ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Customer, aged 20, went into Store at approximately 6:45 p.m. to look at some suits that were on sale. The clerks were busy, and one of them told Customer that he should wait on himself. Customer selected three suits from a rack and went into the dressing room to try them on. Signs posted on the walls of Store stated that 58 closing time was 9:00 p.m.; however, because of a special awards banquet for employees, Store was closed at 7:00 p.m. on this day. The employees, in a hurry to get to the banquet, did not check the dressing rooms or turn off the lights before leaving. When Customer emerged from the dressing room a few minutes after 7:00 p.m., he was alone and locked in. Customer tried the front door, but it was secured on the outside by a bar and padlock, so he went to the rear door. Customer grabbed the doorknob and vigorously shook the door. It did not open, but the activity set off a mechanism that had been installed because of several recent thefts committed by persons who had hidden in the store until after closing time. The mechanism sprayed a chemical mist in Customer's face, causing him to become temporarily blind. The mechanism also activated an alarm carried by Store's employee, Watchman, who was just coming to work. Watchman unlocked the front door, ran into the store and grabbed Customer. Customer, who was still unable to see, struck out at this person and hit a metal rack, injuring his hand. Watchman then identified himself, and Customer did the same. After assuring himself that Customer was telling the truth, Watchman allowed him to leave. If Customer is to prevail on a claim against Store based on battery from the use of the chemical spray, Customer must establish that 
A. he suffered severe bodily harm.
B. the spray mist was an offensive or harmful contact.
C. he suffered severe emotional distress.
D. his conduct was not a factual cause of the chemical's being sprayed on him
Answer: B
Dock was the unsuccessful suitor of Mary, who recently announced her engagement to Paul. Angered by her engagement, Dock sent Mary the following letter: "I hope you know what you are doing. The man you think you love wears women's clothes when at home. A Friend." The receipt of this letter caused Mary great emotional distress. She hysterically telephoned Paul, read him the letter, and told him that she was breaking their engagement. The contents of the letter were not revealed to others Paul, who was a young attorney in the state attorney's office, suffered serious humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the broken engagement. If Paul asserts a claim against Dock based on defamation and it is proved that Dock's statement was true, such proof will be
A. a defense by itself.
B. a defense only if Dock was not actuated by malice.
C. a defense only if Dock reasonably believed it to be true.
D. no defense by itself
Answer: A
Pemberton and three passengers, Able, Baker, and Charley, were injured when their car was struck by a truck owned by Mammoth Corporation and driven by Edwards. Helper, also a Mammoth employee, was riding in the truck. The issues in Pemberton v Mammoth include the negligence of Edwards in driving too fast and failing to wear glasses, and of Pemberton in failing to yield the right of way"Pemberton's counsel proffers evidence showing that shortly after the accident Mammoth put a speed governor on the truck involved in the accident. The judge should rule the proffered evidence
A. admissible as an admission of a party.
B. admissible as res gestae.
C. inadmissible for public policy reasons.
D. inadmissible, because it would lead to the drawing of an inference on an inference
Answer: C
Pemberton and three passengers, Able, Baker, and Charley, were injured when their car was struck by a truck owned by Mammoth Corporation and driven by Edwards. Helper, also a Mammoth employee, was riding in the truck. The issues in Pemberton v Mammoth include the negligence of Edwards in driving too fast and failing to wear glasses, and of Pemberton in failing to yield the right of way"Pemberton's counsel seeks to introduce Helper's written statement that Edwards, Mammoth's driver, left his glasses (required by his operator's license) at the truck stop when they left it five minutes before the accident. The judge should rule the statement admissible only if
A. Pemberton first proves that Helper was an agent of Mammoth and that the statement concerned a matter within the scope of his agency.
B. Pemberton produces independent evidence that Edwards was not wearing corrective lenses at the time of the accident.
C. Helper is shown to be beyond the process of the court and unavailable to testify.
D. the statement was under oath in affidavit form.
Answer: A
Pemberton and three passengers, Able, Baker, and Charley, were injured when their car was struck by a truck owned by Mammoth Corporation and driven by Edwards. Helper, also a Mammoth employee, was riding in the truck. The issues in Pemberton v Mammoth include the negligence of Edwards in driving too fast and failing to wear glasses, and of Pemberton in failing to yield the right of way"Mammoth's counsel seeks to have Sheriff testify that while he was investigating the accident he 59 was told by Pemberton, "This was probably our fault." The judge should rule the proffered evidence
A. admissible as an admission of a party.
B. admissible, because it is a statement made to a police officer in the course of an official investigation. 
C. inadmissible, because it is a mixed conclusion of law and fact. 
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception
Answer: 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 an 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." The ordinance has not yet had either judicial or administrative interpretation. Which of the following is the strongest argument for the unconstitutionality of both parts of the ordinance on their face?
