ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Adams, Bennett, and Curtis are charged in a common law jurisdiction with conspiracy to commit larceny. The state introduced evidence that they agreed to go to Nelson's house to take stock certificates from a safe in Nelson's bedroom, that they went to the house, and that they were arrested as they entered Nelson's bedroom. Adams testified that he believed the stock certificates belonged to Curtis, that he thought Nelson was improperly keeping them from Curtis, and that he went along to aid in retrieving Curtis's property. Bennett testified that he suspected Adams and Curtis of being thieves and joined up with them in order to catch them. He also testified that he made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime and that the call caused the police to be waiting for them when they walked into Nelson's bedroom. Curtis did not testify.". If the jury believes Adams, it should find him
A. guilty, because there was an agreement and the entry into the bedroom is sufficient for the overt act. 
B. guilty, because good motives are not a defense to criminal liability. 
C. not guilty, because he did not have a corrupt motive. 
D. not guilty, because he did not intend to steal
Answer: D
Adams, Bennett, and Curtis are charged in a common law jurisdiction with conspiracy to commit larceny. The state introduced evidence that they agreed to go to Nelson's house to take stock certificates from a safe in Nelson's bedroom, that they went to the house, and that they were arrested as they entered Nelson's bedroom. Adams testified that he believed the stock certificates belonged to Curtis, that he thought Nelson was improperly keeping them from Curtis, and that he went along to aid in retrieving Curtis's property. Bennett testified that he suspected Adams and Curtis of being thieves and joined up with them in order to catch them. He also testified that he made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime and that the call caused the police to be waiting for them when they walked into Nelson's bedroom. Curtis did not testify."If the jury believes Bennett, it should find him
A. guilty, because there was an agreement and the entry into the bedroom is sufficient for the overt act. 
B. guilty, because he is not a police officer and thus cannot claim any privilege of apprehending criminals. 
C. not guilty, because he did not intend to steal. 
D. not guilty, because he prevented the theft from occurring
Answer: C
Adams, Bennett, and Curtis are charged in a common law jurisdiction with conspiracy to commit larceny. The state introduced evidence that they agreed to go to Nelson's house to take stock certificates from a safe in Nelson's bedroom, that they went to the house, and that they were arrested as they entered Nelson's bedroom. Adams testified that he believed the stock certificates belonged to Curtis, that he thought Nelson was improperly keeping them from Curtis, and that he went along to aid in retrieving Curtis's property. Bennett testified that he suspected Adams and Curtis of being thieves and joined up with them in order to catch them. He also testified that he made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime and that the call caused the police to be waiting for them when they walked into Nelson's bedroom. Curtis did not testify."If the jury believes both Adams and Bennett, it should find Curtis
A. guilty, because there was an agreement and the entry into the bedroom is sufficient for the overt act. 
B. guilty, because he intended to steal. 
C. not guilty, because a conviction would penalize him for exercising his right not to be a witness. 
D. not guilty, because Adams and Bennett did not intend to steal
Answer: D
O'Neal entered into a written contract to sell her house and six acres known as Meadowacre to Perez for $75,000. Delivery of the deed and payment of the purchase price were to be made six months after the contract. The contract provided that Meadowacre was to be conveyed "subject to easements, covenants, and restrictions of record." The contract was not recorded. After the contract was signed but before the deed was delivered, Electric Company decided to run a high-voltage power line in the area and required an easement through a portion of Meadowacre. O'Neal, by deed, granted an easement to Electric Company in consideration of $5,000; the deed was duly recorded. The power line would be a series of towers with several high-voltage lines that would be clearly visible from the house on Meadowacre but would in no way interfere with the house. When Perez caused the title to Meadowacre to be searched, the deed of easement to Electric Company was found. O'Neal appeared at the time and place scheduled for the closing and proffered an appropriate deed to Perez and demanded the purchase price. Perez refused to pay or accept the deed. In an appropriate action for specific performance against Perez, O'Neal demanded $75,000. In this action, O'Neal should 
A. obtain an order for specific performance at a price of $75,000. 
B. obtain an order for specific performance at a price of $70,000. 
C. lose, because Perez did not contract to take subject to the easement to Electric Company. 
D. lose, because a high-voltage power line is a nuisance per se.
Answer: C
Pratt sued Danvers for injuries suffered by Pratt when their automobiles collided. At trial Pratt offers into evidence a properly authenticated letter from Danvers that says, "your claim seems too high, but, because I might have been a little negligent, I'm prepared to offer you half of what you ask." The letter is
A. admissible as an admission by a partyopponent.
B. admissible as a statement against pecuniary interest.
C. inadmissible, because Danver's statement is lay opinion on a legal issue. 
D. inadmissible, because Danver's statement was made in an effort to settle the claim.
Answer: D
Dobbs, while intoxicated, drove his car through a playground crowded with children just to watch the children run to get out of his way. His car struck one of the children, killing her instantly. Which of the following is the best theory for finding Dobbs guilty of murder?
