ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Furrow leased in writing a 100-acre farm from Quark for five years at $2,000 per year, with an option to purchase "five acres of the land for $10,000 cash" at the end of the lease term. Before the lease was executed, Quark orally promised to have a five-acre parcel surveyed before the end of the lease term. Furrow took possession of the farm and paid the rent for five years. During the fifth year, having decided that he would exercise the purchase option, Furrow planted several fruit trees and built a large grain silo on the property. At the end of the term, Furrow tendered Quark $10,000 and demanded a conveyance, but Quark repudiated the option agreement and retook possession of the farm. He had never had the five-acre parcel surveyed.In an action by Furrow against Quark for specific performance of the option agreement, which of the following is Quark's best defense?
A. The option part of the agreement is unenforceable because it lacked a separate consideration.
B. The description of the property to be sold in the parties' written agreement is too indefinite to permit the remedy sought.
C. Quark's failure to have the five-acre parcel surveyed was failure of a condition precedent to his own duty of performance.
D. The option part of the agreement is unenforceable under the parol evidence rule.
Answer: B
Furrow leased in writing a 100-acre farm from Quark for five years at $2,000 per year, with an option to purchase "five acres of the land for $10,000 cash" at the end of the lease term. Before the lease was executed, Quark orally promised to have a five-acre parcel surveyed before the end of the lease term. Furrow took possession of the farm and paid the rent for five years. During the fifth year, having decided that he would exercise the purchase option, Furrow planted several fruit trees and built a large grain silo on the property. At the end of the term, Furrow tendered Quark $10,000 and demanded a conveyance, but Quark repudiated the option agreement and retook possession of the farm. He had never had the five-acre parcel surveyed.Assume for this question only that Quark is not liable to Furrow for breach of a land-sale contract. In an action by Furrow against Quark for the reasonable value of the improvements that Furrow added to the farm, which of the following theories would best support Furrow's claim?
A. Quasi-contract, for benefits unofficiously and nongratuitously conferred upon Quark by Furrow. 
B. Tort, for conversion by Quark in retaking possession of the improvements. 
C. Breach of trust by Quark as trustee of a resulting trust of the improvements.
D. Breach by Quark of an implied-in-fact promise (manifested by his retaking possession of the farm and improvements) to compensate Furrow for the improvements
Answer: A
Abco developed a new drug, ZB, for treatment of Wegener's disease. Abco extensively tested ZB for several years on animals and human volunteers and observed no undesirable side effects. The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) then approved ZB for sale as a prescription drug. Five other drug companies, each acting independently, developed drugs identical to 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 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 percent of the Wegener's X sold in the state where Crane lived. It is not possible to establish which of the six 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?
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
Answer: D
A state statute provides that only citizens of the United States may be employed by that state. In an action brought in a federal court, a resident alien who was prevented from obtaining state employment as a garbage collector solely because of his alien status challenged the statute's constitutionality as applied to his circumstances. Which of the following statements concerning the burden of persuasion applicable to this suit is correct?
A. The alien must demonstrate that there is no rational relationship between the citizenship requirement and any legitimate state interest.
B. The alien must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is not necessary to advance an important state interest.
C. The state must demonstrate that there is a rational relationship between the citizenship requirement and a legitimate state interest.
D. The state must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is necessary to advance an important state interest
Answer: D
In litigation over the estate of Baggs, who died intestate, Payton, who is 18 years old, claimed to be Baggs's niece and entitled, therefore, to a share of his large estate. In support of her claim, Payton offered in evidence a Bible, properly identified as having belonged to Baggs's family, in the front of which was a list of family births, marriages, and deaths. The list recorded Payton's birth to Baggs's oldest sister. To prove that Payton is Baggs's niece, the Bible listing is 
A. admissible as an ancient document.
B. admissible as a family record.
C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception. 
D. inadmissible, because there was no showing of firsthand knowledge by the one who wrote it
Answer: B
Smythe was charged with the murder of his wife. In his defense, he testified that at the time he killed her, he believed that his wife was planning to destroy the world by detonating a massive explosive device that she had developed and built in the basement of their home. He further testified that he had tried many times to dissuade his wife from her plan and had tried to destroy devices that she stored in the basement. She had, he testified, foiled his efforts by on two occasions signing papers for his hospitalization, which lasted for a brief period each time. He said that he had concluded that the only way to prevent her scheme was to kill her and that he had become so obsessed with the importance of doing so that he could think of nothing else. One day when he saw her open the door to the basement he lunged at her and pushed her down the steps to her death. The best defense raised by Smythe's testimony is
