen, if the selection of Chemgrow was reasonable and it was stored in a reasonable manner.
D. Doreen, because Prentiss is merely an employee of Pretty Petals and does not own the property upon which the shop is located. | C |
A construction crew for the Municipal Telephone Company was sent out to install new fiberoptic cables at a downtown intersection on a vacant lot where an old building that had been demolished had stood. The telephone workers had to dig out the old copper cables, install new sheathing, and then connect and insert the new cables. Because they ran into some portions of the old sidewalk that had been in front of the old building and that had been buried over the years, the excavating took much longer than planned, and by the end of the day they had just finished removing the old copper cables. The foreman of the crew put up a couple of wooden barriers around the trench, which was about 12 feet deep, 6 feet wide, and 30 feet long, and posted signs on each of the barriers reading, "Open trench, do not approach." Marcus and a few friends had been playing basketball after they got out of their seventh grade classes and passed by the excavation on their way home. Marcus could not quite make out what the signs on the barriers said in the deepening dusk, so he walked over to the nearest one and read it. His friends, who had continued walking, called for him to hurry along, and as he ran toward where they had moved ahead on the street, the soft edge of the excavation gave way and Marcus fell into the trench, severely injuring himself. If Marcus's mother brings an action against the telephone company, what will be the probable outcome of her litigation? Assume that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence and assumption of risk rules.
Options:
A. She will lose, because the construction foreman posted a warning notice that Marcus read and understood.
B. She will lose, because Marcus assumed the risk of injury when, after reading the warning notice, he carelessly ran along the trench after his friends.
C. She will win, if the trier of fact concludes that the construction crew was negligent in leaving the open trench without additional protection for passersby.
D. She will win, because the telephone company is strictly liable for the injuries to Marcus. | C |
Mary's doctor informed her that she had a rare blood disease that was almost always fatal. He further informed her that there was no treatment known to medical science for this disease. Out of desperation, Mary consulted Quack, who claimed to have a cure for the blood disease. Mary entered into an agreement with Quack under which Quack promised to treat Mary for the blood disease. However, no price was given for the treatment. After two months of treatment, Mary did not appear to have improved at all. Mary's father, Stu, went to see Quack and told Quack that if Quack would cure Mary of the blood disease, Stu would pay Quack $ 25,000$. Four months later, after weekly sessions with Quack, Mary again went to see her doctor. This time her doctor told her that she appeared to have recovered completely from the blood disease, because all tests for the disease proved negative; and that, in his opinion, she was completely cured. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Stu refuses to pay Quack the $ 25,000$. Quack brings suit against Stu. Quack will:
Options:
A. Recover nothing, because Stu's promise constituted no legal detriment to him.
B. Recover nothing, because Quack had a preexisting duty to Mary under their prior agreement.
C. Recover the reasonable value of his services, because they are less than $ 25,000$.
D. Recover $ 25,000$, because Stu was bargaining for Mary's recovery. | D |
In 1998, Jane sold Wes her resort hotel for $ 250,000$. Wes paid $ 100,000$ down and agreed to pay the balance in equal monthly installments over the next 15 years. Jane's eldest son, Luke, started law school in 1999 and, because Jane wanted to help him with his educational and living expenses, she sent a letter to Wes instructing him to send Luke $ 500$ a month from the money he owed to Jane until Jane instructed him otherwise. Wes was unable to raise the capital he needed to expand the hotel, and in 2000 he sold the resort to Funco in exchange for Funco's agreement to assume all his obligations and to provide him with a long-term contract to be the hotel's manager. Funco agreed with these terms and assumed the contract Wes had with Jane. In 2002, when Luke had completed law school, Jane's other son, Zack, was getting married. Jane knew Zack could not afford to buy a house so Jane told Zack that she would instruct Wes and Funco to send the full installments to Zack so he could buy a house if Zack agreed that Jane could have the funds back if she ever needed them. Zack agreed, and Jane wrote a letter to Wes informing him of this agreement and instructing him that the full payment should now go to Zack. Zack was given a copy of this letter. In 2003, Funco wanted to get out of the resort business, and it sold the hotel and all the obligations back to Wes. About this same time, Jane promised her sister's daughter, Susan, that if she wanted to go to Europe for several months to study art, Jane would pay her expenses. Susan agreed, and Jane sent another letter to Wes telling him to send the monthly installments to Susan until Jane told him otherwise. Wes did so. Several months later Jane died, leaving all her cash (and the balance due on the note from Wes) to Zack. Luke sued Wes, claiming he was entitled to receive $ 500$ per month from 2002 until all sums due to Jane had been paid. How would a court hold?
Options:
A. Judgment for Wes, because Luke was only a gratuitous assignee and had no protected rights against Wes.
B. Judgment for Luke, because he had changed his position in reliance upon Jane's agreement.
C. Judgment for Wes, because Jane had the right to stop making payments to Luke at anytime.
D. Judgment for Luke, because his rights were vested when Wes was instructed to make the payments to him. | C |
Owner and Builder executed a contract providing that Builder was to construct a residence on a specified location according to plans and specifications drawn up by Architect. The total contract price was $ 500,000$. The lot on which the residence was to be built was located on the seashore in Palm Beach, Florida and there was an existing woodframe structure that had to be demolished before the residence could be built. Owner contracted with Designer to furnish the interior of the residence after Builder completed construction, but no date was included in either contract for completion of the home. The contract between Owner and Builder stated that construction would begin within two weeks after the existing structure was demolished and the rubble removed from the lot. The contract between Owner and Builder was signed November 12, and the contract between Owner and Designer was signed November 11. Assume for the purposes of this question only that the day after the preexisting structure is demolished and the rubble removed, a severe storm causes gigantic waves that erode the seashore so that Owner's lot is now under water. Must Builder still perform the contract?
Options:
A. No, the contract is void because the subject of the contract was destroyed through no fault of the parties.
B. No, Builder is discharged of his obligation because of impossibility of performance.
C. Yes, if Owner obtains an alternative lot within a reasonable period of time.
D. No, the contract is void because of mutual mistake. | B |
Civil service rules, which have been on the books in the city of Charlesville for many years, provide that any member of the police department must serve a one-year probationary period before he or she will be considered a permanent employee. In fact, this rule was enacted before Charlesville had a police academy, and now a prospective police officer spends six months in the academy before being hired by the city. Ruby, a graduate of the police academy, was with the city police department for eight months when she was terminated. There were no city ordinances or state laws that required that Ruby be given a reason for the termination or a hearing, and she was given neither. Ruby brought suit against the city in the state court because of the termination of her employment. Which of the following would most likely give Ruby a constitutional basis to force the city to give her a statement of reasons for the termination of her employment and an opportunity for a hearing?
Options:
A. No police officer had ever been terminated during probation except where there was actual cause.
B. The six months she spent in the academy must be considered as part of her probation period.
C. The budget of the police department was recently increased to allow for the hiring of additional officers.
D. She was the only female police officer on probation and the only officer not given permanent employment. | A |
Telco, a local telephone company, negligently allowed one of its telephone poles, located between a street and a sidewalk, to become termite-ridden. Rhodes, who was intoxicated and driving at an excessive rate of speed, lost control of her car and hit the weakened telephone pole. One week later, the pole fell and struck Walker, a pedestrian who was walking on the sidewalk. The pole fell because of the combination of the force of the impact and the pole's termite-ridden condition. If Walker asserts a claim against Telco and Rhodes, will Walker prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, against Telco but not Rhodes.
B. Yes, against Rhodes but not Telco.
C. Yes, against Telco and Rhodes, each for one-half of his damages.
D. Yes, against both Telco and Rhodes for the full amount of his damages. | D |
Amp, an electrical contractor, sued Short, a homeowner. Amp alleged that Short refused to pay for extensive wiring repairs performed on Short's home by Wilson, an employee of Amp. Amp called Wilson to the stand as a witness. Wilson, under oath, testified that he did not perform any work at Short's home. Wilson also denied writing a letter to Lee telling Lee that Wilson was going to do electrical work on Short's house. Without releasing Wilson as a witness, Amp offers in evidence the letter written by Wilson to Lee. If Wilson's letter to Lee is properly authenticated, the trial court should:
Options:
A. Admit the letter for impeachment purposes only.
B. Admit the letter as both substantive and impeachment evidence.
C. Exclude the letter because a party may not impeach his own witness.
D. Exclude the letter because it is inadmissible hearsay. | B |
In Peck's antitrust suit against manufacturers of insulation, Peck's interrogatories asked for information concerning total sales of insulation by each of the defendant manufacturers in a particular year. The defendants replied to the interrogatories by referring Peck to the Insulation Manufacturer's Annual Journal for the information. If, at trial, Peck offers the annual as evidence of the sales volume, this evidence is:
Options:
A. Admissible, as an adoptive admission of the defendants.
B. Admissible, as a business record.
C. Inadmissible, as hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible, as lacking sufficient authentication. | A |
Farmer's Garden Foods ("FGF") was a manufacturer of quality red cheese made from imported yaks' milk. In a written agreement between FGF and Gourmet Mart ("GM"), a retail seller of fine quality foods, FGF agreed to "sell all output of FGF red cheese to GM," and GM agreed to "sell FGF red cheese exclusively." The agreement went on to state that GM would pay $ 150$ for each 10 -wheel container of red cheese ordered from FGF. Under the above facts, what are the relative obligations of the parties?
Options:
A. FGF has to sell all of its output to GM; GM has to buy all of FGF's output.
B. FGF has to sell all of its output to GM; GM has to sell exclusively FGF red cheese.
C. FGF has to sell all of its output to GM; GM has to sell exclusively FGF red cheese but it does not have to buy any.
D. FGF has to sell all of its output to GM; GM has to buy all of FGF's output and has to sell exclusively FGF red cheese. | C |
Dag lost about $ 500$ while playing poker with several persons at Vance's house. When Dag accused Vance of cheating, Vance asked him to leave. Dag became abusive and refused to leave, so Vance and a couple of other players forced him to go. Angry and determined to get back his money, Dag went to his home and got his gun. He put his pistol into his coat pocket and headed back to Vance's house intending to shoot Vance if he did not give back the $ 500$. But, because Vance knew that Dag had a reputation for being violent, after the altercation at the house Vance had called the police. Just as Dag was about to step onto Vance's property, the police pulled up and stopped him. They frisked him, and finding the pistol in his pocket, arrested him. A state statute prohibits entry onto the property of another with the intent to commit violence thereon. If charged with attempt under this statute, most likely Dag will be found:
Options:
A. Not guilty, because this is an "attempt" statute, and there cannot be an attempt of an attempt.
B. Not guilty, because it would be an attempt to convict a person for a guilty mind.
C. Guilty, because Dag was trying to enter the property and he had the necessary state of mind.
D. Guilty, because the statute was designed to protect the public from violence, and Dag is dangerous. | C |
During Dan's prosecution for burglary, the prosecution calls Teddy to the stand, and the following takes place: Prosecutor: "After Dan left the room, what did Roger say to you, if anything?" Previous evidence has established that Roger and Dan had agreed, prior to the time Dan left the room, to burglarize a jewelry store. Defense counsel: "Objection!" Court: "Overruled."' Teddy then testifies about what Roger said. If defense counsel wishes to complain about the court's ruling in this matter on appeal, what more should she do before the trial concludes?
Options:
A. Nothing.
B. Ask the court for the reasons that the objection was overruled.
C. Restate the objection for the record, stating the grounds therefor.
D. Request the trial court to order the prosecution to make an offer of proof. | C |
State A, suffering from a severe loss of tax revenues due to an initiative that cut state sales taxes in half, enacted legislation that ended costof-living increases in all state employees' pensions. If a state organization of employees brought suit against the appropriate state official in the federal court to reinstate the increase, the most likely result will be that:
Options:
A. The employees' organization will prevail, because the statute violates the prohibition against the impairment of the obligations of contracts by a state.
B. The employees' organization will prevail, if it can show that the statute violates the state's constitution.
C. The employees' suit will be dismissed, because the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a state's citizens from suing a state official for official acts in a federal court.