A. Transferred intent.
B. Felony murder, with assault with a deadly weapon as the underlying felony. 
C. Intentional killing, since he knew that the children were there and he deliberately drove his car at them. 
D. Commission of an act highly dangerous to life, without an intent to kill but with disregard of the consequences
Answer: D
Darden was prosecuted for armed robbery. At trial, Darden testified in his own behalf, denying that he had committed the robbery. On crossexamination, the prosecutor intends to ask Darden whether he was convicted of burglary six years earlier The question concerning the burglary conviction is
A. proper if the court finds that the probative value for impeachment outweighs the prejudice to Darden.
B. proper, because the prosecutor is entitled to make this inquiry as a matter of right. 
C. improper, because burglary does not involve dishonesty or false statement. 97 
D. improper, because the conviction must be proved by court record, not by question on cross-examination
Answer: A
Osif owned Broadacres in fee simple. For a consideration of $5,000, Osif gave Bard a written option to purchase Broadacres for $300,000. The option was assignable. For a consideration of $10,000, Bard subsequently gave an option to Cutter to purchase Broadacres for $325,000. Cutter exercised his option. Bard thereupon exercised his option. Bard paid the agreed price of $300,000 and took title to Broadacres by deed from Osif. Thereafter, Cutter refused to consummate his purchase. Bard brought an appropriate action against Cutter for specific performance, or, if that should be denied, then for damages. Cutter counterclaimed for return of the $10,000. In this action the court will
A. grant money damages only to Bard.
B. grant specific performance to Bard.
C. grant Bard only the right to retain the $10,000. 
D. require Bard to refund the $10,000 to Cutter
Answer: B
Congress enacts a statute punishing "each and every conspiracy entered into by any two or more persons for the purpose of denying persons housing, employment, or education, solely because of their race." Under which of the following constitutional provisions is the authority of Congress to pass such a statute most clearly and easily justifiable?
A. The obligation of contracts clause.
B. The general welfare clause of Article I, Â§8. 
C. The Thirteenth Amendment.
D. The Fourteenth Amendment
Answer: C
In Peel's personal injury action, Wilson, a physician who had no previous knowledge of the matter, sat in court and heard all the evidence about Peel's symptoms and conditions. Wilson is called to give her opinion whether Peel's injuries are permanent. May Wilson so testify?
A. Yes, provided she first identifies the data on which her opinion is based. 
B. Yes, because an expert may base her opinion on facts made known to her at the trial. 
C. No, because she has no personal knowledge of Peel's condition. 
D. No, because permanence of injury is an issue to be decided by the jury.
Answer: B
A federal criminal law makes it a crime for any citizen of the United States not specifically authorized by the President to negotiate with a foreign government for the purpose of influencing the foreign government in relation to a dispute with the United States. The strongest constitutional ground for the validity of this law is that
A. under several of its enumerated powers, Congress may legislate to preserve the monopoly of the national government over the conduct of United States foreign affairs. 
B. the President's inherent power to negotiate for the United States with foreign countries authorizes the President, even in the absence of statutory authorization, to punish citizens who engage in such negotiations without permission. 
C. the law deals with foreign relations and therefore is not governed by the First Amendment.
D. federal criminal laws dealing with international affairs need not be as specific as those dealing with domestic affairs.
Answer: A
Arthur and Celia, brother and sister, both of legal age, inherited Goodacre, their childhood home, from their father. They thereby became tenants in common. Goodacre had never been used as anything except a residence. Arthur had been residing on Goodacre with his father at the time his father died. Celia had been residing in a distant city. After their father's funeral, Arthur continued to live on Goodacre, but Celia returned to her own residence. There was no discussion between Arthur and Celia concerning their common ownership, nor had there ever been any administration of their father's estate. Arthur paid all taxes, insurance, and other carrying charges on Goodacre. He paid no rent or other compensation to Celia, nor did Celia request any such payment. Thirty years later, a series of disputes arose between Arthur and Celia for the first time concerning their respective rights to Goodacre. The jurisdiction where the land is located recognizes the usual common law types of cotenancies, and there is no applicable legislation on the subject. If Arthur claims the entire title to Goodacre in fee simple and brings an action against Celia to quiet title in himself, and if the state where the land is located has an ordinary 20-year adverse possession statute, the decision should be for 
A. Arthur, because during the past 30 years Arthur has exercised the type of occupancy ordinarily considered sufficient to satisfy the adverse possession requirements. 