A. lack of the requisite mental element.
B. lack of the requisite act element.
C. insanity.
D. belief that the situation justified his actions
Answer: C
After being notified by Dr. Josephs that Nurse Norris's employment with his office was terminated, Norris applied for a position with Hospital. In her application, Norris listed her former employment with Josephs. Josephs, in response to a telephone inquiry from Hospital, stated that "Norris lacked professional competence." Although Josephs believed that to be a fair assessment of Norris, his adverse rating was based on one episode of malpractice for which he blamed Norris but which in fact was chargeable to another doctor. Because of the adverse comment on her qualifications provided by Josephs, Norris was not employed by Hospital. If Norris asserts a claim based on defamation against Josephs, will Norris prevail?
A. Yes, because Josephs was mistaken in the facts on which he based his opinion of Norris's competence. 
B. Yes, because the statement of Josephs reflected adversely on Norris's professional competence. 
C. No, if Norris authorized Hospital to make inquiry of her former employer. 
D. No, if Josephs had reasonable grounds for his belief that Norris was not competent.
Answer: D
Pullen used aluminum brackets in her business. On the telephone listed as hers in the telephone book, Pullen received a call in which the caller said, "This is John Denison of Denison Hardware Company. We have a special on aluminum brackets this week at 30 percent off." Pullen ordered brackets from the caller. When the brackets were never delivered, Pullen sued Denison for breach of contract. At trial, Denison, who denies having made the telephone call, objects to Pullen's testimony concerning it. When asked, Pullen testifies that, aside from the telephone call, she had never heard Denison speak until she met him in the judge's chambers before the trial and that, in her opinion, the voice on the telephone was Denison's. The strongest argument for admission of Pullen's testimony concerning the telephone call is that
A. the call related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
B. the call was received at a number assigned to Pullen by the telephone company.
C. after hearing Denison speak in chambers, Pullen recognized Denison's voice as that of the person on the telephone. 
D. self-identification is sufficient authentication of a telephone call
Answer: C
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?
A. The general welfare clause of Article I, Â§ 8. 
B. The federal property clause of Article IV, Â§ 3. 
C. The commerce clause of Article I, Â§ 8. 
D. The supremacy clause of Article VI
Answer: B
Ann leased commercial property to Brenda for a period of 10 years. The lease contained the following provision: "No subleasing or assignment will be permitted unless with the written consent of the lessor." One year later, Brenda assigned all interest in the lease to Carolyn, who assumed and agreed to perform the lessee's obligations under the terms of the lease. Ann learned of the assignment and wrote to Brenda that she had no objection to the assignment to Carolyn and agreed to accept rent from Carolyn instead of Brenda Thereafter, Carolyn paid rent to Ann for a period of five years. Carolyn then defaulted and went into bankruptcy. In an appropriate action, Ann sued Brenda for rent due. If Ann loses, it will be because there was
A. laches.
B. an accord and satisfaction.
C. a novation.
D. an attornment
Answer: C
On January 2, Hugh Homey and Sue Structo entered into a written contract in which Structo agreed to build on Homey's lot a new house for Homey, according to plans and specifications furnished by Homey's architect, Barbara Bilevel, at a contract price of $200,000. The contract provided for specified progress payments and a final payment of $40,000 upon Homey's acceptance of the house and issuance of a certificate of final approval by the architect. Further, under a "liquidated damages" clause in the agreement, Structo promised to pay Homey $500 for each day's delay in completing the house after the following October 1. Homey, however, told Structo on January 2, before the contract was signed, that he would be on an around-the-world vacation trip most of the summer and fall and would not return to occupy the house until November 1."For this question only, assume the following facts. Because she was overextended on other construction jobs, Structo did not complete the house until October 15. Homey returned on November 1 as planned and occupied the house. Ten days later, after making the $40,000 final payment to Structo, Homey learned for the first time that the house had not been completed until October 15. If Homey sues Structo for breach of contract on account of the 15-day delay in completion, which of the following will the court probably decide?
A. Homey will recover damages as specified in the contract, i.e., $500 multiplied by 15. 
B. Homey will recover his actual damages, if any, caused by the delay in completion. 
C. Having waived the delay by occupying the house and making the final payment Homey will recover nothing.
D. Homey will recover nothing because the contractual completion date was impliedly modified to November 1 when Homey on January 2 advised Structo about Homey's prospective trip and return date.