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 assured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments
Answer: B
While Defendant was in jail on a procuring charge, his landlord called the police because rent had not been paid and because he detected a disagreeable odor coming from Defendant's apartment into the hallways. The police officer who responded to the call knew that Defendant was in jail. He recognized the stench coming from Defendant's apartment as that of  decomposing flesh and, without waiting to obtain a warrant and using the landlord's passkey, entered the apartment with the landlord's consent. The lease to these premises gave the landlord a right of entry, at any reasonable hour, for the purpose of making repairs. The police officer found a large trunk in the bedroom which seemed to be the source of the odor. Upon breaking it open, he found the remains of Rosette, Defendant's former mistress. "The landlord's consent to the police officer's search of Defendant's apartment is
A. a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, because a landlord has implied consent to enter a tenant's apartment. 
B. a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, because the lease gave the landlord express authority to enter the premises. 
C. not a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, because the landlord lacked probable cause to believe that a crime was then in the process of commission. 
D. not a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, because the landlord had neither actual nor apparent authority to permit the entry
Answer: D
While Defendant was in jail on a procuring charge, his landlord called the police because rent had not been paid and because he detected a disagreeable odor coming from Defendant's apartment into the hallways. The police officer who responded to the call knew that Defendant was in jail. He recognized the stench coming from Defendant's apartment as that of  decomposing flesh and, without waiting to obtain a warrant and using the landlord's passkey, entered the apartment with the landlord's consent. The lease to these premises gave the landlord a right of entry, at any reasonable hour, for the purpose of making repairs. The police officer found a large trunk in the bedroom which seemed to be the source of the odor. Upon breaking it open, he found the remains of Rosette, Defendant's former mistress. "If Defendant undertakes to challenge the search of his apartment, he has
A. standing, because the items seized in the search were incriminating in nature. 
B. standing, because he still has a sufficient interest in the apartment even while in jail. 
C. no standing, because his landlord authorized the search. 
D. no standing, because he was out of the apartment when the search occurred and had not paid his rent
Answer: B
Seller and Buyer execute an agreement for the sale of real property on September 1, 1971. The jurisdiction in which the property is located recognizes the principle of equitable conversion and has no statute pertinent to this problem."Assume for this question only that Seller dies before closing and his will leaves his personal property to Perry and his real property to Rose. 60 There being no breach of the agreement by either party, which of the following is correct?
A. Death, an eventuality for which the parties could have provided, terminates the agreement if they did not so provide. 
B. Rose is entitled to the proceeds of the sale when it closes, because the doctrine of equitable conversion does not apply to these circumstances. 
C. Perry is entitled to the proceeds of the sale when it closes.
D. Title was rendered unmarketable by Seller's death
Answer: C
Seller and Buyer execute an agreement for the sale of real property on September 1, 1971. The jurisdiction in which the property is located recognizes the principle of equitable conversion and has no statute pertinent to this problem."Assume for this question only that Buyer dies before closing, there being no breach of the agreement by either party. Which of the following is appropriate in most jurisdictions?
A. Buyer's heir may specifically enforce the agreement.
B. Seller has the right to return the down payment and cancel the contract.
C. Death terminates the agreement.
D. Any title acquired would be unmarketable by reason of Buyer's death.
Answer: A
Farquart had made a legally binding promise to furnish his son Junior and the latter's fiancÃ©e a house on their wedding day, planned for June 10, 1972. Pursuant to that promise, Farquart telephoned his old contractor-friend Sawtooth on May 1, 1971, and made the following oral agreement each making full and accurate written notes thereof: Sawtooth was to cut 30 trees into fireplace logs from a specified portion of a certain oneacre plot owned by Farquart, and Farquart was to pay therefor $20 per tree. Sawtooth agreed further to build a house on the plot conforming to the specifications of Plan OP5 published by Builders, Inc., for a construction price of $18,000. Farquart agreed to make payments of $2,000 on the first of every month for nine months beginning August 1, 1971, upon monthly presentation of a certificate by Builders, Inc., that the specifications of Plan OP5 were being met. Sawtooth delivered the cut logs to Farquart in July 1971, when he also began building the house. Farquart made three $2,000 payments for the work done in July, August, and September 1971, without requiring a certificate. Sawtooth worked through October, but no work was done from November 1, 1971, to the end of February 1972, because of bad weather, and Farquart made no payments during that period. Sawtooth did not object. On March 1, 1972, Sawtooth demanded payment of $2,000; but Farquart refused on the grounds that no construction work had been done for four months and Builders had issued no certificate. Sawtooth thereupon abandoned work and repudiated the agreement. "Assuming that Sawtooth committed a total breach on March 1, 1972, what would be the probable measure of Farquart's damages in an action against Sawtooth for breach of contract?