D. The employees' organization will not prevail, because the state always has the power to amend its own legislation. | A |
Concerned with the rising amount of organized crime activity in this country, Congress enacts the Stop Organized Crime Act ("SOCA"), which enumerates certain activities, and states that in addition to any crimes these activities currently constitute, they will henceforth constitute the criminal act of intentional furtherance of the goals of organized crime. Among the enumerated activities is the interstate distribution of cocaine. For purposes of this question, you are to assume that the Act is constitutional and otherwise valid in all respects. Dalton is arrested by federal agents after having driven a truck containing cocaine from Florida to Illinois, where he delivered his illicit cargo to Thomas. At trial, Dalton is convicted of interstate distribution of cocaine, as well as of a violation of SOCA. Dalton may be sentenced:
Options:
A. Under either statute, but not both.
B. Under both statutes.
C. Only under the statute that carries a lesser maximum sentence.
D. Only under the statute that carries a greater maximum sentence. | B |
When Sandra graduated from high school, her elderly Aunt Mildred asked her to come and live with her in the large, three-story brownstone owned by Mildred in Manhattan. Mildred had recently had hip replacement surgery and could no longer attend to even minor household activities, and needed assistance in caring for the several thousand orchids she cultivated in her rooftop greenhouse. Mildred said to Sandra, "I probably have about five years left, so if you will live here and take care of me and my flowers for the rest of my life, this house and the flowers will be yours." Sandra agreed, and moved from her parents' home in Yonkers to the brownstone in Manhattan. Mildred lived for eight years after Sandra came to live with her. Sandra attended to Mildred's personal needs, an increasing necessity as Mildred grew more frail. Sandra also maintained the household, did the shopping, cooking, etc., and cared, with less and less assistance from Mildred, for the numerous orchids. Mildred's moderate income from her investments provided the money necessary to support the household. No further discussion was ever had between Mildred and Sandra regarding conveyance of the brownstone and its contents. Shortly after Mildred died, Sandra was contacted by a Mr. Cramer, who identified himself as Mildred's lawyer and stated that he was in possession of Mildred's last will and testament and would seek to have it admitted to probate. In the subsequent proceedings, it was revealed that Mildred had devised her orchids to a Nero Wolfe, also residing in Manhattan, and her investments, the house, and the remainder of her estate, to her daughter who lived in California and whom Mildred had not seen or heard from in over 15 years. When Sandra refused to vacate the brownstone or surrender the orchids, Cramer, now representing Mildred's daughter, brought action for possession of the house. If Sandra prevails in the action brought by Mildred's daughter, it will be because:
Options:
A. She can successfully assert the doctrine of "unclean hands" to prevent Mildred's daughter from pressing her claim under the will.
B. The Statute of Frauds need not be satisfied as between family members.
C. The Statute of Frauds will not bar enforcement of Mildred's promise because her promise induced Sandra to perform, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement.
D. The Statute of Frauds will not be applied where there has been part performance and where that performance is such as can be explained by the existence of the asserted contract and in no other way. | C |
Nimrod, who held a hunting license issued by the state of West, was hunting deer and elk in that state. After two days of fruitless hunting, Nimrod spied an elk. Nimrod was hunting on private land, but the elk was 200 yards away, inside a fence that surrounded a federal military base. Nimrod shot the elk from where he was standing, but entered the military base to retrieve the carcass. Nimrod took the carcass away and had it dressed and frozen for Nimrod's meals through the winter. A federal statute prohibits the removal of wild animals or the carcasses thereof from United States military bases. Nimrod is prosecuted under the statute. The best argument in favor of upholding the statute as constitutional would be based on:
Options:
A. The Supremacy Clause.
B. The Army and Navy Clause.
C. The Commerce Clause.
D. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | A |
Sam was a famous auto racer and builder of racing cars. He and Bob signed a contract for sale of one of Sam's hand-built race cars for $ 25,000$, the price to be paid and the car to be delivered one week later. The day after the contract was signed, Sam called Bob and told him that Sam's wife, Winnie, who had a half interest in the race car, would not go along with the sale at $ 25,000$. Winnie would agree to a sale for $ 40,000$. Assume for purposes of this question only that there was an enforceable contract between Sam and Bob. Bob fails to tender $ 25,000$ to Sam on the date set for delivery and Sam does not deliver the car. On these facts:
Options:
A. Sam can recover from Bob for breach of contract.
B. Bob can recover from Sam for breach of contract.
C. Neither can recover until one of the parties tenders performance.
D. The contract is terminated. | B |
Owner and Builder executed a contract providing that Builder was to construct a residence on a specified location according to plans and specifications drawn up by Architect. The total contract price was $ 500,000$. The lot on which the residence was to be built was located on the seashore in Palm Beach, Florida and there was an existing woodframe structure that had to be demolished before the residence could be built. Owner contracted with Designer to furnish the interior of the residence after Builder completed construction, but no date was included in either contract for completion of the home. The contract between Owner and Builder stated that construction would begin within two weeks after the existing structure was demolished and the rubble removed from the lot. The contract between Owner and Builder was signed November 12, and the contract between Owner and Designer was signed November 11. Assume for the purposes of this question only that after Builder has completed 5\% of the residence, a severe storm causes gigantic waves that demolish the construction but leave the lot undamaged. Must Builder still perform the contract?
Options:
A. No, the contract is void because the subject of the contract was destroyed through no fault of the parties.
B. No, Builder is discharged of his obligation because of impossibility of performance.
C. Yes, but he is entitled to a quantum meruit recovery for the work done prior to the destruction of the construction.
D. Yes, Builder must perform the original contract without any compensation for the destruction of the construction. | D |
Fred is arrested and charged with the burglary of Sam's warehouse. At trial, prosecution offers evidence that when Fred was arrested, shortly after the crime had been committed, he had a large amount of cocaine hidden in the trunk of his car. This evidence should be:
Options:
A. Admitted to prove Fred's propensity to commit crimes.
B. Admitted to prove Fred's general bad character.
C. Excluded because such evidence may be offered only to rebut evidence of good character offered by the defendant.
D. Excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. | D |
Allan invited all of his neighbors to a July 4 th party in his backyard. Practically the entire neighborhood showed up, except for Clem, who lived next door. Clem was an elderly man with a known heart condition who chose not to participate in neighborhood social functions. That evening, after a full day of festivities and much beer drinking, someone at the party suggested, "We ought to set off some fireworks!" Bob, another guest, thereupon produced a large skyrocket, which he lit. However, the skyrocket failed to climb properly and crashed into Clem's garage, starting a fire. Clem rushed out of his house and attempted to put out the flames, but he suffered a heart attack and was rendered unconscious. The garage burned to the ground before the fire department arrived. Fortunately, however, the firefighters were able to revive Clem, and he has since recovered from the heart attack. A local ordinance made it a misdemeanor to sell fireworks within the city limits. If Clem sues Bob for the damage to his garage on a theory of negligence, which of the following arguments, if sustained by the facts, would be most helpful for Bob to avoid liability?
Options:
A. The setting off of skyrockets on July 4 th is an accepted custom in the community.
B. The skyrocket was aimed by Bob to avoid crashing into Clem's garage.
C. The fire that started would have burned itself out but for the fact that Clem's garage was built out of substandard, highly flammable material.
D. Bob was a guest on Allan's property and entitled to the same restricted scope of liability as Allan. | B |
Driver knew that children frequently played in the street along Elm Street. As Driver was operating his vehicle along Elm Street, he saw a ball roll into the street. A few seconds later, Child darted out into the street after the ball. Pedestrian, a passerby, saw Driver's vehicle bearing down on Child. Concerned that Child would be hurt, Pedestrian rushed into the street to try to save Child. Just as Pedestrian reached Child, Pedestrian tripped and fell down in the street. Driver's car struck both Pedestrian and Child, and both were injured. The jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. 143. Assuming that Child is four years old, will Child prevail in a personal injury suit against Driver? (A) Yes, because Driver knew that children played in Elm Street. (B) Yes, unless Driver was going no faster than the posted speed limit. (C) No, because Child negligently darted into the street. (D) No, because Child's parents were negligent in not properly supervising Child. On December 1, Diane died without children and without a will. The applicable law of intestate succession provides that George is Diane's only heir. Sam claims that George has no interest in the land. Title to the avocado ranch is held by whom?
Options:
A. George, because of the doctrine of merger.
B. George, because Diane died intestate and her fee simple passed to him as her intestate heir.
C. Sam, because the interest granted to Diane's spouse is void under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
D. Sam, because Diane, although survived by her spouse, died without children. | D |
West, a witness in a contract case, testified on direct examination that four people attended a meeting. When asked to identify them, she gave the names of three, but despite trying was unable to remember the name of the fourth person. The attorney who called her as a witness seeks to show her his handwritten notes of the part of his pretrial interview with her in which she provided all four names. The trial court is likely to consider the showing of the notes taken as:
Options:
A. A proper attempt to introduce recorded recollection.
B. A proper attempt to refresh West's recollection.
C. An improper attempt to lead the witness.
D. An improper attempt to support West's credibility. | B |
Patricia sued Doris for injuries suffered when her car collided in an intersection with one driven by Doris. At trial, Patricia testified that she had had the right-of-way over Doris to enter the intersection. Doris did not cross-examine. Patricia then called Wendy to testify that, shortly after the collision, as she pulled Patricia from the car, Wendy heard Patricia say, "I think I'm dying! Didn't the other driver see I had the right-of-way?" Wendy's testimony was admitted over defense counsel's objections. On appeal from a verdict for Patricia, Doris challenges the admission of Wendy's testimony. Should the trial court's ruling be upheld?
Options:
A. Yes, because Patricia's statement was made under belief of impending death.
B. Yes, because Patricia's statement was an excited utterance.
C. No, because Patricia's credibility had not been attacked.
D. No, because Patricia's belief that she had the right-of-way had already been established without contradiction. | B |
Seth was one of a group of persons who were engaged in a demonstration against the discriminatory practices of a private club. During the demonstration, Seth threw a bomb containing highly toxic gas through the window of the club. At the time he threw the bomb, he knew that the club's president, Larsen, was inside the building. Unknown to Seth, Carver, the club's treasurer, was also inside. Seth is charged with attempted murder of both Larsen and Carver. At trial, Seth testified that the reason he threw the bomb was that he wanted to make sure that nobody would be able to use the club, and that he did not intend to hurt anyone. Presuming that the jury believes Seth, he can be convicted of the attempted murder of:
Options:
A. Larsen.
B. Carver.
C. Both Larsen and Carver.
D. Neither Larsen nor Carver. | D |
Dr. Wally, a local physician who was prominent in the community and beloved by his patients, died suddenly of a heart attack. Wally was only 46 years old at the time of his death, and so the local newspaper, The Daily Bleat, had never prepared a "pre-obituary," as it did for many prominent figures. Snoops, a reporter with The Daily Bleat, was assigned to write an obituary before the next day's edition went to press. Snoops talked briefly with Mary, Wally's widow, and then called State Medical School, from which Wally had always said he had graduated. As it was late in the afternoon, all the professors were out on the golf course; thus, Snoops spoke with Nina, a secretary in the office of the dean of the medical school. When asked about Wally, Nina replied, "I don't think Wally ever graduated." In Snoops's obituary, which appeared in the next morning's Daily Bleat, Snoops had written that Wally had never actually received a medical degree from State Medical School. Upon reading the obituary, Mary broke into tears and then became very angry, for she had worked hard to help put Wally through State Medical School, from which Wally had, in fact, graduated with high honors. Wally's executor, Eddie, was equally incensed. Both Eddie and Mary called The Daily Bleat, demanding a retraction. The next day, on the front page, The Daily Bleat admitted its error and stated that Wally graduated with high honors from State Medical School. They also fired Snoops. Nonetheless, both Eddie and Mary sued The Daily Bleat for defamation. What is The Daily Bleat's best defense?
Options:
A. There was no malice on the part of the defendant.
B. The newspaper's retraction negated any harm.
C. Snoops got his information from a secretary at the Medical School.
D. Wally is dead. | D |
The state of Eastern Seaboard enacted a sales tax on specified items purchased within the state. The General Services Administration ("GSA") of the United States Government purchased from a dealer in Scrodtown, the largest city in Eastern Seaboard, 100 new automobiles for use by federal agencies operating within the state. Must GSA pay the sales tax applicable to the new auto purchase?
