ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Alice entered into a contract with Paul by the terms of which Paul was to paint Alice's office for $1,000 and was required to do all of the work over the following weekend so as to avoid disruption of Alice's business. For this question only, assume the following facts. If Paul had started to paint on the following Saturday morning, he could have finished before Sunday evening. However, he stayed home that Saturday morning to watch the final game of the World Series on TV, and did not start to paint until Saturday afternoon. By late Saturday afternoon, Paul realized that he had underestimated the time it would take to finish the job if he continued to work alone. Paul phoned Alice at her home and accurately informed her that it was impossible to finish the work over the weekend unless he hired a helper. He also stated that to do so would require an additional charge of $200 for the work. Alice told Paul that she apparently had no choice but to pay "whatever it takes" to get the work done as scheduled. Paul hired Ted to help finish the painting and paid Ted $200. Alice has offered to pay Paul $1,000. Paul is demanding $1,200. How much is Paul likely to recover? 
A. $1,000 only, because Alice received no consideration for her promise to pay the additional sum. 
B. $1,000 only, because Alice's promise to pay "whatever it takes" is too uncertain to be enforceable. 
C. $1,200, in order to prevent Alice's unjust enrichment. 
D. $1,200, because the impossibility of Paul's completing the work alone discharged the original contract and a new contract was formed. 
Answer: A
Alice entered into a contract with Paul by the terms of which Paul was to paint Alice's office for $1,000 and was required to do all of the work over the following weekend so as to avoid disruption of Alice's business. For this question only, assume the following facts. Paul commenced work on Saturday morning, and had finished half the painting by the time he quit work for the day. That night, without the fault of either party, the office building was destroyed by fire. Which of the following is an accurate statement? 
A. Both parties' contractual duties are discharged, and Paul can recover nothing from Alice. 
B. Both parties' contractual duties are discharged, but Paul can recover in quasi-contract from Alice. 
C. Only Paul's contractual duty is discharged, because Alice's performance (payment of the agreed price) is not impossible. 
D. Only Paul's contractual duty is discharged, and Paul can recover his reliance damages from Alice. 
Answer: B
The state of Erehwon has a statute providing that an unsuccessful candidate in a primary election for a party's nomination for elected public office may not become a candidate for the same office at the following general election by nominating petition or by write-in votes. Sabel sought her party's nomination for governor in the May primary election. After losing in the primary, Sabel filed nominating petitions containing the requisite number of signatures to become a candidate for the office of governor in the following general election. The chief elections officer of Erehwon refused to certify Sabel's petitions solely because of the above statute. Sabel then filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of this Erehwon statute. As a matter of constitutional law, which of the following is the proper burden of persuasion in this suit? 
A. Sabel must demonstrate that the statute is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.
B. Sabel must demonstrate that the statute is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
C. The state must demonstrate that the statute is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest.
D. The state must demonstrate that the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Answer: C
In order to provide funds for a system of new major airports near the ten largest cities in the United States, Congress levies a tax of $25 on each airline ticket issued in the United States. The tax applies to every airline ticket, even those for travel that does not originate in, terminate at, or pass through any of those ten large cities. As applied to the issuance in the United States of an airline ticket for travel between two cities that will not be served by any of the new airports, this tax is 
A. constitutional, because Congress has broad discretion in choosing the subjects of its taxation and may impose taxes on subjects that have no relation to the purpose for which those tax funds will be expended. 
B. constitutional, because an exemption for the issuance of tickets for travel between cities that will not be served by the new airports would deny the purchasers of all other tickets the equal protection of the laws. 
C. unconstitutional, because the burden of the tax outweighs its benefits for passengers whose travel does not originate in, terminate at, or pass through any of the ten largest cities. 
D. unconstitutional, because the tax adversely affects the fundamental right to travel. 
Answer: A
Stoven, who owned Craigmont in fee simple, mortgaged Craigmont to Ulrich to secure a loan of $100,000. The mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. Stoven later mortgaged Craigmont to Martin to secure a loan of $50,000. The mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. Subsequently, Stoven conveyed Craigmont to Fritsch. About a year later, Fritsch borrowed $100,000 from Zorn, an elderly widow, and gave her a mortgage on Craigmont to secure repayment of the loan. Zorn did not know about the mortgage held by Martin. The understanding between Fritsch and Zorn was that Fritsch would use the $100,000 to pay off the mortgage held by Ulrich and that Zorn would, therefore, have a first mortgage on Craigmont. Zorn's mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. Fritsch paid the $100,000 received from Zorn to Ulrich and obtained and recorded a release of the Ulrich mortgage. The $50,000 debt secured by the Martin mortgage was not paid when it was due, and Martin brought an appropriate action to foreclose, joining Stoven, Fritsch, and Zorn as defendants and alleging that Martin's mortgage was senior to Zorn's mortgage on Craigmont. If the court rules that Zorn's mortgage is entitled to priority over Martin's mortgage, which of the following determinations are necessary to support that ruling? I. Ulrich's mortgage was originally senior to Martin's mortgage. II. Zorn is entitled to have Ulrich's mortgage revived for her benefit, and Zorn is entitled to be subrogated to Ulrich's original position as senior mortgagee. III. There are no countervailing equities in favor of Martin. 