A. Restitution of the three monthly installments paid in August, September, and October. 
B. What it would cost to get the house completed by another contractor, minus installments not yet paid to Sawtooth. 
C. The difference between the market value of the partly built house, as of the time of Sawtooth's breach, and the market value of the house if completed according to specifications. 
D. In addition to other legally allowable damages, an allowance for Farquart's mental distress if the house cannot be completed in time for Junior's wedding on June 10, 1972.
Answer: B
Farquart had made a legally binding promise to furnish his son Junior and the latter's fiancÃ©e a house on their wedding day, planned for June 10, 1972. Pursuant to that promise, Farquart telephoned his old contractor-friend Sawtooth on May 1, 1971, and made the following oral agreement each making full and accurate written notes thereof: Sawtooth was to cut 30 trees into fireplace logs from a specified portion of a certain oneacre plot owned by Farquart, and Farquart was to pay therefor $20 per tree. Sawtooth agreed further to build a house on the plot conforming to the specifications of Plan OP5 published by Builders, Inc., for a construction price of $18,000. Farquart agreed to make payments of $2,000 on the first of every month for nine months beginning August 1, 1971, upon monthly presentation of a certificate by Builders, Inc., that the specifications of Plan OP5 were being met. Sawtooth delivered the cut logs to Farquart in July 1971, when he also began building the house. Farquart made three $2,000 payments for the work done in July, August, and September 1971, without requiring a certificate. Sawtooth worked through October, but no work was done from November 1, 1971, to the end of February 1972, because of bad weather, and Farquart made no payments during that period. Sawtooth did not object. On March 1, 1972, Sawtooth demanded payment of $2,000; but Farquart refused on the grounds that no construction work had been done for four months and Builders had issued no certificate. Sawtooth thereupon abandoned work and repudiated the agreement. "Assuming that Sawtooth committed a total breach on March 1, 1972, and assuming further that he was aware when the agreement was made of the purpose for which Farquart wanted the completed house, which of the following, if true, would best support Farquart's claim for consequential damages on account of delay beyond June 10, 1972, in getting the house finished?
A. Junior and his bride, married on June 10, 1972, had to pay storage charges on their wedding gifts and new furniture until the house was completed. 
B. Junior's fiancÃ©e jilted Junior on June 10, 1972, and ran off with another man who had a new house. 
C. Farquart was put to additional expense in providing Junior and his bride, married on June 10, 1972, with temporary housing. 
D. On June 10, 1972, Farquart paid a $5,000 judgment obtained against him in a suit filed March 15, 1972, by an adjoining 61 landowner on account of Farquart's negligent excavation, including blasting, in an attempt to finish the house himself after Sawtooth's repudiation.
Answer: C
Farquart had made a legally binding promise to furnish his son Junior and the latter's fiancÃ©e a house on their wedding day, planned for June 10, 1972. Pursuant to that promise, Farquart telephoned his old contractor-friend Sawtooth on May 1, 1971, and made the following oral agreement each making full and accurate written notes thereof: Sawtooth was to cut 30 trees into fireplace logs from a specified portion of a certain oneacre plot owned by Farquart, and Farquart was to pay therefor $20 per tree. Sawtooth agreed further to build a house on the plot conforming to the specifications of Plan OP5 published by Builders, Inc., for a construction price of $18,000. Farquart agreed to make payments of $2,000 on the first of every month for nine months beginning August 1, 1971, upon monthly presentation of a certificate by Builders, Inc., that the specifications of Plan OP5 were being met. Sawtooth delivered the cut logs to Farquart in July 1971, when he also began building the house. Farquart made three $2,000 payments for the work done in July, August, and September 1971, without requiring a certificate. Sawtooth worked through October, but no work was done from November 1, 1971, to the end of February 1972, because of bad weather, and Farquart made no payments during that period. Sawtooth did not object. On March 1, 1972, Sawtooth demanded payment of $2,000; but Farquart refused on the grounds that no construction work had been done for four months and Builders had issued no certificate. Sawtooth thereupon abandoned work and repudiated the agreement. "What was the probable legal effect of the following? I. Sawtooth's failure to object to Farquart's making no payments on November 1, December 1, January 1, and February 1. II. Farquart's making payments in August through October without requiring a certificate from Builders.