Options:
A. No, unless Congress has consented to such a tax.
B. No, because the tax unfairly discriminates against interstate commerce.
C. Yes, because the tax is nondiscriminatory.
D. Yes, because there is a rational basis for the tax and it does not appear to be a disguised penalty. | A |
Egbert has died without having executed a will, and his rather substantial estate must be distributed by the probate court. The jurisdiction's applicable statute provides that where a decedent leaves neither issue nor spouse, nor parents, his estate goes to his brothers and sisters and their descendants. Egbert was never married, had no children, and both of his parents are dead. Tamara, whose birth certificate was destroyed by fire, seeks to establish that she is the daughter of Egbert's only sibling, Ethel, now also deceased. Tamara offers into evidence the statement in a trust instrument recorded pursuant to statute in the office of the county recorder (in which the original is kept). The instrument was executed by Egbert's father, Ethelbert, and recited that certain specified real property conveyed by Ethelbert into the trust should be held for the benefit of "my devoted son Egbert and my beloved daughter Ethel and her loving daughter Tamara." The document actually offered is an enlarged print photocopy of microfilm records, authenticated by an employee of the county. The trial court should:
Options:
A. Exclude the evidence, because it is not the best evidence.
B. Exclude the evidence, because it is inadmissible hearsay not within any recognized exception.
C. Admit the evidence, because it is a record of a document affecting an interest in property.
D. Admit the evidence, because it constitutes a past recollection recorded. | C |
Oliver, who owned the Rocking O Ranch in fee simple, died and left the property to his daughter, "Melinda, her heirs and assigns; but if my son, Oliver Jr., is living 25 years from the date of my death, then to Oliver Jr., his heirs and assigns." At the time of Oliver's death, Oliver Jr. was one year old. The common law Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified in the jurisdiction. The grant in the will to Oliver Jr. is:
Options:
A. Valid, because the interest vests, if at all, within a life in being.
B. Valid, because it grants Oliver Jr. a reversionary interest.
C. Invalid, because the will grants Melinda the complete interest in the property, so there is nothing to be left to Oliver Jr.
D. Invalid, if this jurisdiction does not recognize a testator's ability to convey a possibility of reverter by will. | A |
One night when Bob was very drunk, he took one of his rifles, loaded it, and fired a bullet through his front door. Unknown to him, at the time he fired the rifle, someone was driving by the house. The bullet went through the front door, through the window of the car, and killed the driver. Bob was convicted of murder and appeals. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of murder. The court of appeals should rule that the evidence is:
Options:
A. Sufficient to prove that the killing was intentional.
B. Sufficient to prove that the killing was done with malice aforethought.
C. Insufficient, because Bob did not know that the driver was driving by his house and therefore he could not have acted intentionally.
D. Insufficient, because at most Bob's conduct constituted gross negligence and involuntary manslaughter. | B |
Hines and West had been dating for many years. They decided to live together and some day, should things work out, get married. Since each earned a sizable income, they decided to invest some of their money in real estate. They purchased Blackacre for $ 100,000$, each contributing half the purchase price from savings. They took title as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Two years later, Hines and West were married. One year after that, the parties separated. Hines then quitclaimed all of his interest in Blackacre to his brother, Brown, who duly recorded the deed. The jurisdiction has no applicable statute. Blackacre is now held by:
Options:
A. West and Brown, as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
B. West and Brown, as tenants in common.
C. Hines and West, as tenants by the entirety.
D. Hines and West, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. | B |
Bruno is on trial in federal court, charged with having sold cocaine to an undercover agent. Bruno calls Flossie to the stand, and Flossie testifies that she was with Bruno in another state on the date of the alleged drug sale. Following Flossie's testimony, the prosecution seeks to introduce the record of judgment of Flossie's seven-year-old embezzlement conviction. Bruno's attorney objects. The court should rule the record of judgment:
Options:
A. Admissible, as going to Flossie's credibility.
B. Admissible, provided no appeal is pending.
C. Inadmissible, because the record is inadmissible hearsay.
D. Inadmissible, because, for impeachment, a specific act of misconduct cannot be shown by extrinsic evidence. | A |
The legislature of State Yellow passed a "Fairness in Elections" statute. A major provision of the statute stated that "no newspaper in this state shall publish a political endorsement or an editorial favoring one political candidate or party over another on either the day of election or the day preceding the day of election." The stated purpose for the legislation was to prevent unfair attacks on candidates and to ensure that they would have time to respond to or rebut any published article prior to the election. The Yellow Press was the leading newspaper published in State Yellow. It had a high reputation regionally and was also distributed in states bordering on Yellow. The Yellow Press filed suit in federal court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the statute. The newspaper's best argument for the invalidity of the statute is which of the following?
Options:
A. The statute unduly burdens interstate commerce, because the Yellow Press is circulated in other states.
B. The statute unduly interferes with the Yellow Press's property interest in distributing newspapers.
C. The statute unduly restricts the Yellow Press's freedom of speech.
D. The statute violates the Equal Protection Clause, because restrictions are imposed merely on the basis of the day the newspaper is printed, while the same material can be printed on other days. | C |
On January 1, 2000, Red leased Whiteacre from Blue for a period of 10 years. On January 1,2005 , the state took title to Whiteacre under proper eminent domain proceedings. Which of the following statements are correct concerning the rights of Red? I. Red may continue to occupy Whiteacre, as eminent domain proceedings will not affect lessees. II. Red may not continue to occupy Whiteacre, is relieved from his obligation to pay rent to Blue, and will not share in the condemnation award. III. Red may not continue to occupy Whiteacre, and is entitled to share in the condemnation award based on the value of the remaining five years less rent that would have been paid during that period.
Options:
A. Only I. is correct.
B. Only II. is correct.
C. Only III. is correct.
D. None of the above are correct. | C |
Maude's will left her farm in Rural County to her two grown children, Lisa and Louis. The will stated that the farm passed to the children "jointly, as tenants in common." Lisa and Louis, having had no interest in farming, had long since moved to Paree, a large city located about 150 miles from the farm. However, after Maude's death, Louis had second thoughts about living on the farm. His children were becoming disciplinary problems in school, and remembering some of his strict but kindly teachers in the Rural County schools, he decided to move back to the farm. Thus, Louis and his family moved into Maude's home. Louis rented various parts of the land to sharecroppers. Louis regularly sent half of any profits from the farm to his sister. If Pitts asserts a claim against Drago, Pitts will:
Options:
A. Prevail, unless Stratton was negligent in the manufacture of the car that Pitts was driving.
B. Prevail, because Drago's negligent driving was a cause in fact of the collision.
C. Not prevail, because the door latch on Pitts's car violated a local ordinance.
D. Not prevail if Pitts would not have been injured but for the failure of the seatbelt buckle. | B |
Christine and her friend Zelda were going away to college and had quite a few personal belongings to transport. Christine's father offered to drive them in his van, but when the van was loaded they discovered there was only room for two people, so Christine asked her boyfriend Harry to drive her in his car while Christine's father and Zelda rode in the van. About halfway to the college, while the van and Harry's car were driving down the freeway, the van in front, the van suddenly swerved out of control and ran off the highway, ending up on its side in the center divider. When Harry stopped his car and Christine ran to the van, she discovered to her horror that her father was dead. Zelda appeared to be injured, but not severely. Because her father previously had heart trouble, Christine assumed that he had had a heart attack while driving, although a later investigation would reveal that the accident was caused solely by a defect in the steering mechanism of the van. Filled with remorse, Christine told Zelda, "I'm so sorry about this. I'll make good any losses you suffer because of this accident." Later, when Christine learned that Zelda was going to seek treatment from Dr. Winston, she wrote the doctor a letter stating that she would be responsible for all of Zelda's medical expenses; Dr. Winston received the letter the next day. Assume for purposes of this question only that, after treating Zelda for her injuries until she recovered, Dr. Winston sent Christine a bill for services rendered. When Christine refused to pay, Dr. Winston brought an action to recover the amount of her bill. Who will prevail?
Options:
A. Dr. Winston, because she gave medical treatment to Zelda after receiving Christine's letter.
B. Dr. Winston, because Christine's promise to pay Zelda's medical expenses was in writing.
C. Christine, because there was no consideration for her promise to Dr. Winston.
D. Christine, because she derived no benefit from the medical services rendered to Zelda. | A |
On January 1, Fred executed and delivered a deed to his daughter, Diane, conveying his avocado ranch as follows: "To Diane for life, but if Diane dies survived by her spouse and children, then to Diane's spouse for life, with the remainder in fee simple to Diane's children; but if Diane dies survived by her spouse and no children, then to my son Sam in fee simple." On June 15, Diane married George and as a wedding gift Fred quitclaimed his interest in the avocado ranch to George. Assume that the jurisdiction does not follow the doctrine of destructibility of contingent remainders. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Diane died survived by George and two children, Ann and Bradley. Bradley dies intestate two days after Diane, leaving one child, Curtis, as his only heir. What are the respective interests of George, Ann, and Curtis in the avocado ranch?
Options:
A. George has a life estate, Ann has an absolutely vested remainder, and Curtis has nothing.
B. George has fee simple ownership of the ranch, and Ann and Curtis have nothing.
C. George has a life estate, and Ann and Curtis have absolutely vested remainders.
D. George has a life estate, and Ann has a vested remainder subject to open. | C |
Alice owned Red Acre, a tract of land with a one-story house on it. Alice leased Red Acre to Betty for a term of three years. Betty and her teenage son, Norm, planned to live in the house for this period. Norm was a star baseball player for the local high school team. To provide Norm with an adequate place to practice, Betty installed a fully operational batting cage in the backyard located on Red Acre. In addition to the batting cage, Betty installed an automatic pitching machine and electric lights so that Norm could practice at night. Six months after Alice leased the premises to Betty, Alice mortgaged Red Acre to State Bank to secure a loan. Betty was not notified directly of the mortgage but the mortgage was recorded. Six months before the three-year term was to end, Alice defaulted on her mortgage payments, and State Bank began foreclosure proceedings, as it was entitled to do on the terms of the mortgage. Although unaware of the mortgage proceedings, Betty knew that her lease with Alice was about to end; she therefore began to remove all of the equipment she had installed in the backyard. State Bank brought an action to enjoin the removal of the equipment, naming both Betty and Alice as defendants in the suit. If the court refuses the injunction, it would be because:
Options:
A. The circumstances reveal that the equipment was installed for Betty's (Norm's) exclusive benefit.
B. The Statute of Frauds precludes the bank from claiming any interest in the equipment.
C. Betty was never given direct notice of the mortgage.
D. In the absence of a contrary agreement, a residential tenant is entitled to remove any personal property she voluntarily brings upon the premises. | A |
The city of Newtown adopted an ordinance providing that street demonstrations involving more than 15 persons may not be held in commercial areas during "rush" hours. "Exceptions" may be made to the prohibition "upon 24-hour advance application to and approval by the police department." The ordinance also imposes sanctions on any person "who shall, without provocation, use to or of another, and in his presence, opprobrious words or abusive language tending to cause a breach of the peace." No court has of yet interpreted the ordinance. Which of the following is the strongest argument for the unconstitutionality of both parts of the ordinance on their faces?
Options:
A. No type of prior restraint may be imposed on speech in public places.
B. Laws, regulating by their terms expressive conduct or speech, may not be overbroad or unduly vague.
C. The determination as to whether public gatherings may be lawfully held cannot be vested in the police.
D. The right of association in public places without interference is ensured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. | B |
While on a hiking trip during the late fall, Page arrived toward the end of the day at a clearing where several similar cabins were located, none of which was occupied. One of the cabins belonged to Levin, Page's friend, who had given Page permission to use it. Page entered one of the cabins, which she thought was Levin's, and prepared to spend the night. In fact the cabin was owned, not by Levin, but by Dwyer. When the night turned cold, Page started a fire in the stove. Unknown to Page, there was a defect in the stove that allowed carbon monoxide fumes to escape into the cabin. During the night the fumes caused serious injury to Page. If Page asserts a claim against Dwyer for her injury, will Page recover?
