ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
On November 15, Joiner in a signed writing contracted with Galley for an agreed price to personally remodel Galley's kitchen according to specifications provided by Galley, and to start work on December 1. Joiner agreed to provide all materials for the job in addition to all of the labor required. For this question only, assume that on November 26 Joiner without legal excuse repudiated the contract and that Galley, after a reasonable and prolonged effort, could not find anyone to remodel his kitchen for a price approximating the price agreed to by Joiner. If one year later Galley brings an action for specific performance against Joiner, which of the following will provide Joiner with the best defense? 
A. An action for equitable relief not brought within a reasonable time is barred by laches.
B. Specific performance is generally not available as a remedy to enforce a contractual duty to perform personal services.
C. Specific performance is generally not available as a remedy in the case of an anticipatory repudiation.
D. Specific performance is not available as a remedy where even nominal damages could have been recovered as a remedy at law.
Answer: B
On November 15, Joiner in a signed writing contracted with Galley for an agreed price to personally remodel Galley's kitchen according to specifications provided by Galley, and to start work on December 1. Joiner agreed to provide all materials for the job in addition to all of the labor required. For this question only, assume the following facts. On November 26, Galley without legal excuse repudiated the contract. Notwithstanding Galley's repudiation, however, Joiner subsequently purchased for $5,000 materials that could only be used in remodeling Galley's kitchen, and promptly notified Galley, "I will hold you to our contract." If allowed to perform, Joiner would have made a profit of $3,000 on the job. If Galley refuses to retract his repudiation, and Joiner sues him for damages, what is the maximum that Joiner is entitled to recover? 
A. Nothing, because he failed to mitigate his damages. 
B. $3,000, his expectancy damages. 
C. $5,000, on a restitutionary theory. 
D. $5,000, his reliance damages, plus $3,000, his expectancy damages. 
Answer: B
The police suspected that Yancey, a 16-year-old high school student, had committed a series of burglaries. Two officers went to Yancey's high school and asked the principal to call Yancey out of class and to search his backpack. While the officers waited, the principal took Yancey into the hall where she asked to look in his backpack. When Yancey refused, the principal grabbed it from him, injuring Yancey's shoulder in the process. In the backpack, she found jewelry that she turned over to the officers. The officers believed that the jewelry had been taken in one of the burglaries. They arrested Yancey, took him to the station, and gave him Miranda warnings. Yancey asked to see a lawyer. The police called Yancey's parents to the station. When Yancey's parents arrived, the police asked them to speak with Yancey. They put them in a room and secretly recorded their conversation with a concealed electronic device. Yancey broke down and confessed to his parents that he had committed the burglaries. Yancey was charged with the burglaries. Yancey moves to suppress the use of the jewelry. The court should 
A. deny the motion on the ground that the search was incident to a lawful arrest.
B. deny the motion on the ground that school searches are reasonable if conducted by school personnel on school grounds on the basis of reasonable suspicion.
C. grant the motion on the ground that the (C) grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted with excessive force.
D. grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted without probable cause or a warrant.
Answer: D
The police suspected that Yancey, a 16-year-old high school student, had committed a series of burglaries. Two officers went to Yancey's high school and asked the principal to call Yancey out of class and to search his backpack. While the officers waited, the principal took Yancey into the hall where she asked to look in his backpack. When Yancey refused, the principal grabbed it from him, injuring Yancey's shoulder in the process. In the backpack, she found jewelry that she turned over to the officers. The officers believed that the jewelry had been taken in one of the burglaries. They arrested Yancey, took him to the station, and gave him Miranda warnings. Yancey asked to see a lawyer. The police called Yancey's parents to the station. When Yancey's parents arrived, the police asked them to speak with Yancey. They put them in a room and secretly recorded their conversation with a concealed electronic device. Yancey broke down and confessed to his parents that he had committed the burglaries. Yancey was charged with the burglaries. Assume for this question only that the court denied the motion to suppress the jewelry. Yancey moves to suppress the use of the statement Yancey made to his parents. The best argument for excluding it would be that 
A. Yancey was in custody at the time the statement was recorded.
B. the police did not comply with Yancey's request for a lawyer.
C. once Yancey had invoked his right to counsel, it was improper for the police to listen to any of his private conversations. 
D. the meeting between Yancey and his parents was arranged by the police to obtain an incriminating statement. obtain an incriminating statement.
