ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Olivia, owner in fee simple of Richacre, a large parcel of vacant land, executed a deed purporting to convey Richacre to her nephew, Grant. She told Grant, who was then 19, about the deed and said that she would give it to him when he reached 21 and had received his undergraduate college degree. Shortly afterward Grant searched Olivia's desk, found and removed the deed, and recorded it. A month later, Grant executed an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed purporting to convey Richacre to his fiancÃ©e, Bonnie. He delivered the deed to Bonnie, pointing out that the deed recited that it was given in exchange for "$1 and other good and valuable consideration," and that to make it valid Bonnie must pay him $1. Bonnie, impressed and grateful, did so. Together, they went to the recording office and recorded the deed. Bonnie assumed Grant had owned Richacre, and knew nothing about Grant's dealing with Olivia. Neither Olivia's deed to Grant nor Grant's deed to Bonnie said anything about any conditions. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." Two years passed. Grant turned 21, then graduated from college. At the graduation party, Olivia was chatting with Bonnie and for the first time learned the foregoing facts. The age of majority in the jurisdiction is 18 years. Olivia brought an appropriate action against Bonnie to quiet title to Richacre. The court will decide for 
A. Olivia, because Grant's deed to Bonnie before Grant satisfied Olivia's conditions was void, as Bonnie had paid only nominal consideration. 
B. Olivia, because her deed to Grant was not delivered. 
C. Bonnie, because Grant has satisfied Olivia's oral conditions. 
D. Bonnie, because the deed to her was recorded.
Answer: B
Perry suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game at a public park. The injury occurred when Perry and Dever, on opposing teams, each tried to obtain possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard after a missed shot at the basket. During that encounter, Perry was struck and injured by Dever's elbow. Perry now seeks compensation from Dever. At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by opposing players, and that Perry had been one of those making liberal use of such tactics. In this action, will Perry prevail? 
A. Yes, if Dever intended to strike Perry with his elbow. 
B. Yes, if Dever intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Perry. 
C. No, because Perry impliedly consented to rough play. 
D. No, unless Dever intentionally used force that exceeded the players' consent. 
Answer: D
Water District is an independent municipal water-supply district incorporated under the applicable laws of the state of Green. The district was created solely to supply water to an entirely new community in a recently developed area of Green. That new community is racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse, and the community has never engaged in any discrimination against members of minority groups. The five-member, elected governing board of the newly created Water District contains two persons who are members of racial minority groups. At its first meeting, the governing board of Water District adopted a rule unqualifiedly setting aside 25% of all positions on the staff of the District and 25% of all contracts to be awarded by the District to members of racial minority groups. The purpose of the rule was "to help redress the historical discrimination against these groups in this country and to help them achieve economic parity with other groups in our society." Assume that no federal statute applies. A suit by appropriate parties challenges the constitutionality of these set-asides. In this suit, the most appropriate ruling on the basis of applicable United States Supreme Court precedent would be that the set-asides are 
A. unconstitutional, because they would deny other potential employees or potential contractors the equal protection of the laws. 
B. unconstitutional, because they would impermissibly impair the right to contract of other potential employees or potential contractors. 
C. constitutional, because they would assure members of racial minority groups the equal protection of the laws. 
D. constitutional, because the function and activities of Water District are of a proprietary nature rather than a governmental nature and, therefore, are not subject to the usual requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Answer: A
In a single writing, Painter contracted with Farmer to paint three identical barns on her rural estate for $2,000 each. The contract provided for Farmer's payment of $6,000 upon Painter's completion of the work on all three barns. Painter did not ask for any payment when the first barn was completely painted, but she demanded $4,000 after painting the second barn. Is Farmer obligated to make the $4,000 payment? 
A. No, because Farmer has no duty under the contract to pay anything to Painter until all three barns have been painted. 
B. No, because Painter waived her right, if any, to payment on a per-barn basis by failing to demand $2,000 upon completion of the first barn. 
C. Yes, because the contract is divisible. 
D. Yes, because Painter has substantially performed the entire contract. 
Answer: A
In a single writing, Painter contracted with Farmer to paint three identical barns on her rural estate for $2,000 each. The contract provided for Farmer's payment of $6,000 upon Painter's completion of the work on all three barns. Painter did not ask for any payment when the first barn was completely painted, but she demanded $4,000 after painting the second barn. Assume that Farmer rightfully refused Painter's demand for payment. If Painter immediately terminates the contract without painting the third barn, what is Painter entitled to recover from Farmer? 
A. Nothing, because payment was expressly conditioned on completion of all three barns. 
B. Painter's expenditures plus anticipated "profit" in painting the first two barns, up to a maximum recovery of $4,000. 
C. The reasonable value of Painter's services in painting the two barns, less Farmer's damages, if any, for Painter's failure to paint the third barn. 
D. The amount that the combined value of the two painted barns has been increased by Painter's work.
Answer: C
The police in City notified local gas station attendants that a woman, known as Robber, recently had committed armed robberies at five City gas stations. The police said that Robber was approximately 75 years old, had white hair, and drove a vintage, cream-colored Ford Thunderbird. Attendants were advised to call police if they saw her, but not to attempt to apprehend her. Armed robbery is a felony under state law. Traveler was passing through City on a crosscountry journey. Traveler was a 75-yearold woman who had white hair and drove a vintage, cream-colored Ford Thunderbird. When Traveler drove into Owner's gas station, Owner thought Traveler must be the robber wanted by the police. After checking the oil at Traveler's request, Owner falsely informed Traveler that she had a broken fan belt, that her car could not be driven without a new belt, that it would take him about an hour to replace it, and that she should stay in his office for consultation about the repair. Traveler was greatly annoyed that her journey was delayed, but she stayed in Owner's office while she waited for her car. Owner telephoned the police and, within the hour, the police came and questioned Traveler. The police immediately determined that Traveler was not Robber, and Traveler resumed her journey without further delay. In Traveler's action for false imprisonment against Owner, Traveler will 
A. not prevail, if Owner reasonably believed that Traveler was Robber. 
B. not prevail, because Traveler suffered no physical or mental harm. 
C. prevail, if Traveler reasonably believed she could not leave Owner's premises. 
D. prevail, because Owner lied to Traveler about the condition of her car. 
Answer: A
In which of the following situations would Defendant's mistake most likely constitute a defense to the crime charged?