Options:
A. Yes, if Dwyer knew that the stove was defective.
B. Yes, if Dwyer could have discovered the defect in the stove by a reasonable inspection.
C. No, because Dwyer had no reason to anticipate Page's presence in the cabin.
D. No, unless Page needed to use the cabin for her own protection. | C |
Developer owned a large tract of land that she had surveyed by a licensed surveyor and then subdivided into numerous lots. At the time of the survey, the surveyor drove wooden stakes into the ground to mark the boundaries. The surveyor then made a plat of the survey and recorded the plat in the County Recorder of Deeds Office. On June 1, Andrew purchased Lot 20 in the tract from Developer. Prior to purchase, Developer had shown Andrew the wooden stakes, and Andrew accepted such stakes as marking the boundaries of Lot 20 . After taking possession of Lot 20 , Andrew built a house thereon and enclosed it with a fence. On September 5, Bruce purchased Lot 21 from Developer. Lot 21 was adjacent to Lot 20. After taking possession of Lot 21, Bruce hired a licensed surveyor to survey Lot 21 . This surveyor discovered that, according to the recorded plat, Andrew's fence extended two feet onto Lot 21. Upon learning this, Bruce demanded that Andrew remove his fence. Andrew refused. If Bruce sues Andrew, who will prevail?
Options:
A. Andrew, because he bought his lot first.
B. Andrew, because the surveyor's stakes are controlling.
C. Bruce, because the recorded plat controls.
D. Bruce, because the adverse possession period has not run. | B |
The jurisdiction in which Dawn lives follows the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. If Dawn conveys her property to "Clara, her heirs and assigns, as long as the premises are used for noncommercial purposes, then to Grant, his heirs and assigns," Dawn's interest in the property, if any, is:
Options:
A. Nothing.
B. A reversion in fee simple absolute.
C. A possibility of reverter.
D. A right of entry based on a condition subsequent. | C |
Thomas wanted to give his home to his brother, Ben. In 1995, Thomas executed a warranty deed conveying the home to Ben. Thomas then wrote a letter to Ben saying, "Dear Ben, My home is now yours." He put the letter and deed in an envelope and wrote the following on the outside of the envelope: "Kenneth, you are to give this deed to my brother, Ben, when I die. Until then, you should safeguard this envelope and the documents inside. Signed Thomas." Thomas delivered these items to his cousin Kenneth and continued to live in his home by himself. In 1997, Thomas executed a will leaving all of his property to his sister Sally. Thomas died in January 2004 . Shortly thereafter, Kenneth delivered the envelope containing the deed to Ben, who promptly recorded the deed. Thomas's will has been admitted to probate and Xavier is the executor. Xavier has brought an appropriate action against Ben to determine the title to Thomas's home. The court should rule:
Options:
A. For Sally, because the deed was not effectively delivered before Thomas died.
B. For Sally, because the deed was not recorded before the grantor died.
C. For Ben, because the deed effectively conveyed title when it was executed.
D. For Ben, because Thomas no longer owned his home when he died. | D |
Shelley and Herman decided to get married. Both were in their final year of high school; Shelley was one month short of her 18th birthday, and Herman was 19 . They went to a local jeweler and looked at gold wedding bands, but saw nothing that appealed to them. When they discovered that the jeweler was himself a goldsmith and could make rings to order, they described what they were interested in and signed a purchase order for two rings; a woman's band for $ 500$ and a man's for $ 650$. Three weeks later, the jeweler called Shelley and informed her that the rings were ready. In the meantime, she and Herman had broken up and Herman had enlisted in the Marines and been sent to another state for training. The day after her 18th birthday, Shelley went to the jeweler and told him that they would not be needing the rings. When he protested that they were custom-made and would probably not sell to anyone else, Shelley said, "All right, I've got $ 400$ in my savings account. I'll take my ring, but you'll have to find Herman about the other one." The jeweler had Shelley sign another purchase order for the woman's band at $ 400$, payment to be made by the end of the month. When the jeweler did not hear from Shelley after another month, he brought an action for breach of contract against her. Evidence produced at trial established that the market value of the rings was $ 500$ and $ 650$ for the woman's and man's, respectively, and that the age of majority in the jurisdiction was 18. Is the jeweler entitled to recover against Shelley?
Options:
A. Yes, in the amount of $ 1,150$.
B. Yes, in the amount of $ 500$.
C. Yes, in the amount of $ 400$.
D. No. | C |
Zelda, a paving contractor with an excellent reputation in the community, entered into a written contract with Norman to pave the parking lot behind his new store. The contract contained no provision regarding assignment. A few days after they entered into the contract, Zelda realized that scheduling difficulties would make it impossible for her to complete the job in the time Norman needed to have the job done. Instead of running the risk of being in breach of contract, she assigned the job to one of her competitors, Kurt, whom she regarded as being almost as good as she, and who agreed to do the job for the contract price. With regard to this assignment by Zelda, which of the following statements is true?
Options:
A. The assignment is valid only if Norman agrees to accept performance by Kurt.
B. Zelda breached her contract with Norman by assigning it to Kurt without his prior consent.
C. Norman must accept performance by Kurt.
D. The assignment is valid, even if Norman objects, as long as Zelda supervises the performance of the contract by Kurt. | C |
Parker was a guest at Hotel, located about 200 miles from his home. After Parker had spent two nights at Hotel, he received a call at 5 a.m. from his wife, who told him that their child had just been rushed to the hospital and was in critical condition. Parker decided to hurry home. He called the airport and reserved space on the next flight out, scheduled to leave at $6: 15$ a.m. Parker packed and rushed to the lobby. However, it happened that a number of guests were checking out early that morning, and thus there was a long line ahead of him and only one cashier on duty. Parker hoped that the line would move quickly, but when he heard the first guest in line arguing with Stockton, the desk clerk, over a $25 / otin$ telephone charge, he realized that he would never make it to the airport in time if he continued to wait in line. The hotel had no express check-out service available, so he left without paying his bill and flew home. As soon as Parker's child was out of danger, he wrote a letter to Hotel, apologizing for his swift departure and enclosing payment for two nights' lodging; he also added an extra $ 25$ "to cover any inconvenience and billing expense" he may have caused. Meanwhile, Stockton discovered that Parker had left without paying. On Hotel's behalf, Stockton signed a complaint with the state police, charging Parker with theft of services. The police went to the appropriate magistrate, and a warrant was sworn out for Parker's arrest. The day after Parker left Hotel, Hotel received Parker's letter and payment. However, no one notified the police that Parker had paid his bill. Three days after Parker left Hotel, the state police, armed with a warrant, came to Parker's office and arrested him. Despite Parker's objections, he was taken to jail. Although he repeatedly told the police that he had paid his bill and suggested that they call Hotel, they refused to do so. After holding Parker for 18 hours, the police called Hotel. The manager told the police, "Yes, we got Parker's check two days ago, but we were too busy to call you." The police, with apologies, released Parker. Parker sued Hotel and the state police for false imprisonment. In Parker's action against Hotel, who will prevail?
Options:
A. Hotel, because Hotel reasonably believed that Parker stole services.
B. Hotel, because the police were not employees of Hotel.
C. Parker, because Hotel failed to promptly notify the police that Hotel had received Parker's check.
D. Parker, because Hotel failed to have an adequate number of cashiers on duty when Parker wanted to check out. | B |
Ben and Sandy, brother and sister, received a $ 50,000$ inheritance from their deceased father. By mutual agreement, they used the money to purchase a 10 -acre parcel of land. Ben and Sandy took title as joint tenants. Three years after the purchase, Ben suggested to Sandy that they build an apartment house on the property. Sandy rejected this idea. Ben then asked if he could build an apartment house on his half of the property; Sandy agreed. Ben then built an apartment house on the eastern five acres of the property. Six months later, Sandy gave permission to the Boy Scouts of America to use the western half of the property as a site for weekend camping trips. Two years later, Ben died, leaving his entire estate to his son, Steven. In an appropriate action to determine the respective interests of Sandy and Steven in the property, if Sandy is adjudged to be the owner of all of the property, the most likely reason for the judgment will be that:
Options:
A. The Statute of Frauds prevents the enforcement of Sandy's oral agreement.
B. The record title of the property as joint tenancy can be changed only by a duly recorded instrument.
C. Ben could not unilaterally sever the joint tenancy.
D. Ben's expenditure of funds in building the apartment house in reliance on Sandy's oral promise estops her from denying the oral permission. | A |
Baxter was heavily in debt and was concerned that his home was about to be repossessed. To try to generate money to satisfy his creditors, Baxter promised to pay his friend Dunn $ 100$ if Dunn would enter Baxter's house that evening and take his expensive color television and stereo. Baxter explained that he would then report the items as being stolen to the insurance company and collect a settlement from them. Baxter gave Dunn directions to his home, which was one of several tract houses in a fairly new development. Baxter told Dunn to arrive at approximately 9 p.m. and to enter through a window at the rear of the house that Baxter would leave ajar. Dunn knew that since Baxter lived alone, there was no possibility that he might find someone within the house when he arrived at the appointed time. Dunn arrived at the location at approximately 9 p.m., but due to the darkness of the evening and the fact that all of the homes in the development looked the same, he mistakenly entered the house belonging to Baxter's neighbor. He found a window ajar at the rear of the neighbor's home and pushed it open. He entered and took the neighbor's television set and stereo. When he returned to the bar where Baxter was waiting for him, both men were arrested by the police. If Dunn is charged with burglary, his best argument for acquittal would be that:
Options:
A. He acted under a mistake of law.
B. There was no breaking.
C. There was no entry.
D. He reasonably thought that he was in Baxter's home. | D |
Jesse was a member of an extreme right-wing, paramilitary organization. While out drinking with several fellow members one evening, Jesse got into an argument with a soldier from the nearby Army base and was bested in a brief exchange of punches. Feeling humiliated, he went to a different bar and drank a considerable amount of liquor. Vowing revenge on the soldier who had beaten him, Jesse and his friends drove out to the Army base. Using infiltration tactics practiced on weekends, they surreptitiously approached what they believed to be the barracks where the soldier slept. As Jesse was climbing through the window he had jimmied, a military police officer happened by and challenged him. In a tussle with the MP, Jessie struck the MP with his own baton, killing him. Still extremely intoxicated, Jesse abandoned the idea of finding and severely beating the soldier, and staggered to a nearby armored vehicle park. Since he was a heavy equipment operator, Jesse was familiar with the operation of such vehicles, and soon was driving an armored personnel carrier through the streets of the base and then out into the city. A curious police officer followed the armored vehicle for a few blocks, then pulled alongside in an attempt to determine whether it was on official Army business. At that moment, Jesse swerved the armored personnel carrier to the left, crushing the police car as it ground to a halt. The police officer inside was killed. The jurisdiction's statutes define murder as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or the killing of another in the commission of robbery, rape, burglary, or arson." Manslaughter is defined as "the killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." Criminal recklessness is "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." The statutory definition of burglary is identical to the common law except that the prohibited conduct need not occur in the nighttime. The jurisdiction's statutes provide that intoxication is not a defense to a crime unless it negates an element of the offense. In a separate proceeding, Jesse is tried for manslaughter in connection with the death of the city police officer. The prosecution's best reply to Jesse's defense of intoxication in the charged manslaughter is that:
Options:
A. Whether Jesse was intoxicated is not the crucial issue; whether the manner in which he was operating the armored personnel carrier was criminally reckless is determinative.
B. Conscious risk taking refers to Jesse's entire course of conduct, including drinking with the knowledge that he might become intoxicated and perform an act that might severely injure or kill someone.
C. Intoxication is a defense to a crime only if the intoxication is involuntary.
D. Intoxication is not a defense to the crime charged, because at common law manslaughter is a general intent crime. | B |
Donald is being tried for the murder of Vincent, which occurred during the burglary of Vincent's house. In its case-in-chief, the prosecution seeks to offer evidence that Donald, who was arrested several days after the crime, had been caught with 50 grams of cocaine in his car. This evidence will most likely be:
Options:
A. Inadmissible, because Donald has not offered evidence of good character.
B. Inadmissible, because it has limited probative value and is unduly prejudicial.
C. Admissible, because it tends to show what Donald did with the money he stole.
D. Admissible, because it tends to show that Donald is capable of committing serious crimes. | B |
Baker had a contract with City to supply City with five computers a month for seven months. At the start of the fourth month, Baker realized that his supply of computers had dwindled to one. Baker called his normal supplier of computers but was informed that the supplier was out of computers. Baker immediately sent a fax to Stevens explaining the situation and asking for "a price quote for 20 computers to be delivered before the first of next month." Stevens responded by fax: "I can deliver 20 computers from my present stock at a cost of $ 2,000$ per computer." Baker responded the next day with a fax that stated: "I will buy 20 computers at a cost of $ 2,000$ per computer." Assume no further communications between the parties. At this point has a contract been formed?