A. I and II only.
B. I and III only.
C. II and III only.
D. I, II, and III. 
Answer: D
One evening, Parnell had several drinks and then started to drive home. As he was proceeding down Main Boulevard, an automobile pulled out of a side street to his right. Parnell's car struck this automobile broadside. The driver of the other car was killed as a result of the collision. A breath analysis test administered after the accident showed that Parnell satisfied the legal definition of intoxication. If Parnell is prosecuted for manslaughter, his best chance for acquittal would be based on an argument that 
A. the other driver was contributorily negligent.
B. the collision would have occurred even if Parnell had not been intoxicated.
C. because of his intoxication he lacked the mens rea needed for manslaughter.
D. driving while intoxicated requires no mens rea and so cannot be the basis for misdemeanor manslaughter.
Answer: B
Seisin and Vendee, standing on Greenacre, orally agreed to its sale and purchase for $5,000, and orally marked its bounds as "that line of trees down there, the ditch that intersects them, the fence on the other side, and that street on the fourth side." In which of the following is the remedy of reformation most appropriate? 
A. As later reduced to writing, the agreement by clerical mistake included two acres that are actually beyond the fence. 
B. Vendee reasonably thought that two acres beyond the fence were included in the oral agreement but Seisin did not. As later reduced to writing, the agreement included the two acres. 
C. Vendee reasonably thought that the price orally agreed upon was $4,500, but Seisin did not. As later reduced to writing, the agreement said $5,000. 
D. Vendee reasonably thought that a dilapidated shed backed up against the fence was to be torn down and removed as part of the agreement, but Seisin did not. As later reduced to writing, the agreement said nothing about the shed. 
Answer: A
Airco operates an aircraft maintenance and repair business serving the needs of owners of private airplanes. Flyer contracted with Airco to replace the engine in his plane with a more powerful engine of foreign manufacture. Airco purchased the replacement engine through a representative of the manufacturer and installed it in Flyer's plane. A short time after it was put into use, the new engine failed, and the plane crashed into a warehouse owned by Landers, destroying the warehouse and its contents. Airco was guilty of no negligence in the procurement, inspection, or installation of the engine. The failure of the engine was caused by a defect that would not be disclosed by inspection and testing procedures available to an installer. There was no negligence on the part of Flyer, who escaped the disabled plane by parachute. Landers recovered a judgment for damages from Flyer for the destruction of his warehouse and its contents, and Flyer has asserted a claim against Airco to recover compensation on account of that liability. In that action, Flyer will recover 
A. full compensation, because the engine was defective. 
B. no compensation, because Airco was not negligent. 
C. contribution only, because Airco and Flyer were equally innocent. 
D. no compensation, because Landers's judgment established Flyer's responsibility to Landers. 
Answer: A
To encourage the growth of its population, the state of Axbridge established a program that awarded $1,000 to the parents of each child born within the state, provided that at the time of the child's birth the mother and father of the newborn were citizens of the United States. The Lills are aliens who are permanent residents of the United States and have resided in Axbridge for three years. When their first child was born two months ago, they applied for and were denied the $1,000 award by Axbridge officials on the sole ground that they are not citizens of the United States. The Lills filed suit in federal court contending that their exclusion from the award program was unconstitutional. Assume no federal statute addresses this question. In this case, the court should hold that the exclusion of aliens from the Axbridge award program is 
A. constitutional, because the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states plenary authority over the spending of state funds. 
B. constitutional, because Axbridge has a legitimate interest in encouraging the growth of its population, and a rational legislature could believe that families in which both parents are United States citizens are more likely to stay in Axbridge and contribute to its future prosperity than those in which one or both of the parents are aliens. 
C. unconstitutional, because strict scrutiny governs judicial review of such state classifications based on alienage, and Axbridge cannot demonstrate that this classification is necessary to advance a compelling state interest. 
D. unconstitutional, because state classifications based on alienage are impermissible unless explicitly authorized by an act of Congress. 