Answer: D
A newly enacted federal statute appropriates $100 million in federal funds to support basic research by universities located in the United States. The statute provides that "the ten best universities in the United States" will each receive $10 million. It also provides that "the ten best universities" shall be "determined by a poll of the presidents of all the universities in the nation, to be conducted by the United States Department of Education." In responding to that poll, each university president is required to apply the wellrecognized and generally accepted standards of academic quality that are specified in the statute. The provisions of the statute are inseverable. Which of the following statements about this statute is correct? 
A. The statute is unconstitutional, because the reliance by Congress on a poll of individuals who are not federal officials to determine the recipients of its appropriated funds is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 
B. The statute is unconstitutional, because the limitation on recipients to the ten best universities is arbitrary and capricious and denies other high quality universities the equal protection of the laws. 
C. The statute is constitutional, because Congress has plenary authority to determine the objects of its spending and the methods used to achieve them, so long as they may reasonably be deemed to serve the general welfare and do not violate any prohibitory language in the Constitution. 
D. The validity of the statute is nonjusticiable, because the use by Congress of its spending power necessarily involves political considerations that must be resolved considerations that must be resolved finally by those branches of the government that are closest to the political process. 
Answer: C
Which of the following fact patterns most clearly suggests an implied-in-fact contract?
A. A county tax assessor mistakenly bills Algernon for taxes on Bathsheba's property, which Algernon, in good faith, pays. 
B. Meddick, a physician, treated Ryder without Ryder's knowledge or consent, while Ryder was unconscious as the result of a fall from his horse. 
C. Asphalt, thinking that he was paving Customer's driveway, for which Asphalt had an express contract, mistakenly paved Nabor's driveway while Nabor looked on without saying anything or raising any objection. 
D. At her mother's request, Iris, an accountant, filled out and filed her mother's "E-Z" income-tax form (a simple, short form). 
Answer: C
Ashton owned Woodsedge, a tract used for commercial purposes, in fee simple and thereafter mortgaged it to First Bank. She signed a promissory note secured by a duly executed and recorded mortgage. There was no "due on sale" clause, that is, no provision that, upon sale, the whole balance then owing would become due and owing. Ashton conveyed Woodsedge to Beam "subject to a mortgage to First Bank, which the grantee assumes and agrees to pay." Beam conveyed Woodsedge to Carter "subject to an existing mortgage to First Bank." A copy of the note and the mortgage that secured it had been exhibited to each grantee. After Carter made three timely payments, no further payments were made by any party. In fact, the real estate had depreciated to a point where it was worth less than the debt. There is no applicable statute or regulation. In an appropriate foreclosure action, First Bank joined Ashton, Beam, and Carter as defendants. At the foreclosure sale, although the fair market value for Woodsedge in its depreciated state was obtained, a deficiency resulted. First Bank is entitled to collect a deficiency judgment against 
A. Ashton only.
B. Ashton and Beam only.
C. Beam and Carter only.
D. Ashton, Beam, and Carter. 
Answer: B
Landco purchased a large tract of land intending to construct residential housing on it. Landco hired Poolco to build a large inground swimming pool on the tract. The contract provided that Poolco would carry out blasting operations that were necessary to create an excavation large enough for the pool. create an excavation large enough for the pool. The blasting caused cracks to form in the walls of Plaintiff's home in a nearby residential neighborhood. In Plaintiff's action for damages against Landco, Plaintiff should 
A. prevail, only if Landco retained the right to direct and control Poolco's construction of the pool. 
B. prevail, because the blasting that Poolco was hired to perform damaged Plaintiff's home. 
C. not prevail, if Poolco used reasonable care in conducting the blasting operations. 
D. not prevail, if Landco used reasonable care to hire a competent contractor. 
Answer: B
The state of Atlantica spends several million dollars a year on an oyster conservation program. As part of that program, the state limits, by statute, oyster fishing in its coastal waters to persons who have state oyster permits. In order to promote conservation, it issues only a limited number of oyster permits each year. The permits are effective for only one year from the date of their issuance and are awarded on the basis of a lottery, in which there is no differentiation between resident and nonresident applicants. However, each nonresident who obtains a permit is charged an annual permit fee that is $5 more than the fee charged residents. Fisher, Inc., is a large fishing company that operates from a port in another state and is incorporated in that other state. Each of the boats of Fisher, Inc., has a federal shipping license that permits it "to engage in all aspects of the coastal trade, to fish and to carry cargo from place to place along the coast, and to engage in other lawful activities along the coast of the United States." These shipping licenses are authorized by federal statute. Assume no other federal statutes or Assume no other federal statutes or administrative rules apply. Although it had previously held an Atlantica oyster permit, Fisher, Inc., did not obtain a permit in that state's lottery this year. Which of the following is the strongest argument that can be made in support of a continued right of Fisher, Inc., to fish for oysters this year in the coastal waters of Atlantica? 