Options:
A. Yes, because Baker's fax ordering the computers was an acceptance of Stevens's offer.
B. Yes, because Stevens's fax was an acceptance of the offer in Baker's first fax.
C. No, because the fax sent by Baker was an offer that was never accepted by Stevens.
D. No, because none of the communications were worded in such a way as to be definite and certain enough to be offers. | A |
Dennis got into a fight with his former roommate Tom over some money that Dennis claimed Tom owed for some long distance telephone calls. When Tom refused to pay the money, Dennis took two tickets that Tom had purchased for the All Star game, intending to give them back to Tom the day after the game. Dennis is charged with larceny. Most likely Dennis will be found:
Options:
A. Not guilty, because he intended to return the tickets to Tom.
B. Not guilty, because he believed that Tom owed him money.
C. Guilty, because he intended to deprive Tom of the value of the tickets.
D. Guilty, because the intent to return is not a good defense. | C |
At the intersection of First and Main Streets, a large truck owned by Ace Meat Packing Co. collided with a car driven by Sam. At the time of the accident, Wilber, the driver of the truck, said to Sam, "The accident was my fault; I wasn't paying any attention. Don't worry, my company will make it right."' The subsequent investigation of the accident by Ace revealed that Wilber had been drinking on the day of the accident. Wilber was fired. Sam brings an appropriate action against Ace for damages resulting from the accident. Wilber has disappeared. Sam seeks to testify as to what Wilber said at the time of the accident. The evidence is:
Options:
A. Admissible, as an admission by an employee of the defendant.
B. Admissible, as an excited utterance.
C. Inadmissible, because Wilber is no longer employed by Ace.
D. Inadmissible, unless Ace authorized Wilber to speak on its behalf. | A |
The Social Security Act provided that surviving spouses and stepchildren would be denied benefits unless the decedent wage-earner spouse had been married at least nine months prior to death. Sal married her husband, who was in apparent good health, five months before his death. Sal was denied survivor benefits by the Social Security Administration. She now brings an action to compel the Social Security Administration to award her benefits. The decision of the court should be that:
Options:
A. Sal should be awarded benefits, because the nine-month period is arbitrary, capricious, and without any rational justification.
B. Sal should be awarded benefits, because the classification is an invidious scheme and violates her rights to equal protection.
C. Sal should not be given benefits, because the nine-month period in question is reasonably calculated to achieve a permissible governmental end.
D. Sal should not be awarded benefits, because it would be an undue burden on the public treasury to allow all wives survivor benefits. | C |
Jesse was a member of an extreme right-wing, paramilitary organization. While out drinking with several fellow members one evening, Jesse got into an argument with a soldier from the nearby Army base and was bested in a brief exchange of punches. Feeling humiliated, he went to a different bar and drank a considerable amount of liquor. Vowing revenge on the soldier who had beaten him, Jesse and his friends drove out to the Army base. Using infiltration tactics practiced on weekends, they surreptitiously approached what they believed to be the barracks where the soldier slept. As Jesse was climbing through the window he had jimmied, a military police officer happened by and challenged him. In a tussle with the MP, Jessie struck the MP with his own baton, killing him. Still extremely intoxicated, Jesse abandoned the idea of finding and severely beating the soldier, and staggered to a nearby armored vehicle park. Since he was a heavy equipment operator, Jesse was familiar with the operation of such vehicles, and soon was driving an armored personnel carrier through the streets of the base and then out into the city. A curious police officer followed the armored vehicle for a few blocks, then pulled alongside in an attempt to determine whether it was on official Army business. At that moment, Jesse swerved the armored personnel carrier to the left, crushing the police car as it ground to a halt. The police officer inside was killed. The jurisdiction's statutes define murder as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or the killing of another in the commission of robbery, rape, burglary, or arson." Manslaughter is defined as "the killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." Criminal recklessness is "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." The statutory definition of burglary is identical to the common law except that the prohibited conduct need not occur in the nighttime. The jurisdiction's statutes provide that intoxication is not a defense to a crime unless it negates an element of the offense. Jesse is charged with the murder of the military police officer. At his trial on this charge, the court should instruct the jury on the issue of the defense of intoxication that:
Options:
A. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to the crime of murder if Jesse would not have killed the MP but for the intoxication.
B. Jesse is guilty of murder despite his intoxication only if the prosecution proves by clear and convincing evidence that Jesse acted with premeditation and intentionally.
C. Voluntary intoxication is no defense to the crime of murder.
D. Intoxication is a defense to the crime of burglary if it prevented Jesse from forming the intent to commit a crime inside the barracks, in which case he could only be convicted of murder upon the requisite showing of intentional action and premeditation. | D |
Donald is being tried for the murder of Vincent, which occurred during the burglary of Vincent's house. Wilson, who knew Donald, is called to testify that on the day after the robbery he saw Donald buying some groceries, and when Donald removed a large roll of money, Wilson had asked, "You didn't steal that from someone, did you?" Donald nodded. This evidence is:
Options:
A. Admissible, as an excited utterance.
B. Admissible, because it is not hearsay.
C. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible, because Donald had no reason to respond to this statement. | B |
Percy was shopping in ValuMart, a large department store. ValuMart was remodeling its menswear department and had hired Contractor to do the work. Cora, a carpenter employed by Contractor, was working on the ValuMart job. When Cora left ValuMart to take her lunch break, she left a carpenter's level projecting out into one of the aisles. Before Cora returned from lunch, Percy came down that aisle and tripped over the level. Percy fell and struck his head on the sharp corner of a display case. Percy required hospitalization and sued ValuMart for his injuries. Will Percy prevail in his suit against ValuMart?
Options:
A. Yes, because Contractor's employee left the level in the aisle.
B. Yes, if ValuMart's employees had a reasonable time to discover the level before Percy fell.
C. No, because ValuMart's employees did not leave the level in the aisle.
D. No, if ValuMart's employees were unaware that the level was in the aisle. | A |
Dennis robbed a bank and fled in a getaway car driven by an accomplice, not realizing that one of the bundles of money he took had the serial numbers recorded and had a tiny tracking device attached to the wrapper. The bank contacted its security consultant, who obtained portable tracking equipment and was able to trace the bundle of money to Dennis's house. The police were notified and they arrived at Dennis's house a few hours after the robbery. They knocked on the door and announced their presence, and saw someone matching the description of the robber in the hallway. They entered and arrested the suspect, Dennis, and then conducted a protective sweep of the house for the accomplice, who they believed had a gun. They did not find him, but while checking a closet they discovered several of the bundles of money from the bank and a gun Dennis had used in the robbery. The police also discovered two clear plastic bags of what appeared to be marijuana sitting on top of a dresser. They seized the money, the gun, and the two bags; later testing confirmed that the substance in the bags was marijuana. Dennis was charged with the bank robbery and with possession of the marijuana. At a preliminary hearing, he moves to suppress introduction of the money, gun, and marijuana. The court should:
Options:
A. Grant the motion as to the marijuana but not as to the money or the gun because the money and gun were found as a result of the protective sweep for Dennis's accomplice.
B. Grant the motion as to the money and the gun but not as to the marijuana because the bags containing the marijuana were clearly visible on the dresser during the search.
C. Grant the motion as to all of the evidence seized.
D. Deny the motion as to all of the evidence seized. | C |
Truffle agreed in writing to lease a restaurant site in a newly constructed mall from Lentil, the owner of the property. The term of the tenancy was two years, and rent was payable in monthly installments at the beginning of each month. At the end of the second year, there had been no discussions between Truffle and Lentil regarding renewal or termination. Truffle did not vacate the premises at the end of the term; instead, she sent a check for the next month's rent to Lentil. Lentil cashed the check after the term had expired but informed Truffle that his acceptance of the check did not mean that he was going to renew the lease or let Truffle stay. At the end of that month, Lentil seeks advice on whether he can evict Truffle. How should Lentil be advised to proceed?
Options:
A. Lentil must give Truffle a full 30 days' notice before beginning eviction proceedings because a month-to-month periodic tenancy has been created.
B. Lentil may begin eviction proceedings as soon as the additional month has expired.
C. Lentil may not evict Truffle for 11 months and must give six months' notice before beginning eviction proceedings because a year-to-year periodic tenancy has been created.
D. Lentil may not evict Truffle for 11 months but need not give any notice prior to eviction because a tenancy for years for a term of one year has been created. | B |
All of the deeds for the lots in the 5100 block of Elm Street contained a restrictive covenant requiring that all houses built on the lots be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the sidewalk. Local zoning regulations required that all homes in the area of the 5100 block of Elm Street be set back a minimum of 35 feet from the sidewalk. Dampier purchased a lot on the 5100 block of Elm Street on which it would be possible to build a home with a 50-foot setback. However, the lot was of an unusual shape, and Dampier applied to the city zoning commission asking for a variance allowing him to build a house set back 30 feet from the sidewalk. In his petition, Dampier cited the unusual shape of the lot and asserted that it would cause hardship for him to build in compliance with the 35-foot setback required by the zoning regulations. The zoning commission granted Dampier the variance. Nora, whose home was located at 5130 Elm Street, noticed surveyors putting up ropes 30 feet from the sidewalk on Dampier's lot, and she discovered that Dampier planned to build a home with only a 30 -foot setback. Nora seeks to enforce the restrictive covenant and brings suit to enjoin Dampier from building a residence with a setback of less than 50 feet. Who will prevail?
Options:
A. Dampier, because zoning regulations take precedence over restrictive covenants as a matter of public policy.
B. Dampier, because equity will not impose a hardship.
C. Nora, because Dampier will be unjustly enriched if he is permitted to build a 30 foot setback.
D. Nora, because a zoning variance does not affect the enforcement of a restrictive covenant. | D |
Vincent, who operated a local neighborhood liquor store, was robbed by a man wielding an unusual knife with a pearl-studded handle. Davis was arrested and charged with armed robbery of Vincent. At trial the prosecution calls Wilma to testify that, three days after the robbery of Vincent, she was robbed by Davis with a knife that had a pearl-studded handle. The court will most likely hold that Wilma's testimony is:
Options:
A. Admissible, as showing habit.
B. Admissible, as establishing an identifying circumstance.
C. Inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence.
D. Inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. | B |
A statute in State B stated that directors of orphanages, homes for the developmentally disabled, and similar institutions stand in loco parentis to the children under their charge. Dieter, a mentally disabled 11-year-old child, had been abandoned by his parents and lived in the Miserere Home, a State B residential facility for the developmentally disabled operated by the Sisters of Hope, a religious order. Sister Mary Smith was the director of the facility. The Miserere Home had no fence around it, because children who lived there were not considered to be dangerous. Dieter wandered away from the premises and was gone for 36 hours before he was found by the police and returned to Miserere. When Dieter was away from the facility, he beat up Paul, a five-year-old boy. Paul's parents filed suit against Sister Mary on Paul's behalf. Assuming that no other liability statute applies, who will prevail?
Options:
A. Paul, because under the statute Sister Mary has the responsibilities and duties of a parent.
B. Paul, because Sister Mary is strictly liable for Dieter's acts.
C. Sister Mary, because parents are not vicariously liable for the intentional torts of their children.
D. Sister Mary, unless she knew that Dieter had dangerous propensities. | D |
Mary boarded a city bus. The bus prominently displayed a sign stating "No Smoking. Violators Will Be Prosecuted." Mary was tired after a long day at work, and deciding that she could not wait until she got home, she lit a cigarette. The bus driver shouted, "Read the sign, lady; put that out or get off my bus!" Mary told the bus driver, "I've had a rough day; you can go to hell," and walked to the back of the bus and took a seat. The bus driver flagged down a passing police officer and told him that Mary was smoking on the bus (which was the misdemeanor of "disorderly conduct"). Mary, meanwhile, quickly extinguished the cigarette and put the butt in her purse so that by the time the police officer had boarded the bus, she was sitting there innocently chewing a breath mint. The officer told Mary that she was charged with disorderly conduct, and then he searched her purse and the coat that she was carrying. The officer found not only the recently extinguished cigarette butt, but also a marijuana cigarette in the coat pocket. Mary was then charged with possession of a controlled substance. At Mary's trial for possession, should the marijuana cigarette be admitted over Mary's objection?