B. Arthur, because the acts of the parties indicate Celia's intention to renounce her right to inheritance. 
C. Celia, because there is no evidence that Arthur has performed sufficient acts to constitute her ouster. 
D. Celia, because one cotenant cannot acquire title by adverse possession against another.
Answer: C
Gasco owns a storage facility where flammable gases are stored in liquified form under high pressure in large spherical tanks. The facility was constructed for Gasco by Acme Company, a firm that specializes in the construction of such facilities. After the facility had been in use for five years, an explosion in the facility started a large fire that blanketed the surrounding countryside with a high concentration of oily smoke and soot. Farber owns a large truck farm near the facility. His entire lettuce crop was destroyed by oil deposits left by the smoke.If Farber asserts a claim against Gasco for the loss of his lettuce crop and is unable to show any negligence on the part of Gasco, will Farber prevail?
A. Yes, because the operation of the storage facility was an abnormally dangerous activity. 
B. Yes, because the intrusion of the smoke onto Farber's farm amounted to a trespass. 
C. No, if the explosion was caused by internal corrosion that reasonable inspection procedures would not have disclosed. 
D. No, if the explosion was caused by negligent construction on Acme's part.
Answer: A
Gasco owns a storage facility where flammable gases are stored in liquified form under high pressure in large spherical tanks. The facility was constructed for Gasco by Acme Company, a firm that specializes in the construction of such facilities. After the facility had been in use for five years, an explosion in the facility started a large fire that blanketed the surrounding countryside with a high concentration of oily smoke and soot. Farber owns a large truck farm near the facility. His entire lettuce crop was destroyed by oil deposits left by the smoke.If Farber asserts a claim against Acme Company for the loss of his lettuce crop, will Farber prevail?
A. No, if Acme did not design the storage facility. 
B. No, because Acme was an independent contractor. 
C. Yes, because the operation of the storage facility was an abnormally dangerous activity. 
D. Yes, if the explosion resulted from a defect of which Acme was aware
Answer: D
Johnson and Tenniel owned Brownacre as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. Johnson executed a mortgage on Brownacre to Lowden in order to secure a loan. Subsequently, but before the indebtedness was paid to Lowden, Johnson died intestate, with Stokes as her only heir at law. The jurisdiction at which Brownacre is located recognizes the title theory of mortgages. In an appropriate action, the court should determine that title to Brownacre is vested
A. in Tenniel, with the entire interest subject to the mortgage. 
B. in Tenniel, free and clear of the mortgage. 
C. half in Tenniel, free of the mortgage, and half in Stokes, subject to the mortgage. 
D. half in Tenniel and half in Stokes, with both subject to the mortgage
Answer: C
Pursuant to a state statute, Clovis applied for tuition assistance to attend the Institute of Liberal Arts. He was qualified for such assistance in every way except that he was a resident alien who did not intend to become a United States citizen. The state's restriction of such grants to United States citizens or resident aliens seeking such citizenship is probably
A. valid, because aliens are not per se "a discrete and insular minority" specially protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. 
B. valid, because the line drawn by the state for extending aid was reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. 99 
C. invalid, because the justifications for this restriction are insufficient to overcome the burden imposed on a state when it uses such an alienage classification. 
D. invalid, because the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV does not permit such an arbitrary classification
Answer: C
A written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $1,000,000 in Vintage for its capital expansion and, in return, that Vintage, from grapes grown in its famous vineyards, would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under the label "Premium VintageBouquet." The contract included provisions that the parties would share equally the profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by Vintage only through Claret, a wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither Bouquet nor Vintage had previously dealt with Claret. Claret learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility. "If Vintage refuses to distribute the wine through Claret and Claret then sues Vintage for breach of contract, is it likely that Claret will prevail?
A. Yes, because Vintage's performance was to run to Claret rather than to Bouquet. 
B. Yes, because Bouquet and Vintage could reasonably foresee that Claret would change his position in reliance on the contract. 
C. No, because Bouquet and Vintage did not expressly agree that Claret would have enforceable rights under their contract. 