A. Because the Atlantica law provides higher permit charges for nonresidents, it is an undue burden on interstate commerce. 
B. Because the Atlantica law provides higher permit charges for nonresidents, it denies Fisher, Inc., the privileges and immunities of state citizenship. 
C. Because it holds a federal shipping license, Fisher, Inc., has a right to fish for oysters in Atlantica waters despite the state law. 
D. Because Fisher, Inc., previously held an Atlantica oyster permit and Atlantica knows that company is engaged in a continuing business operation, the refusal to grant Fisher, Inc., a permit this year is a taking of its property without due process of law. 
Answer: C
The United States Department of the Interior granted Concessionaire the food and drink concession in a federal park located in the state of New Senora. Concessionaire operated his concession out of federally owned facilities in the park. The federal statute authorizing the Interior Department to grant such concessions provided that the grantees would pay only a nominal rental for use of these federal facilities because of the great benefit their concessions would provide to the people of the United States. The legislature of the state of New Senora enacted a statute imposing an occupancy tax on the occupants of real estate within that state that is not subject to state real estate taxes. The statute was intended to equalize the state tax burden on such occupants with that on people occupying real estate that is subject to state real estate taxes. Pursuant to that statute, the New Senora Department of Revenue attempted to collect the state occupancy tax from Concessionaire because the federal facilities occupied by Concessionaire were not subject to state real estate taxes. Concessionaire sued to invalidate the state occupancy tax as applied to him. The strongest ground upon which Concessionaire could challenge the occupancy tax is that it violates the 
A. commerce clause by unduly burdening the interstate tourist trade.
B. privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by interfering with the fundamental right to do business on federal property.
C. equal protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the tax treats him less favorably than federal concessionaires in other states who do not have to pay such occupancy taxes.
D. supremacy clause of Article VI and the federal statute authorizing such concessions.
Answer: D
Davis has a small trampoline in his backyard which, as he knows, is commonly used by neighbor children as well as his own. The trampoline is in good condition, is not defective in any way, and normally is surrounded by mats to prevent injury if a user should fall off. Prior to leaving with his family for the day, Davis leaned the trampoline up against the side of the house and placed the mats in the garage. While the Davis family was away, Philip, aged 11, a new boy in the neighborhood, wandered into Davis's yard and saw the trampoline. Philip had not previously been aware of its presence, but, having frequently used a trampoline before, he decided to set it up, and started to jump. He lost his balance on one jump and took a hard fall on the bare ground, jump and took a hard fall on the bare ground, suffering a serious injury that would have been prevented by the mats. An action has been brought against Davis on Philip's behalf to recover damages for the injuries Philip sustained from his fall. In this jurisdiction, the traditional common-law rules pertaining to contributory negligence have been replaced by a pure comparative negligence rule. In his action against Davis, will Philip prevail? 
A. No, if children likely to be attracted by the trampoline would normally realize the risk of using it without mats. 
B. No, if Philip failed to exercise reasonable care commensurate with his age, intelligence, and experience. 
C. No, because Philip entered Davis's yard and used the trampoline without Davis's permission. 
D. No, because Philip did not know about the trampoline before entering Davis's yard and thus was not "lured" onto the premises. 
Answer: A
Deben was charged with using a forged prescription from a Dr. Kohl to obtain PercodanÂ® from Smith's Drugstore on May 1. At trial, Smith identified Deben as the customer, but Deben testified that he had not been in the store. In rebuttal, the prosecutor calls Wallman and Witler to testify that on May 1 a man they identified as Deben had presented prescriptions for PercodanÂ® from a Dr. Kohl at, respectively, Wallman's Drugs and Witler's Drugstore. Wallman's and Witler's testimony is 
A. admissible, to prove a pertinent trait of Deben's character and Deben's action in conformity therewith. conformity therewith. 
B. admissible, to identify the man who presented the prescription at Smith's Drugstore. 
C. inadmissible, because it proves specific acts rather than reputation or opinion. 
D. inadmissible, because other crimes may not be used to show propensity. 
Answer: B
An ordinance of the city of Green requires that its mayor must have been continuously a resident of the city for at least five years at the time he or she takes office. Candidate, who is thinking about running for mayor in an election that will take place next year, will have been a resident of Green for only four and one-half years at the time the mayor elected then takes office. Before he decides whether to run for the position of mayor, Candidate wants to know whether he could lawfully assume that position if he were elected. As a result, Candidate files suit in the local federal district court for a declaratory judgment that the Green five-year-residence requirement is unconstitutional and that he is entitled to a place on his political party's primary election ballot for mayor. He names the chairman of his political party as the sole defendant but does not join any election official. The chairman responds by joining Candidate in requesting the court to declare the Green residence requirement invalid. In this case, the court should 
A. refuse to determine the merits of this suit, because there is no case or controversy. 
B. refuse to issue such a declaratory judgment, because an issue of this kind involving only a local election does not present a substantial federal constitutional question. 