Options:
A. Yes, because it was obtained in a search incident to a valid arrest.
B. Yes, because the coat was within Mary's "wingspan" or reach.
C. No, because the arrest was invalid.
D. No, because the police officer did not give Mary Miranda warnings. | C |
Leftacre and Rightacre are adjoining 50-acre parcels of land. For many years, Leftacre and Rightacre have been thriving dairy farms. In 1959, McWilliams, the owner of Rightacre, purchased Leftacre. She continued to operate both parcels as separate dairy farms. In 1979, McWilliams sold Rightacre to Stone, who promptly and properly recorded the deed. Since Rightacre had no direct access to a public road, McWilliams wrote into the deed, "Stone, his heirs and assigns shall have the right to use the existing dirt path along the eastern border of Leftacre for ingress and egress to Rightacre." The dirt path, which connected with a public road on the northern boundary of Leftacre, was wide enough for motored vehicle traffic and had been graded for that purpose. In 1994, Sandberg purchased Leftacre from McWilliams. In 2002, Stone died, leaving a will that devised all his interest in Rightacre to O'Toole. For this question only, assume the following facts: In 2003, Sandberg decided to subdivide Leftacre into lots for singlefamily residences. Since no street in the proposed subdivision will align with the dirt path mentioned in the 1979 deed from McWilliams to Stone, O'Toole will be without ingress and/or egress to Rightacre. $O$ 'Toole instituted an appropriate action to enjoin the blocking of the dirt path. The most likely result is that judgment will be for:
Options:
A. O'Toole, because the owner of the servient tenement cannot obstruct an express easement.
B. O'Toole, because O'Toole has a way by necessity.
C. Sandberg, because there has been a significant change in conditions and circumstances.
D. Sandberg, because the appropriate remedy for $\mathrm{O}^{\prime}$ Toole is damages, not injunction. | A |
In an action by Patrick against David, one of the issues is whether David is a licensed psychotherapist. Normally, the names of all licensed psychotherapists are registered with the office of the State Department of Professional Registrations. Patrick wishes to introduce a certified document, signed by the chief registrar of the Department, stating that an examination of the Department's rolls does not disclose David's name. Should the document be admitted?
Options:
A. Yes, because a statement of absence from public record is admissible.
B. Yes, but only if the chief registrar is unavailable.
C. No, because the document is hearsay not within an exception.
D. No, because the document is not selfauthenticating. | A |
Benjamin, a foreign correspondent, wished to purchase Whiteacre. Smith, the owner of Whiteacre, was not yet sure he wished to sell the property. He was waiting to see if his bid on another parcel was going to be accepted. Before Smith could make up his mind, Benjamin was assigned to cover an ethnic conflict in eastern Europe that was escalating into a war. Prior to his departure, Benjamin gave his attorney, Lenora, $ 100,000$ and his power of attorney. He instructed Lenora that, should Whiteacre be put up for sale, she was authorized to: offer up to $ 100,000$ for it, enter into a binding contract to purchase it on Benjamin's behalf, and if he did not return in time, she was authorized to close on the property. In early January, Smith put Whiteacre on the market. Lenora offered $ 75,000$ for it, which Smith readily accepted. On January 15, Lenora, on Benjamin's behalf, entered into a written contract to purchase Whiteacre for $ 75,000$. Closing was set for February 15 . During this time, Lenora heard nothing from Benjamin. When he had not returned by the date of closing, Lenora attended the closing and tendered the $ 75,000$. Smith tendered a deed made out to Benjamin as the grantee. On February 20, news was received that Benjamin had been killed by a stray bullet on January 14. Benjamin's will left his entire estate to his niece, Nellie. In the meantime, Smith has had someone offer him $ 150,000$ for Whiteacre. Having heard of Benjamin's death, Smith believes the conveyance to Benjamin is invalid. Smith brings a suit to quiet title to Whiteacre. The court will most likely find that the owner of Whiteacre is:
Options:
A. Nellie, because Lenora held the deed on constructive trust for Benjamin's estate.
B. Nellie, because of the operation of the doctrine of equitable conversion.
C. Smith, because a deed to a nonexistent person is void and conveys no title.
D. Smith, because the risk of loss is on the buyer. | C |
The High National Grasslands is owned by the United States and is located in the center of a large western state. Acting pursuant to a federal statute authorizing such action, the United States Bureau of Land Management leased the grazing rights in the High National Grasslands to ranchers located nearby. Grazingland Company owns a vast amount of rangeland adjacent to the High National Grasslands and leases its land for livestock grazing purposes to the same ranchers, but at prices higher than those charged by the Bureau. Grazingland Company sued the Bureau in an appropriate federal district court to restrain the Bureau from competing with that company by leasing the High National Grasslands. Which of the following constitutional provisions may most easily and directly be used to justify the federal statute authorizing this leasing program of the Bureau of Land Management?
Options:
A. The General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8.
B. The Federal Property Clause of Article IV, Section 3.
C. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.
D. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI. | B |
Rose was convicted in federal court of possession of one kilogram of heroin with intent to distribute. She was sentenced to a prison term. Subsequently, Rose was indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to distribute the same kilogram of heroin. She moved to dismiss the indictment. Her motion should be:
Options:
A. Denied, because the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply when the second prosecution is for violation of a separate statute.
B. Denied, because each prosecution requires proof of an element that the other does not.
C. Granted, because the Double Jeopardy Clause protects her against a second prosecution for the same criminal conduct.
D. Granted, because the Due Process Clause protects her against double punishment for the same criminal conduct. | B |
Pops, owner of a street corner candy store, heard several gunshots and rushed out in the street. He found Velma lying on the sidewalk, bleeding profusely. She gasped to Pops, "I'm going to die. Danny Deft shot me." Velma lapsed into unconsciousness and died on the way to the hospital without uttering another word. Danny Deft was arrested and charged with the murder of Velma. At Deft's trial, the prosecution seeks to have Pops testify as to Velma's statement. Such testimony should be ruled:
Options:
A. Inadmissible, because it is more prejudicial than probative.
B. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.
C. Admissible, as a declaration made in belief of impending death.
D. Admissible, as an excited utterance. | C |
Stone operated a newsstand on leased space in an office building. On March 15, Quinn purchased the office building and told Stone that he wanted to negotiate a new lease. During the negotiations, Stone and Quinn orally agreed that Stone would have the exclusive right to sell newspapers and magazines in the office building. Quinn prepared a written lease outlining the Stone-Quinn agreement, but forgot to include the agreement that Stone would have exclusive rights in the office building. Stone was given a copy of the lease to read, but Stone merely glanced over the lease because he assumed it reflected his agreement with Quinn. Stone then signed the lease, which included a merger and integration clause. On March 30, Quinn leased space to Jacobs for the establishment of a drug store to be run by Jacobs. The Quinn-Jacobs lease did not prevent Jacobs from selling newspapers or magazines. As a result of the competition, Stone lost substantial profits in his business. Assume for purposes of this question only that Stone's prior lease had given him the exclusive right to sell newspapers and magazines in the office building. Assume further that Stone told Quinn that he wanted the new lease to be the same as the old lease, and that Quinn had handed the new lease to Stone and represented it to be the same as the old lease, knowing that this was not true. Stone signed the lease without reading it because Quinn told him that there was no reason to read the new lease. If Stone sues Quinn, Stone could obtain:
Options:
A. Rescission.
B. Reformation.
C. Novation.
D. Repudiation. | A |
Justin is being tried for the murder of Harvey, which occurred during the course of the robbery of Harvey's house. A witness to the robbery and murder had aided the police artist in making the composite picture by which Justin was identified. This witness disappeared before trial, and the prosecutor now wants to offer the sketch into evidence. The sketch is:
Options:
A. Inadmissible, under the best evidence rule.
B. Inadmissible, as hearsay not within any exception.
C. Admissible, as a record by a public employee.
D. Admissible, as a prior identification. | B |
Mary's doctor informed her that she had a rare blood disease that was almost always fatal. He further informed her that there was no treatment known to medical science for this disease. Out of desperation, Mary consulted Quack, who claimed to have a cure for the blood disease. Mary entered into an agreement with Quack under which Quack promised to treat Mary for the blood disease. However, no price was given for the treatment. After two months of treatment, Mary did not appear to have improved at all. Mary's father, Stu, went to see Quack and told Quack that if Quack would cure Mary of the blood disease, Stu would pay Quack $ 25,000$. Four months later, after weekly sessions with Quack, Mary again went to see her doctor. This time her doctor told her that she appeared to have recovered completely from the blood disease, because all tests for the disease proved negative; and that, in his opinion, she was completely cured. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Mary refused to pay Quack anything. Quack brings suit against Mary for services rendered. Quack will:
Options:
A. Recover whatever amount Quack shows is his normal fee for the treatment.
B. Recover a reasonable price for his services.
C. Not recover, because no price term was contained in the original contract.
D. Not recover, because Quack cannot prove that he was the cause of Mary's recovery. | B |
Zelda, a paving contractor with an excellent reputation in the community, entered into a written contract with Norman to pave the parking lot behind his new store. The contract contained no provision regarding assignment. A few days after they entered into the contract, Zelda realized that scheduling difficulties would make it impossible for her to complete the job in the time Norman needed to have the job done. Instead of running the risk of being in breach of contract, she assigned the job to one of her competitors, Kurt, whom she regarded as being almost as good as she, and who agreed to do the job for the contract price. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Kurt paved the parking lot under the contract, but Norman did not realize that Kurt was substituting for Zelda until the job was half complete. Upon learning that, Norman let Kurt complete the job. If Kurt fails to perform the job in accordance with the original terms of the agreement between Zelda and Norman, Norman:
Options:
A. Has a cause of action only against Kurt for damages.
B. Has a cause of action against Kurt and Zelda for damages.
C. Has no cause of action against Kurt, because he and Kurt are not in privity of contract.
D. Has no cause of action against Zelda, because he accepted performance from Kurt. | B |
Edgar was employed as an electrician by Edgewater Electric Services. Edgewater had contracts with a number of large office and condominium buildings to provide emergency electrical services and repairs at any hour of the day or night. Edgewater also advertised in the telephone "yellow pages": "If it's an electrical emergency, call Edgewater Electric Servicesnight or day."' Although Edgar usually worked from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at Edgewater, the nature of Edgewater's emergency services required Edgar to be "on call" 24 hours a day. Therefore, Edgewater required Edgar to drive his company van to his home each night, so he would be in a position to speed off to an emergency with all of his tools and equipment at hand. One afternoon, Edgar left the Edgewater Electric offices at 4 p.m. as usual. However, when he left the main highway, he did not turn left toward his home but instead turned right toward the supermarket a few blocks away to pick up some items for dinner. While leaving the supermarket parking lot, Edgar drove negligently and struck Parka, a pedestrian. Parka suffered serious injuries and required several operations and a lengthy hospital stay. Parka filed suit against Edgewater for $ 100,000$. Is Parka likely to recover from Edgewater?
Options:
A. Yes, because Edgar's trip to the market was only a slight deviation from the direct route to his home.
B. Yes, but only if Edgewater knew that Edgar had proclivities to drive negligently.
C. No, because turning in the opposite direction from his home constituted a "frolic" by Edgar.
D. No, because an employer is not liable for the torts of an employee traveling to and from work. | A |
Scholastica, the Academic Dean at Woodbine College, was well liked and considered a competent scholar and a fine teacher. However, six months after her appointment as Dean, Scholastica received a certified letter from Rector, the Provost of Woodbine College, summarily dismissing her. No reasons were given in the letter for Scholastica's dismissal. Scholastica had her lawyer, Loretta, contact Rector to discover the basis of her dismissal, if possible. Two days later, Loretta received a letter from Rector stating, in relevant part, "Scholastica was dismissed from her employment at Woodbine College because I received an anonymous telephone call informing me that Scholastica was involved in selling drugs to students. One can't be too careful about these things in this day and age." Rector had, in fact, received such a phone call, but the basis of the statement was untrue, because Scholastica had never even used illegal drugs, much less sold them. If Scholastica files suit against Rector for libel:
Options:
A. Scholastica will win, if Rector should have verified the anonymous statement before repeating it to Loretta.
B. Scholastica will lose, because by having her attorney ask the reason for the dismissal, Scholastica impliedly consented to the statement in the letter.