D. No, because Bouquet and Vintage, having no apparent motive to benefit Claret, appeared in making the contract to have been protecting or serving only their own interest
Answer: D
A written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $1,000,000 in Vintage for its capital expansion and, in return, that Vintage, from grapes grown in its famous vineyards, would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under the label "Premium VintageBouquet." The contract included provisions that the parties would share equally the profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by Vintage only through Claret, a wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither Bouquet nor Vintage had previously dealt with Claret. Claret learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility. "For this question only, assume the following facts. Amicusbank lent Bouquet $200,000 and Bouquet executed a written instrument providing that Amicusbank "is entitled to collect the debt from my share of the profits, if any, under the Vintage-Bouquet contract." Amicusbank gave prompt notice of this transaction to Vintage. If Vintage thereafter refuses to account for any profits to Amicusbank and Amicusbank sues Vintage for Bouquet's share of profits then realized, Vintage's strongest argument in defense is that
A. the Bouquet-Vintage contract did not expressly authorize an assignment of rights.
B. Bouquet and Vintage are partners, not simply debtor and creditor. 
C. Amicusbank is not an assignee of Bouquet's rights under the BouquetVintage contract.
D. Amicusbank is not an intended thirdparty beneficiary of the Bouquet-Vintage contract
Answer: C
A written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $1,000,000 in Vintage for its capital expansion and, in return, that Vintage, from grapes grown in its famous vineyards, would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under the label "Premium VintageBouquet." The contract included provisions that the parties would share equally the profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by Vintage only through Claret, a wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither Bouquet nor Vintage had previously dealt with Claret. Claret learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility. ""For this question only, assume the following facts. Soon after making its contract with Bouquet, Vintage, without Bouquet's knowledge or assent, sold its vineyards but not its winery to Agribiz, a large agricultural corporation. Under the terms of this sale, Agribiz agreed to sell to Vintage all grapes grown on the land for five years. Agribiz's employees have no experience in wine grape production, and Agribiz has no reputation in the wine industry as a grape producer or otherwise. The Bouquet-Vintage contract was silent on the matter of Vintage's selling any or all of its business assets. If Bouquet seeks an appropriate judicial remedy against Vintage for entering into the VintageAgribiz transaction, is Bouquet likely to prevail?
A. Yes, because the Vintage-Agribiz transaction created a significant risk of diminishing the profits in which Bouquet would share under his contract with Vintage. 
B. Yes, because the Bouquet-Vintage contract did not contain a provision authorizing a delegation of Vintage's duties. 
C. No, because Vintage remains in a position to perform under the Bouquet-Vintage contract. 
D. No, because Vintage, as a corporation, must necessarily perform its contracts by dlegating duties to individual
Answer: A
Which of the following is most likely to be found to be a strict liability offense?
A. A city ordinance providing for a fine of not more than $200 for shoplifting.
B. A federal statute making it a felony to possess heroin.
C. A state statute making it a felony to fail to register a firearm.
D. A state statute making the sale of adulterated milk a misdemeanor
Answer: D
Simmons and Boyd entered into a written contract for the sale and purchase of Wideacre. The contract provided that "Simmons agrees to convey a good and marketable title to Boyd 60 days from the date of this contract." The purchase price was stated as $60,000. At the time set for closing Simmons tendered a deed in the form agreed to in the contract. Boyd's examination of the record prior to the date of closing had disclosed, however, that the owner of record was not Simmons, but Olson. Further investigation by Boyd revealed that, notwithstanding the state of the record, Simmons had been in what Boyd conceded as adverse possession for 15 years. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. Boyd refuses to pay the purchase price or to take possession "because of the inability of Simmons to transfer a marketable title." In an appropriate action by Simmons against Boyd for specific performance, Simmons will 
A. prevail, because he has obtained a "good and marketable title" by adverse possession. 
B. prevail, because Simmons' action for specific performance is an action in rem even though Olson is not a party. 
C. not prevail, because Boyd cannot be required to buy a lawsuit even if the probability is great that Boyd would prevail against Olson. 
D. not prevail, because Simmons' failure to disclose his lack of record title constitutes fraud
Answer: C
When Mary Weld visited Dugan's Alleys to participate in the weekly bowling league competition held there, she brought her twoyear-old son, Bobby, along and left him in a nursery provided by Dugan for the convenience of his customers. The children in the nursery were normally supervised by three attendants, but at this particular time, as Mary Weld knew, there was only one attendant present to care for about 20 children of assorted ages. About 30 minutes later, while the attendant was looking the other way, Bobby suddenly started to cry. The attendant found him lying on his back, picked him up, and called his mother. It was later discovered that Bobby had suffered a skull fracture. If a claim is asserted against Dugan on Bobby's behalf, will Bobby prevail? 
A. Yes, because Dugan owed the child the highest degree of care. 
B. Yes, because a tw0-year-old is incapable of contributory negligence. 
C. No, unless Dugan or his employees failed to exercise reasonable care to assure Bobby's safety. 
D. No, if Mary Weld assumed the risk by leaving Bobby in the nursery
Answer: C