Answer: B
On January 2, Hugh Homey and Sue Structo entered into a written contract in which Structo agreed to build on Homey's lot a new house for Homey, according to plans and specifications furnished by Homey's architect, Barbara Bilevel, at a contract price of $200,000. The contract provided for specified progress payments and a final payment of $40,000 upon Homey's acceptance of the house and issuance of a certificate of final approval by the architect. Further, under a "liquidated damages" clause in the agreement, Structo promised to pay Homey $500 for each day's delay in completing the house after the following October 1. Homey, however, told Structo on January 2, before the contract was signed, that he would be on an around-the-world vacation trip most of the summer and fall and would not return to occupy the house until November 1."For this question only, assume the following facts. Structo completed the house on October 14 and, when Homey returned on November 1, requested the final payment of $40,000 and issuance of a certificate of final approval by the architect, Bilevel. Homey, however, refused to pay any part of the final installment after Bilevel told him, "Structo did a great job and I find no defects worth mentioning; but Structo's contract price was at least $40,000 too high, especially in view of the big drop in housing values within the past 10 months. I will withhold the final certificate, and you just hold on to your money." If Structo sues Homey for the $40,000 final payment after Bilevel's refusal to issue a final certificate, which of the following will the court probably decide?
A. Structo wins, because nonoccurrence of the condition requiring Bilevel's certificate of final approval was excused by Bilevel's bad-faith refusal to issue the certificate. 
B. Structo wins, but, because all contractual conditions have not occurred, her recovery is limited to restitution of the benefit conferred on Homey, minus progress payments already received. 
C. Homey wins, provided he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the fair market value of the completed house is $160,000 or less. 
D. Homey wins, provided he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that total payments to Structo of $160,000 will yield a fair net profit. 
Answer: A
Chemco designed and built a large tank on its premises for the purpose of storing highly toxic gas. The tank developed a sudden leak and escaping toxic gas drifted onto the adjacent premises, where Nyman lived. Nyman inhaled the gas and died as a result. In a suit brought by Nyman's personal representative against Chemco, which of the following must be established if the claim is to prevail? I. The toxic gas that escaped from Chemco's premises was the cause of Nyman's death. II. The tank was built in a defective manner. III. Chemco was negligent in designing the tank.
A. I only.
B. I and II only.
C. I and III only.
D. I, II, and III
Answer: A
Zall, a resident of the state of Paxico, brought suit in federal district court against Motors, Inc., a Paxico corporation. Zall seeks recovery of $12,000 actual and $12,000 punitive damages arising from Motors's sale to him of a defective automobile. Zall's suit is based only on a common law contract theory. From a constitutional standpoint, should the federal district court hear this suit on its merits?
A. Yes, because Article III vests federal courts with jurisdiction over cases involving the obligation of contracts. 
B. Yes, because it is an action affecting interstate commerce. 
C. No, because this suit is not within the jurisdiction of an Article III court. 
D. No, because there is no case or controversy within the meaning of Article III
Answer: C
Pack sued Donlon for slander, alleging that Donlon had publicly accused Pack of being a thief. In his answer, Donlon admitted making the accusation, but alleged that it was a true statement. At trial, Donlon offers evidence that Pack stole a ring worth $10,000 from a jewelry store. Evidence concerning this theft should be
A. admitted, because specific instances of conduct may be proved when character is directly in issue. 
B. admitted, because Pack's action constituted a felony. 
C. excluded, because character must be shown by reputation or opinion. 
D. excluded, because its relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
Answer: A
Rimm and Hill were fooling around with a pistol in Hill's den. Rimm aimed the pistol in Hill's direction and fired three shots slightly to Hill's right. One shot ricocheted off the wall and struck Hill in the back, killing him instantly. The most serious crime of which Rimm can be convicted is 
A. murder.
B. voluntary manslaughter.
C. involuntary manslaughter.
D. assault with a dangerous weapon
Answer: A
Oaks, the owner of Blackacre, conveyed a rightof-way to United Utility "for the underground transportation of gas by pipeline, the location of right-of-way to be mutually agreed upon by Oaks and United Utility." United Utility then installed a six-inch pipeline at a location selected by it and not objected to by Oaks. Two years later, United Utility advised Oaks of its intention to install an additional six-inch pipeline parallel to and three feet laterally from the original pipeline. In an appropriate action, Oaks sought a declaration that United Utility has no right to install the second pipeline. If Oaks prevails, it will be because
A. any right implied to expand the original use of the right-of-way creates an interest that violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.