C. issue the declaratory judgment, because a residency requirement of this type is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. 
D. issue the declaratory judgment, because Candidate will have substantially complied with the residency requirement. 
Answer: A
Oliver, owner of Blackacre, needed money. Blackacre was fairly worth $100,000, so Oliver tried to borrow $60,000 from Len on the security of Blackacre. Len agreed, but only if Oliver would convey Blackacre to Len outright by warranty deed, with Len agreeing orally to reconvey to Oliver once the loan was paid according to its terms. Oliver agreed, conveyed Blackacre to Len by warranty deed, and Len paid Oliver $60,000 cash. Len promptly and properly recorded Oliver's deed. Now, Oliver has defaulted on repayment with $55,000 still due on the loan. Oliver is still in possession. Which of the following best states the parties' rights in Blackacre? 
A. Len's oral agreement to reconvey is invalid under the Statute of Frauds, so Len owns Blackacre outright. 
B. Oliver, having defaulted, has no further rights in Blackacre, so Len may obtain summary eviction. 
C. The attempted security arrangement is a creature unknown to the law, hence a nullity; Len has only a personal right to $55,000 from Oliver. 
D. Len may bring whatever foreclosure proceeding is appropriate under the laws of the jurisdiction.
Answer: D
Big City High School has had a very high rate of pregnancy among its students. In order to assist students who keep their babies to complete high school, Big City High School has established an infant day-care center for children of its students, and also offers classes in child-care. Because the child-care classes are always overcrowded, the school limits admission to those classes solely to Big City High School students who are the mothers of babies in the infant day-care center. Joe, a student at Big City High School, has legal custody of his infant son. The school provides care for his son in its infant day-care center, but will not allow Joe to enroll in the center, but will not allow Joe to enroll in the child-care classes. He brings suit against the school challenging, on constitutional grounds, his exclusion from the child-care classes. Which of the following best states the burden of persuasion in this case? 
A. Joe must demonstrate that the admission requirement is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
B. Joe must demonstrate that the admission requirement is not as narrowly drawn as possible to achieve a substantial governmental interest.
C. The school must demonstrate that the admission policy is the least restrictive means by which to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
D. The school must demonstrate that the admission policy is substantially related to an important governmental interest.
Answer: D
Defendant was upset because he was going to have to close his liquor store due to competition from a discount store in a new shopping mall nearby. In desperation, he decided to set fire to his store to collect the insurance. While looking through the basement for flammable material, he lit a match to read the label on a can. The match burned his finger and, in a reflex action, he dropped the match. It fell into a barrel and ignited some paper. Defendant made no effort to put out the fire but instead left the building. The fire spread and the store was destroyed by fire. Defendant was eventually arrested and indicted for arson. Defendant is 
A. guilty, if he could have put out the fire before it spread and did not do so because he wanted the building destroyed. 
B. guilty, if he was negligent in starting the fire. 
C. not guilty, because even if he wanted to burn the building there was no concurrence between his mens rea and the act of starting the fire. 
D. not guilty, because his starting the fire was the result of a reflex action and not a voluntary act. 
Answer: A
In his employment, Grinder operates a grinding wheel. To protect his eyes, he wears glasses, sold under the trade name "Safety Glasses," manufactured by Glassco. The glasses were sold with a warning label stating that they would protect only against small, flying objects. One day, the grinding wheel Grinder was using disintegrated and fragments of the stone wheel were thrown off with great force. One large fragment hit Grinder, knocking his safety glasses up onto his forehead. Another fragment then hit and injured his eye. Grinder brought an action against Glassco for the injury to his eye. The jurisdiction adheres to the traditional common-law rule pertaining to contributory negligence. In this action, will Grinder prevail? 
A. Yes, because the safety glasses were defective in that they did not protect him from the disintegrating wheel. 
B. Yes, because the glasses were sold under the trade name "Safety Glasses." 
C. No, because the glasses were not designed or sold for protection against the kind of hazard Grinder encountered. 
D. No, if Grinder will be compensated under the workers' compensation law. 
Answer: C