C. Rector will win, because Rector was merely repeating the defamatory communication of another.
D. Rector will lose, because Scholastica was not dealing in drugs. | B |
In which of the following cases would a leading question least likely be permitted over objection?
Options:
A. When asked on direct examination of a disinterested witness.
B. When asked on direct examination of a minor.
C. When asked on cross-examination of an expert witness.
D. When related to the name, address, or occupation of the witness. | A |
In July of last summer George, a grape grower, contracted with Walter's Winery to deliver " 500 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes grown on my ranch Grapeacre in Grape County." The price was to be $ 1,000$ per ton and delivery was to be on or before September 15. In August of the same year, George entered into an identical contract with Vinnie's Vintner Co. to sell 300 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes. George completed his harvest by September 10 and had 800 tons of premium quality grapes. On September 11, an unexpected rain ruined 400 tons, and George notified Walter and Vinnie on that day that he would only be able to deliver 250 tons to Walter and 150 tons to Vinnie. On September 14, Vinnie purchased an additional 150 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes from Godfrey, one of several other available sources for premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes. These grapes along with the 150 tons from George gave Vinnie the 300 tons he needed. On September 15, what is Walter's Winery's legal position with regard to George's failure to deliver the 500 tons of grapes required by his contract?
Options:
A. If Walter has given George a written notice of termination, Walter will have the right to refuse to accept the 250 tons of grapes but will have no cause of action for damages against George.
B. Even if Walter has given George a written notice of termination, Walter must accept the 250 tons of grapes and will have no cause of action for damages against George.
C. Since Vinnie's purchase establishes that it is possible for George to perform by obtaining additional grapes from other available sources, Walter may accept the 250 tons from George and recover damages for George's failure to deliver the balance of the amount specified by the contract.
D. Since George's contract with Walter was entered into before his contract with Vinnie, George is bound to deliver the entirety of his grape crop to Walter. | A |
Doris was at a restaurant eating lunch when she looked up and saw another woman take Doris's coat off the coat rack and walk out the door with it. Doris quickly left and followed the woman. She saw the woman enter a house where she apparently lived. Later, when Doris knew that the woman was not at home, Doris opened a window in the woman's house, climbed in, and got her coat out of the front closet. When she put the coat on, however, she noticed for the first time that in fact it was not her coat. But, because it was so cold outside, Doris decided to wear this coat home and to return it the next day. The following day Doris changed her mind and decided to keep the coat. Doris is guilty of:
Options:
A. Larceny.
B. Burglary.
C. Both larceny and burglary.
D. Neither larceny nor burglary. | A |
Carter, a nonunion carpenter, went to work on a construction project that was involved in a labor dispute. Every morning when he arrived at work, he would be accosted by the picketers who would try to persuade him not to continue to work. One morning while Carter was trying to get to work, one of the union workers, John, stopped Carter at the gate and told him that he shouldn't go to work. When Carter insisted that John get out of the way, John said, "Try to make me, scab!" Carter, intending to frighten John, swung his hammer at him. The head on the hammer, however, was defective and it flew off, hitting John in the face. John sues Carter for battery. Most likely he will:
Options:
A. Prevail, because he was struck by the hammer head.
B. Prevail, unless he intended to provoke Carter.
C. Not prevail, because the negligence of the manufacturer of the hammer was the direct cause of the injury.
D. Not prevail, if a reasonable person would have been angered by what John had said. | A |
The state of North Freedonia has long had a reputation for growing the biggest and tastiest potatoes in the country. Growers of potatoes in North Freedonia recently began spraying Bugoff onto their crops to prevent the spread of the Potato Maggot, an insect that can destroy young potato plants. Bugoff is manufactured exclusively by Growit, Inc., at its plant in South Freedonia. When the plant is producing Bugoff it emits a fine, sticky, harmless mist as a byproduct. The mist drifts over Clampett's property which is adjacent to Growit's plant. Although Growit uses the best technology available, it is unable to prevent the release of the mist. Clampett brings suit against Growit on the theory of private nuisance to enjoin the production of Bugoff at the South Freedonia plant. Which of the following facts, if established, will be most helpful to Growit's defense?
Options:
A. Growit commenced the manufacture of Bugoff at the South Freedonia plant three years before Clampett acquired the land adjacent to the plant.
B. Federal, state, and local agencies approved the design of the plant and equipment used to produce Bugoff.
C. The principal users of Bugoff are State and Federal Departments of Agriculture.
D. Bugoff is the only pesticide that can safely and effectively kill the Potato Maggot, which, if not controlled, would destroy North Freedonia's potato crop, its principal product. | D |
The United States General Accounting Office issued a call for competitive bids for a contract to supply the National Park Service with 3,000 four-wheel drive utility vehicles; the detailed specifications for the vehicles were included in the announcement. Auto Modifiers, Inc., of the state of Midwest won the contract as low bidder and began manufacture of the vehicles. Midwest statutes require that automobiles manufactured in that state be equipped with certain antipollution devices and have a maximum displacement of 2,500 cubic centimeters. The specifications of the federal contract require Auto Modifiers to manufacture the utility vehicles without the antipollution devices and with engines with a displacement of 4,000 cubic centimeters. When the president of Auto Modifiers learns that the Midwest Attorney General's office is investigating the manufacture of the government vehicles, he instructs his legal department to take affirmative action to protect the company. Auto Modifiers then files suit in state court for declaratory relief, seeking a judicial declaration that the state statute prescribing antipollution devices and engine size may not be enforced as to it. The court should rule:
Options:
A. The statute may not constitutionally be applied to Auto Modifiers in this instance because to do so would violate the $\mathrm{Su}-$ premacy Clause.
B. The statute may not constitutionally be applied to Auto Modifiers because to do so would violate the Contracts Clause.
C. The statute may not constitutionally be applied to Auto Modifiers because to do so would violate the Commerce Clause.
D. All of the above. | A |
The large metropolitan areas of East Rabbit's Foot and West Rabbit's Foot, Wyoming, lie adjacent to each other on the county line separating, respectively, Pecos and Tuscaloosa Counties, each city being entirely within its respective county. Wyoming state law grants each county great autonomy in setting the health standards governing the preparation, packaging, transportation, and sale of foodstuffs. The Pecos County council recently enacted an ordinance, valid under the constitution and statutes of Wyoming, prohibiting the packaging and sale of any food item in any nonbiodegradable material; the ordinance defines nonbiodegradable and specifically lists as prohibited all forms of plastics, cellophane, or similar materials. The ordinance specifically exempts from its terms sales of food to public institutions such as hospitals, jails, and schools. Snak-Mart, a retail food seller in East Rabbit's Foot, files an appropriate court action attacking the Pecos County ordinance on the grounds that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court should rule:
Options:
A. For Snak-Mart, because the state's interests could be effectuated by alternative methods less intrusive upon Snak-Mart's constitutional rights.
B. For Snak-Mart, because no compelling state interest is served by the challenged ordinance.
C. For Pecos County, because the state may regulate in this area as Congress has not entered the field.
D. For Pecos County, because the ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate state interest-the health and safety of its citizens. | D |
The Bedford City Council enacted an ordinance regarding the right to parade in the streets of Bedford. The ordinance provided that city officials should automatically issue a parade permit to any group filing the proper papers with city authorities, except in situations where a prior group had already received permission to parade on the same street at the same time on the same day. Another city ordinance prescribed fines for persons conducting a parade in the city of Bedford without a permit. The Reverend Jim, leader of the Poor People's Association ("PPA"), filed appropriate papers with city officials to parade down Main Street in the city of Bedford at 1 p.m. on July 15 . City officials checked their records and noted that they had already issued a parade permit to the Little League Baseball Supporters to conduct a parade on Main Street at 1 p.m. on July 15 . The officials told Jim that he could not have a parade permit for the time and place requested and suggested that Jim select another day and/or location. Jim refused and told the city officials, "This is yet another insult to the poor from this administration. We poor people will march on Main Street any time we please, with or without your permits!" On July 15 at 1 p.m. both Little League and PPA assembled on Main Street and began to parade. There was much confusion. City officials asked Jim and his followers to desist, but they refused. Jim and other PPA supporters were arrested, convicted, and fined under the city ordinance. If Jim and other convicted PPA members seek to have their convictions overturned by the federal courts, they will:
Options:
A. Lose, because Jim should have gone to federal court to secure PPA's rights before violating the ordinance.
B. Lose, because the Bedford ordinances are a reasonable restriction on time, place, and manner of speech and were not applied in a discriminatory manner.
C. Lose, because the Bedford ordinances represented the will of the people as expressed through the city council.
D. Win, because the Bedford ordinances, on their face, violate the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. | B |
Photog, a freelance professional photographer, went to Department Store to purchase some film. As he was leaving the store, he noticed that Actress, a well-known Hollywood starlet, was browsing through the women's clothing department in Department Store. Photog took a picture of Actress in the clothing department without Actress's knowledge. Several days later, Photog took the photograph to the manager of Department Store and sold him the picture, explaining that Actress had agreed that Department Store could use the photograph in an advertising campaign. The manager enlarged the photograph and hung it above the main entrance to Department Store with a caption that read, "The store where Actress shops." One month earlier, Actress had entered into a contract with Hardware Store, the terms of which provided that Hardware Store had the exclusive right to use Actress's name and likeness for advertising purposes. As a result of the photograph's appearing at Department Store, Hardware Store canceled its contract with Actress. If Actress asserts a claim based on invasion of privacy against Department Store, will Actress prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, because Department Store, without Actress's permission, used Actress's picture for profit.
B. Yes, because Photog had no right to take Actress's picture.
C. No, because Department Store believed it had permission to display Actress's picture.
D. No, because Actress would clearly qualify as a public figure. | A |
To protect the minor children living in the area, the Rock Creek Town Council enacted an ordinance that prohibited advertisements that include "a depiction of a nude person, whether male or female." Sylvester Screen owns and operates Rock Creek Video, a videotape rental shop. Screen often posts large posters to advertise movies he has available for rent. A substantial part of his business consists of the rental of "X-rated" movies. These adult tapes are kept in a separate part of the shop. In the adult tape room he hangs movie advertisements, many of them depicting nude or partially nude people. Screen does not allow minors to enter the adult tape room. If Screen challenges the ordinance, and assuming that he has standing to sue, how will the court most likely rule?
Options:
A. For the town, because the ordinance is a valid exercise of the town's power to protect the morals of its minor citizens.
B. For Screen, because prohibiting the posting of the movie advertisements violates his First Amendment rights.
C. For the town, because the posters may appeal to a minor's prurient interest in sex.
D. For Screen, because not all nudity is obscene. | D |
Christine and her friend Zelda were going away to college and had quite a few personal belongings to transport. Christine's father offered to drive them in his van, but when the van was loaded they discovered there was only room for two people, so Christine asked her boyfriend Harry to drive her in his car while Christine's father and Zelda rode in the van. About halfway to the college, while the van and Harry's car were driving down the freeway, the van in front, the van suddenly swerved out of control and ran off the highway, ending up on its side in the center divider. When Harry stopped his car and Christine ran to the van, she discovered to her horror that her father was dead. Zelda appeared to be injured, but not severely. Because her father previously had heart trouble, Christine assumed that he had had a heart attack while driving, although a later investigation would reveal that the accident was caused solely by a defect in the steering mechanism of the van. Filled with remorse, Christine told Zelda, "I'm so sorry about this. I'll make good any losses you suffer because of this accident." Later, when Christine learned that Zelda was going to seek treatment from Dr. Winston, she wrote the doctor a letter stating that she would be responsible for all of Zelda's medical expenses; Dr. Winston received the letter the next day. Assume for purposes of this question only that several months after the accident, but within the applicable statute of limitations, Zelda discovered that she had suffered an injury to her spinal column that would prevent her from ever playing basketball again. Zelda had been a scholarship athlete in basketball at the college and was considered to be a certain high draft selection for the newly formed women's professional basketball league when she graduated. She brought an action against Christine for several million dollars in damages. Which of the following is the best defense Christine could assert against Zelda's claim?
Options:
A. There was no consideration supporting her promise to Zelda to make good any losses.
B. She did not intend to offer to pay Zelda for the loss of her professional career when she said she would make good any losses.