B. the original installation by United Utility defined the scope of the easement.
C. Oaks did not expressly agree to the location of the right-of-way.
D. the assertion of the right to install an additional pipeline constitutes inverse condemnation.
Answer: B
A statute authorizes a specified federal administrative agency to issue rules governing the distribution of federal grant funds for scientific research. The statute provides that, in issuing those rules, the agency must follow procedures and substantive standards contained in the statute. In a severable provision, the statute also provides that otherwise valid rules issued by the agency under authority delegated to it by this statute may be set aside by a majority vote of a designated standing joint committee of Congress. The provision of this statute relating to the power of the designated standing joint committee of Congress is
A. constitutional, because it is a necessary and proper means of ensuring that the rules issued by this agency are actually consistent with the will of Congress. 
B. constitutional, because discretionary money grants authorized by statute are privileges, not rights, and therefore Congress has greater freedom to intervene in their administration than it has to intervene in the administration of regulatory laws. 
C. unconstitutional, because it denies equal protection of the laws to members of Congress who are not appointed to the joint legislative committee authorized to set aside rules of this agency. 
D. unconstitutional, because it authorizes a congressional change of legal rights and obligations by means other than those specified in the Constitution for the enactment of laws.
Answer: D
Perez sued Dawson for damages arising out of an automobile collision. At trial, Perez called Minter, an eyewitness to the collision. Perez expected Minter to testify that she had observed Dawson's automobile for five seconds prior to the collision and estimated Dawson's speed at the time of the collision to have been 50 miles per hour. Instead, Minter testified that she estimated Dawson's speed to have been 25 miles per hour. Without finally excusing Minter as a witness, Perez then called Wallingford, a police officer, to testify that Minter had told him during his investigation at the accident scene that Dawson "was doing at least 50." Wallingford's testimony is 
A. admissible as a present sense impression.
B. admissible to impeach Minter.
C. inadmissible, because Perez may not impeach his own witness. 
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception
Answer: B
On August 1, Geriatrics, Inc., operating a "lifetime care" home for the elderly, admitted Ohlster, who was 84 years old, for a trial period of two months. On September 25, Ohlster and Geriatrics entered into a written lifetime care contract with an effective commencement date of October 1. The full contract price was $20,000, which, as required by the terms of the contract, Ohlster prepaid to Geriatrics on September 25. Ohlster died of a heart attack on October 2. In a restitutionary action, can the administratrix of Ohlster's estate, a surviving sister, recover on behalf of the estate either all or part of the $20,000 paid to Geriatrics on September 25? 
A. Yes, because Geriatrics would otherwise be unjustly enriched at Ohlster's expense. 
B. Yes, under the doctrine of frustration of purpose. 
C. No, because Ohlster's life span and the duration of Geriatrics' commitment to him was a risk assumed by both parties. 
D. No, but only if Geriatrics can show that between September 25 and Ohlster's death it rejected, because of its commitment to Ohlster, an application for lifetime care from another elderly perso
Answer: C
Frank owned two adjacent parcels, Blackacre and Whiteacre. Blackacre fronts on a poor unpaved public road, while Whiteacre fronts on Route 20, a paved major highway. Fifteen years ago, Frank conveyed to his son, Sam, Blackacre "together with a right-of-way 25 feet wide over the east side of Whiteacre to Route 20." At that time, Blackacre was improved with a 10-unit motel. Ten years ago, Frank died. His will devised Whiteacre "to my son, Sam, for life, remainder to my daughter, Doris." Five years ago, Sam executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed, purporting to convey Blackacre and Whiteacre to Joe in fee simple. Joe then enlarged the motel to 12 units. Six months ago, Sam died and Doris took possession of Whiteacre. She brought an appropriate action to enjoin Joe from using the right-of-way. In this action, who should prevail?
A. Doris, because merger extinguished the easement. 
B. Doris, because Joe has overburdened the easement. 
C. Joe, because he has an easement by necessity. 
D. Joe, because he has the easement granted by Frank to Sam
Answer: D
Able and Baker are students in an advanced high school Russian class. During an argument one day in the high school cafeteria, in the presence of other students, Able, in Russian, accused Baker of taking money from Able's locker. In a suit by Baker against Able based on defamation, Baker will
A. prevail, because Able's accusation constituted slander per se. 
B. prevail, because the defamatory statement was made in the presence of third persons. 
C. not prevail, unless Able made the accusation with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. 
D. not prevail, unless one or more of the other students understood Russian
Answer: D