Answer: C
Olin owned Blueacre, a valuable tract of land located in York County. Olin executed a document in the form of a warranty deed of Blueacre, which was regular in all respects except that the only language designating the grantees in each of the granting and habendum clauses was: "The leaders of all the Protestant Churches in York County." The instrument was acknowledged as required by statute and promptly and properly recorded. Olin told his lawyer, but no one else, that he had made the conveyance as he did because he abhorred sectarianism in the Protestant movement and because he thought that the leaders would devote the asset to lessening sectarianism. Olin died suddenly and unexpectedly a week later, leaving a will that bequeathed and devised his entire estate to Plum. After probate of the will became final and the administration on Olin's estate was closed, Plum instituted an appropriate action to quiet title to Blueacre and properly served as defendant each Protestant church situated in the county. The only evidence introduced consisted of the chain of title under which Olin held, the probated will, the recorded deed, the fact that no person knew about the deed except Olin and his lawyer, and the conversation Olin had with his lawyer described above. In such action, judgment should be for 
A. Plum, because there is inadequate identification of grantees in the deed. 
B. Plum, because the state of the evidence would not support a finding of delivery of the deed. 
C. the defendants, because a deed is prima facie valid until rebutted. 
D. the defendants, because recording established delivery prima facie until rebutted. 
Answer: A
Old City police officers shot and killed Jones's friend as he attempted to escape arrest for an armed robbery he had committed. Jones brought suit in federal district court against the Old City Police Department and the city police officers involved, seeking only a judgment declaring unconstitutional the state statute under which the police acted. That newly enacted statute authorized the police to use deadly force when necessary to apprehend a person who has committed a felony. In his suit, Jones alleged that the police would not have killed his friend if the use of deadly force had not been authorized by the statute. The federal district court should 
A. decide the case on its merits, because it raises a substantial federal question. 
B. dismiss the action, because it involves a nonjusticiable political question. 
C. dismiss the action, because it does not present a case or controversy. 
D. dismiss the action, because the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from deciding cases of this type. 
Answer: C
Dooley and Melville were charged with conspiracy to dispose of a stolen diamond necklace. Melville jumped bail and cannot be found. Proceeding to trial against Dooley alone, the prosecutor calls Wixon, Melville's girlfriend, to testify that Melville confided to her that "Dooley said I still owe him some of the money from selling that necklace." Wixon's testimony is 
A. admissible as evidence of a statement by party-opponent Dooley.
B. admissible as evidence of a statement against interest by Melville.
C. inadmissible, because Melville's statement was not in furtherance of the conspiracy. 
D. inadmissible, because Melville is not shown to have firsthand knowledge that the necklace was stolen. 
Answer: B
Pocket, a bank vice president, took substantial kickbacks to approve certain loans that later proved worthless. Upon learning of the kickbacks, Dudd, the bank's president, fired Pocket, telling him, "If you are not out of this bank in ten minutes, I will have the guards throw you out bodily." Pocket left at once. If Pocket asserts a claim against Dudd based on assault, will Pocket prevail? 
A. No, because the guards never touched Pocket. 
B. No, because Dudd gave Pocket ten minutes to leave. 
C. Yes, if Dudd intended to cause Pocket severe emotional distress. 
D. Yes, because Dudd threatened Pocket with a harmful or offensive bodily contact. 
Answer: B
Lee contracted with Mover, an interstate carrier, to ship household goods from the state of Green to his new home in the state of Pink. A federal statute provides that all liability of an interstate mover to a shipper for loss of or damage to the shipper's goods in transit is governed exclusively by the contract between them. The statute also requires the mover to offer a shipper at least two contracts with different levels of liability. In full compliance with that federal statute, Mover offered Lee a choice between two shipping agreements that provided different levels of liability on the part of Mover. The more expensive contract provided that Mover was fully liable in case of loss or damage. The less expensive contract limited Mover's liability in case of loss or damage to less than full value. Lee voluntarily signed the less expensive contract with Mover, fixing Mover's liability at less than the full value of the shipment. Mover's truck was involved in an accident in the state of Pink. The accident was entirely a product of the negligence of Mover's driver. Lee's household goods were totally destroyed. In accordance with the contract, Mover reimbursed Lee for less than the full value of the goods. Lee then brought suit against Mover under the tort law of the state of Pink claiming that he was entitled to be reimbursed for the full value of the goods. Mover filed a motion to dismiss. In this suit, the court should 
A. dismiss the case, because the federal statute governing liability of interstate carriers is the supreme law of the land and preempts state tort law. 
B. dismiss the case, because the contractual relationship between Lee and Mover is governed by the obligation of contracts clause of the Constitution. 
C. deny the motion to dismiss, because the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution requires that state tort law be given effect. 
D. deny the motion to dismiss, because it is unconstitutional for a federal statute to authorize Mover to contract out of any degree of liability for its own negligence.