C. She was in error when she assumed that her father's heart attack was the cause of the accident.
D. She did not know that Zelda would not be able to play basketball when she offered to make good any losses. | A |
In early January 2004 , representatives of MacDougall Corporation, makers of the famous "MacDougall Dog" hot dog and related convenience foods sold through thousands of owned and franchised "MacDougall's" restaurants, met with representatives of Time Management, Inc. ("TM"), a firm specializing in time-and-motion studies of labor intensive industries. After extensive negotiations, it was orally agreed that TM would redesign the food production area of MacDougall's restaurants, including modification of cooking equipment, if necessary, so that, using existing MacDougall's food products, savings in labor costs through reduction in restaurant cooking staffs would result. Lawyers for MacDougall's subsequently drafted a written agreement, sent it to TM, whose lawyers modified the draft, and returned the modified draft to MacDougall's. This modified writing, signed by both parties, stated in its entirety: Provided that at least 2,000 work-hours per restaurant are eliminated, MacDougall Corporation will pay to TM within 90 days of installation of new food production systems at MacDougall's restaurants in Richmond a first installment of $1$ million. Upon installation of new food processing systems nationwide, MacDougall Corporation will pay to TM a second and final installment of $ 1.5$ million. Nationwide installation must be completed by January 15,2005 . Any amendments to this agreement must be in writing signed by both parties. TM immediately began work on the restructuring of MacDougall's food processing methods. On September 5, 2004, a radical change in the layout of MacDougall's kitchen area and new personnel assignments had been designed, and TM demanded payment of the first installment payment of $ 1$ million. MacDougall Corporation refused, but negotiations conducted between the parties resulted in an oral agreement that MacDougall's would pay $ 750,000$ immediately and then the $ 1.5$ million second installment as originally agreed, after nationwide installation of the new system. The restructured food production system was installed and in operation in all Richmond MacDougall's restaurants on October 1, 2004. Subsequent audits revealed that the new system enabled MacDougall Corporation to eliminate 1,500 work-hours per restaurant, saving the corporation $ 90,000$ in labor costs for all Richmond restaurants. The new system required that MacDougall's increase the length of the famous "MacDougall Dog" by three centimeters and that the "Mother MacDougall Hot Apple Fritters" be made in a rectangular shape rather than the traditional round form. Nationwide installation of the new system in all MacDougall's restaurants was completed on January 30, 2005. The 1,500 work-hours per restaurant savings to MacDougall Corporation was projected at $ 1.8$ million per year. TM sent a certified letter to the chief executive officer of MacDougall Corporation requesting his certification that the new food production system was in place and operating as promised, and demanding the $ 1.5 \mathrm{mil}$ lion second installment. The CEO refused to so certify and refused to make any payment, noting in his reply letter that the system had not been installed by January 15,2005 , and that it did not use existing MacDougall's food products, as promised by TM. Assume for the purposes of this question only that TM brings an action for breach of contract against MacDougall Corporation seeking as damages $ 1.5$ million. MacDougall's attempts to introduce the testimony of its chief negotiator describing the oral agreement with TM representatives that the new food processing system would use existing MacDougall's food products. TM objects, arguing that the parol evidence rule bars admission of this testimony. Which of the following is the best argument supporting admission of the testimony?
Options:
A. The memorandum signed by the parties was not a complete integration of their agreement.
B. The parol evidence rule does not bar evidence interpreting a written agreement.
C. MacDougall Corporation detrimentally relied on the oral agreement in signing the memorandum.
D. The parol evidence rule does not exclude misrepresentations. | A |
State B's legislature passed a statute that required every used car sold in the state to be tested prior to sale to determine whether it was in compliance with a set of strict exhaust emission standards that were also included in the legislation. Used cars would have to be brought up to standard and pass the emissions test prior to sale. Certain persons in the state object to the legislation because one of its results will be to raise the average price of used cars in State B. Only cars to be sold for junk are exempt from the statute. Among the following, who would be most likely to have standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the legislation?
Options:
A. A State B resident who was thinking about selling used cars in State B.
B. A State B resident who was thinking about buying a used car in State B.
C. An out-of-state dealer in used cars who had a contract to sell cars to a large dealer in State B.
D. An out-of-state manufacturer who might be required to indemnify its dealers in State B for costs arising from the statute. | C |
The United States entered into a treaty with Mexico whereby both countries agreed to ban hunting of the red tailed raccoon, a species of raccoon indigenous to both the United States and Mexico. The red tailed raccoon had been placed on the endangered species list of the International Wildlife Federation and other conservation groups. The raccoons tend to roam in small family groups in the semidesert lands of the western United States and northern Mexico. The raccoons freely crossed state lines and the international boundary. Laws in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico permitted hunting of the red tailed raccoons. After the treaty was fully ratified by the United States and Mexico, a federal court would most likely hold that the state laws permitting hunting of the raccoons are:
Options:
A. Unconstitutional, because a treaty is the supreme law of the land.
B. Unconstitutional, because free roaming wildlife is federal property.
C. Constitutional, because wild animals are natural inhabitants of the state, and the federal government may not take state property without consent of the state.
D. Constitutional, under the rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. | A |
Commercial fishing, primarily for salmon and tuna, in the waters of the Pacific Ocean along the state's western boundary, has long been one of Washington's major industries. To protect the fishing industry, which was being harmed by the too rapid depletion of the fish in the waters of the state's coast, and to promote the general welfare of the state's citizens, the state legislature enacted statutes for the first time requiring licenses for commercial fishing. To receive a license, the applicant must pay a $ 500$ fee and establish by acceptable evidence that he has been engaged in commercial fishing in the waters of the state of Washington (including ocean waters within three miles of its coastline) since January 1, 1995. A limited number of special licenses are available for those who do not meet the requirements of the regular licenses, and these special licenses are expressly reserved for citizens who have resided in Washington for at least three years prior to the date of the application. 116. $\mathrm{Ng}$, a legally admitted alien who has been residing in the state of Washington for 10 years, brings suit in federal court to enjoin enforcement of the licensing statute as to himself and all other similarly situated noncitizen legal residents of the state of Washington. Which of the following doctrines will probably be determinative of his claims? (A) The powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. (B) The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (C) The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. (D) The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. At trial, prosecution offers evidence that when Fred was arrested, shortly after the crime had been committed, he had a large amount of cocaine hidden in the trunk of his car. This evidence should be:
Options:
A. Admitted to prove Fred's propensity to commit crimes.
B. Admitted to prove Fred's general bad character.
C. Excluded because such evidence may be offered only to rebut evidence of good character offered by the defendant.
D. Excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. | D |
Jack, a 17-year-old high school student living at home with his parents, decided one day to try the old practical joke he had seen so many times on television and in movies where a bucket of water is balanced on a partially open door so that the next person to enter the room through that door is drenched. Knowing that his parents were giving a dinner party that evening, Jack obtained a bucket from the tool shed, filled it with ice water, and balanced it on the partially open door of the guest bedroom, knowing that his father would take the guests' coats and wraps in there and toss them on the bed. Later that evening, Walt, an invited guest of Jack's parents, mistakenly wandered into the guest bedroom in search of the bathroom. Jack's father had decided to keep all the guests' coats in the hall closet, since there were only three couples coming to dinner. As Walt opened the door to the guest bedroom, the bucket of ice water plunged down upon him, opening a four-inch cut in his scalp. Walt was rushed to the hospital, where 12 stitches were required to close the head wound. In an action by Walt against Jack and his parents for personal injuries, the court should determine Jack's culpability according to:
Options:
A. The presumption against negligence afforded to all minors.
B. The age, experience, and intelligence of an ordinarily prudent minor in circumstances similar to Jack's.
C. The standard applicable to adults, since Jack is nearly grown.
D. Strict liability, since the practical joke turned out to be so dangerous. | B |
Joey escaped from prison and stole a car. He picked up a young woman hitchhiker, Jenny, and told her what he had done. Jenny was emotionally disturbed and of borderline mental retardation, but understood that the police were after Joey, and because she hated the police, she told Joey she would do anything she could to help him. To avoid the police, they drove to the mountains with Jenny doing much of the driving. The following day, they were both very hungry. Toward evening, Joey saw Fisher camped by a stream nearby, and told Jenny, "Go down there and steal some food from his ice chest; he'll never even see you, but if he does, hit him with something heavy." When she hesitated, Joey became angry and said, "Go on, or I'll just leave you here to starve!" Jenny went down to Fisher's campsite, and had just grabbed a sandwich out of his ice chest and taken a bite out of it, when Fisher, who was 6'6" tall and weighed 250 pounds, ran back from the stream and grabbed her arm. Jenny was terrified and picked up a heavy frying pan and hit Fisher on the head; he slumped to the ground apparently dead. Joey then ran up and said, "He's dead. We'd better put him in the stream so it will look like he drowned after slipping and falling." They thereupon put Fisher in the stream without attempting to determine if he was alive or dead. Later, a medical examination showed conclusively that the blow only knocked Fisher out; he died of suffocation due to water in the lungs. With respect to the stolen car, at common law, Jenny is:
Options:
A. Liable as a co-conspirator to car theft.
B. Liable as an accessory after the fact to car theft.
C. Liable for compounding a felony.
D. Not liable for any common law crime. | B |
Buyer, a retail seller of lawn and garden equipment, entered into a written contract with Seller, a manufacturer of wheelbarrows. The terms of the contract call for Seller to deliver 100 fifteen-pound capacity, red wheelbarrows to Buyer by March 1. On February 28, Buyer received from Seller 90 fifteen-pound capacity, red wheelbarrows and 10 twenty-pound capacity, red wheelbarrows. A letter accompanying the shipment stated, "We no longer make fifteen-pound capacity wheelbarrows. We are sending the last 90 we have in stock along with 10 twenty-pound capacity wheelbarrows. The twenty-pound capacity were sent as an accommodation to you." Which of the following correctly states the rights of Buyer? I. Buyer can reject the entire shipment. II. Buyer can accept the 90 conforming wheelbarrows, reject the 10 nonconforming wheelbarrows, and sue Seller for damages. III. Buyer can accept the entire shipment and sue Seller for damages.
Options:
A. Only I. and II. are correct.
B. Only I. is correct.
C. I., II., and III. are correct.
D. Only II. is correct. | C |
The German-made Doppelpferd, featuring sleek styling and remarkable fuel efficiency, is the most popular automobile in the United States. Its United States sales are booming, and the average retail markup in such sales is $30 \%$. Hardsell Motors, Inc., a franchised Doppelpferd dealer in the United States, contracted with Shift to sell him a new Doppelpferd for $ 9,000$ cash, the sale to be consummated after delivery to Hardsell of the car, which Hardsell ordered from the manufacturer specifically for Shift. The signed retail contractual document was a form drafted by Hardsell's lawyer, and Shift did not question or object to any of its terms, including the price inserted by Hardsell. When the car arrived from Germany, Shift repudiated the contract. Hardsell at once sold the car for $ 9,000$ cash to Karbuff, for whom Hardsell had also ordered from the manufacturer a Doppelpferd identical to Shift's. In an action against Shift for breach of contract, Hardsell will probably recover:
Options:
A. $ 9,000$ minus what it cost Hardsell to purchase the car from the manufacturer.
B. $ 9,000$ minus the wholesale price of an identical Doppelpferd in the local wholesale market among dealers.
C. Nominal damages only because Hardsell resold the car to Karbuff without lowering the retail price.
D. Nothing, because the parties' agreement was an adhesion contract and therefore unconscionable. | A |
Marvin Manufacturing Company was in the business of making copper tubing. Golde Industries telephoned Marvin's sales department and placed an order for 10,000 linear feet of copper tubing at a sale price of $ 2$ per foot. The tubing was to be used in the production of a custom order for one of Golde's customers. Marvin installed special equipment for the manufacture of the tubing to Golde's specifications and had completed a portion of the order when Golde again telephoned the sales department. This time, however, Golde canceled its order, saying it no longer had need of the tubing because its customer had been declared bankrupt, and refused to pay for the order. If Marvin sues for breach, it will:
Options:
A. Win, because the contract is fully enforceable.
B. Win, because the contract is enforceable to the extent of the portion of the order completed.
C. Lose, because a contract for the sale of goods over $ 500$ must be in writing.
D. Lose, because the parol evidence rule would preclude testimony about the initial telephone call. | A |