A. Estoppel-type waiver as to both I and II.
B. Waiver of delay in payment as to I and revocable waiver as to II.
C. Mutual rescission of the contract by I combined with II.
D. Discharge of Farquart's duty to make the four payments as to I and estoppel-type waiver as to II
Answer: B
Construction Company contracted to build a laundry for Wash Company on the latter's vacant lot in a residential area. As a part of its work, Construction Company dug a trench from the partially completed laundry to the edge of a public sidewalk; water pipes were to be installed in the trench. Because of the contour of the land, the trench was dug to a depth ranging from seven to nine feet. Construction Company did not place any barriers around the trench and permitted it to lie open for almost a week while Construction Company waited for delivery of the water pipes. This was known to Wash Company, but it raised no objection. During the time the trench was open, a series of heavy rains fell, causing five feet of surface water to gather in the bottom of the trench. While this condition existed, five-year-old Tommy, who was playing on the vacant lot with friends, stumbled and fell into the trench. Robert, an adult passerby, saw this and immediately lowered himself into the trench to rescue Tommy. However, his doing so caused the rainsoaked walls of the trench to collapse, killing both him and Tommy. In a claim for wrongful death by Tommy's administrator against Construction Company, the most likely result is that the administrator will
A. recover, because Construction Company left the open trench unprotected. 
B. recover, because construction companies are strictly liable for inherently dangerous conditions. 
C. not recover, because Tommy was a trespasser. 
D. not recover, because Tommy's death was a result of the collapse of the trench, an independent intervening cause
Answer: A
Doctor, a licensed physician, resided in her own home. The street in front of the home had a gradual slope. Doctor's garage was on the street level, with a driveway entrance from the street. At two in the morning, Doctor received an emergency call. She dressed and went to the garage to get her car and found a car parked in front of her driveway. That car was occupied by Parker, who, while intoxicated, had driven to that place and now was in a drunken stupor in the front seat. Unable to rouse Parker, Doctor pushed him into the passenger's side of the front seat and got in on the driver's side. Doctor released the brake and coasted the car down the street, planning to pull into a parking space that was open. When Doctor attempted to stop the car, the brakes failed to work, and the car crashed into the wall of Owner's home, damaging Owner's home and Parker's car and injuring Doctor and Parker. Subsequent examination of the car disclosed that the brake linings were badly worn. A state statute prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle unless the brakes are capable of stopping the vehicle within specified distances at specified speeds. The brakes on Parker's car were incapable of stopping the vehicle within the limits required by the statute. Another state statute makes it a criminal offense to be intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle. If Parker asserts a claim against Doctor for his injuries, Parker will probably
A. recover, because Doctor was negligent as a matter of law 
B. recover, because Doctor had no right to move the car. 
C. not recover, because his brakes were defective. 
D. not recover, because he was in a drunken stupor when injured
Answer: C
In a contract suit between Terrell and Ward, Ward testifies that he recalls having his first conversation with Terrell on January 3. When asked how he remembers the date, he answers, "In the conversation, Terrell referred to a story in that day's newspaper announcing my daughter's engagement." Terrell's counsel moves to strike the reference to the newspaper story. The judge should
A. grant the motion on the ground that the best evidence rule requires production of the newspaper itself.
B. grant the motion, because the reference to the newspaper story does not fit within any established exception to the hearsay rule. 
C. deny the motion on the ground that the court may take judicial notice of local newspapers and their contents.
D. deny the motion on the ground that a witness may refer to collateral documents without providing the documents themselves
Answer: D
Bill and Chuck hated Vic and agreed to start a fight with Vic and, if the opportunity arose, to kill him. Bill and Chuck met Vic in the street outside a bar and began to push him around. Ray, Sam, and Tom, who also hated Vic, stopped to watch. Ray threw Bill a knife. Sam told Bill, "Kill him." Tom, who made no move and said nothing, hoped that Bill would kill Vic with the knife. Chuck held Vic while Bill stabbed and killed him.On a charge of murdering Vic, Sam is
A. not guilty, because his words did not create a "clear and present danger" not already existing. 
B. not guilty, because mere presence and oral encouragement, whether or not he had the requisite intent, do not make him guilty as an accomplice. 
C. guilty, because, with the intent to have Bill kill Vic, he shouted encouragement to Bill. 
D. guilty, because he aided and abetted the murder through his mere presence plus his intent to see Vic killed
Answer: C
Bill and Chuck hated Vic and agreed to start a fight with Vic and, if the opportunity arose, to kill him. Bill and Chuck met Vic in the street outside a bar and began to push him around. Ray, Sam, and Tom, who also hated Vic, stopped to watch. Ray threw Bill a knife. Sam told Bill, "Kill him." Tom, who made no move and said nothing, hoped that Bill would kill Vic with the knife. Chuck held Vic while Bill stabbed and killed him.On a charge of murdering Vic, Tom is
A. not guilty, because mere presence, coupled with silent approval and intent, is not sufficient. 
B. not guilty, because he did not tell Bill ahead of time that he hoped Bill would murder Vic. 
C. guilty, because he had a duty to stop the killing and made no attempt to do so. 
D. guilty, because he was present and approved of what occurred
Answer: A