Answer: A
Metro City operates a cemetery pursuant to a city ordinance. The ordinance requires the operation of the city cemetery to be supported primarily by revenues derived from the sale of cemetery lots to individuals. The ordinance further provides that the purchase of a cemetery lot entitles the owner to perpetual care of the lot, and entitles the owner to erect on the lot, at the owner's expense, a memorial monument or marker of the owner's choice, subject to certain size restrictions. The Metro City ordinance requires the city to maintain the cemetery, including mowing the grass, watering flowers, and plowing snow, and provides for the expenditure of city tax funds for such maintenance if revenues from the sale of cemetery lots are insufficient. Although cemetery lots are sold at full fair market value, which includes the current value of perpetual care, the revenue from the sale of such lots has been insufficient in recent years to maintain the cemetery. As a result, a small amount of city tax funds has also been used for that purpose. A group of Metro City taxpayers bringssuit against Metro City challenging the constitutionality of the city ordinance insofar as it permits the owner of a cemetery lot to erect a religious memorial monument or marker on his or her lot. Is this suit likely to be successful? 
A. No, because only a small amount of city tax funds has been used to maintain the cemetery. 
B. No, because the purpose of the ordinance is entirely secular, its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. 
C. Yes, because city maintenance of any religious object is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. 
D. Yes, because no compelling governmental interest justifies authorizing private persons to erect religious monuments or markers in a city-operated cemetery. 
Answer: B
Dexter was tried for the homicide of a girl whose strangled body was found beside a remote logging road with her hands taped together. After Dexter offered evidence of alibi, the state calls Wilma to testify that Dexter had taped her hands and tried to strangle her in the same location two days before the homicide but that she escaped. The evidence is 
A. admissible, as tending to show Dexter is the killer. 
B. admissible, as tending to show Dexter's violent nature. 
C. inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence. 
D. inadmissible, because it is unfairly prejudicial. 
Answer: A
Blackacre was a tract of 100 acres retained by Byron, the owner, after he had developed the adjoining 400 acres as a residential subdivision. Byron had effectively imposed restrictive covenants on each lot in the 400 acres. Chaney offered Byron a good price for a five-acre tract located in a corner of Blackacre far away from the existing 400-acre residential subdivision. Byron conveyed the fiveacre tract to Chaney and imposed the same restrictive covenants on the five-acre tract as he had imposed on the lots in the adjoining 400 acres. Byron further covenanted that when he sold the remaining 95 acres of Blackacre he would impose the same restrictive covenants in the deed or deeds for the 95 acres. Byron's conveyance to Chaney was promptly and properly recorded. However, shortly thereafter, Byron conveyed the remaining 95 acres to Dart for $100,000 by a deed that made no mention of any restrictive covenants. Dart had no actual knowledge of the restrictive covenants in Chaney's deed. Dart now proposes to build an industrial park which would violate such restrictive covenants if they are applicable. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." In an appropriate action by Chaney to enforce the restrictive covenants against Dart's 95-acre tract, if Dart wins it will be because 
A. the deed imposing the restrictions was not in the chain of title for the 95 acres when Dart bought.
B. the disparity in acreage means that the covenant can only be personal to Byron.
C. negative reciprocal covenants are not generally recognized.
D. a covenant to impose restrictions is an illegal restraint on alienation.
Answer: A
A grand jury indicted Alice on a charge of arson, and a valid warrant was issued for her arrest. Paul, a police officer, arrested Alice and informed her of what the warrant stated. However, hoping that Alice might say something incriminating, he did not give her Miranda warnings. He placed her in the back seat of his patrol car and was driving her to the police station when she said, "Look, I didn't mean to burn the building; it was an accident. I was just burning some papers in a wastebasket." At the station, after being given Miranda warnings, Alice stated she wished to remain silent and made no other statements. Alice moved to suppress the use of her statement to Paul as evidence on two grounds: first, that the statement was acquired without giving Miranda warnings, and second, that the police officer had deliberately elicited her incriminating statement after she was in custody. As to Alice's motion to suppress, the court should 
A. deny the motion.
B. grant the motion only on the basis of the first ground stated.
C. grant the motion only on the basis of the second ground stated.
D. grant the motion on either ground.
Answer: A
Debtor's $1,000 contractual obligation to Aunt was due on July 1. On the preceding June 15, Aunt called Niece and said, "As my birthday gift to you, you may collect on July 1 the $1,000 Debtor owes me." Aunt also called Debtor and told him to pay the $1,000 to Niece on July 1. On July 1, Debtor, saying that he did not like Niece and wouldn't pay anything to her, paid the $1,000 to Aunt, who accepted it without objection. Will Niece succeed in an action for $1,000 against Debtor? 
A. Yes, because Aunt had effectively assigned the $1,000 debt to her. 
B. Yes, because Aunt's calls to Niece and Debtor effected a novation. 
C. No, because Aunt's acceptance of the $1,000, without objection, was in effect the revocation of a gratuitous assignment. 
D. No, because Debtor cannot be compelled to render performance to an assignee whom he finds personally objectionable. 
Answer: C