A. A local ordinance forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 18 years of age. Relying on false identification, Defendant sells champagne to a 16-year-old high school student. Defendant is charged with illegal sale of alcoholic beverages. 
B. Mistaking Defendant for a narcotics suspect, an undercover police officer attempts to arrest him. Defendant, unaware that the person who has grabbed him is an officer, hits him and knocks him unconscious. Defendant is charged with assault. 
C. Defendant, aged 23, has sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old prostitute who tells Defendant that she is 18. Defendant is charged with the felony of statutory rape under a statute that makes sexual relations with a child under 16 a felony. 
D. Relying on erroneous advice from his attorney that, if his wife has abandoned him for more than a year, he is free to marry, Defendant remarries and is subsequently charged with bigamy.
Answer: B
Powell, who was an asbestos insulation installer from 1955 to 1965, contracted asbestosis, a serious lung disorder, as a result of inhaling airborne asbestos particles on the job. The asbestos was manufactured and sold to Powell's employer by the Acme Asbestos Company. Because neither Acme nor anyone else discovered the risk to asbestos installers until 1966, Acme did not provide any warnings of the risks to installers until after that date. Powell brought an action against Acme based on strict liability in tort for failure to warn. The case is to be tried before a jury. The jurisdiction has not adopted a comparative fault rule in strict liability cases. In this action, an issue that is relevant to the case and is a question for the court to decide as a matter of law, rather than for the jury to decide as a question of fact, is whether 
A. a satisfactory, safer, alternative insulation material exists under today's technology. 
B. the defendant should be held to the standard of a prudent manufacturer who knew of the risks, regardless of whether the risks were reasonably discoverable before 1966. 
C. the defendant should reasonably have known of the risks of asbestos insulation materials before 1966, even though no one else had discovered the risks. 
D. the asbestos insulation materials to which the plaintiff was exposed were inherently dangerous.
Answer: B
PullCo sued Davidson, its former vice president, for return of $230,000 that had been embezzled during the previous two years. Called by PullCo as an adverse witness, Davidson testified that his annual salary had been $75,000, and he denied the embezzlement. PullCo calls banker Witt to show that, during the two-year period, Davidson had deposited $250,000 in his bank account. Witt's testimony is 
A. admissible as circumstantial evidence of Davidson's guilt.
B. admissible to impeach Davidson.
C. inadmissible, because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. 
D. inadmissible, because the deposits could have come from legitimate sources.
Answer: A
Alex and Betty, who were cousins, acquired title in fee simple to Blackacre, as equal tenants in common, by inheritance from Angela, their aunt. During the last 15 years of her lifetime, Angela allowed Alex to occupy an apartment in the house on Blackacre, to rent the other apartment in the house to various tenants, and to retain the rent. Alex made no payments to Angela; and since Angela's death 7 years ago, he has made no payments to Betty. For those 22 years, Alex has paid the real estate taxes on Blackacre, kept the building on Blackacre insured, and maintained the building. At all times, Betty has lived in a distant city and has never had anything to do with Angela, Alex, or Blackacre. Recently, Betty needed money for the operation of her business and demanded that Alex join her in selling Blackacre. Alex refused. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. There is no other applicable statute. Betty brought an appropriate action against Alex for partition. Alex asserted all available defenses and counterclaims. In that action, the court should 
A. deny partition and find that title has vested in Alex by adverse possession.
B. deny partition, confirm the tenancy in common, but require an accounting to determine if either Betty or Alex is indebted to the other on account of the rental payment, taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs. 
C. grant partition and require, as an adjustment, an accounting to determine if either Betty or Alex is indebted to the other on account of the rental payments, taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs. 
D. grant partition to Betty and Alex as equal owners, but without an accounting. 
Answer: C
Plaintiff sued Defendant for illegal discrimination, claiming that Defendant fired him because of his race. At trial, Plaintiff called Witness, expecting him to testify that Defendant had admitted the racial motivation. Instead, Witness testified that Defendant said that he had fired Plaintiff because of his frequent absenteeism. While Witness is still on the stand, Plaintiff offers a properly authenticated secret tape recording he had made at a meeting with Witness in which Witness related Defendant's admissions of racial motivation. The tape recording is 
A. admissible as evidence of Defendant's racial motivation and to impeach Witness's testimony.
B. admissible only to impeach Witness's testimony.
C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
D. inadmissible, because a secret recording is an invasion of Witness's right of privacy under the U.S. Constitution.
Answer: B
On December 15, Lawyer received from Stationer, Inc., a retailer of office supplies, an offer consisting of its catalog and a signed letter stating, "We will supply you with as many of the items in the enclosed catalog as you order during the next calendar year. We assure you that this offer and the prices in the catalog will remain firm throughout the coming year." Assume that no other correspondence passed between Stationer and Lawyer until the following April 15 (four months later), when Stationer received from Lawyer a faxed order for "100 reams of your paper, catalog item #101." Did Lawyer's April 15 fax constitute an effective acceptance of Stationer's offer at the prices specified in the catalog? 
A. Yes, because Stationer had not revoked its offer before April 15. 
B. Yes, because a one-year option contract had been created by Stationer's offer. 
C. No, because under applicable law the irrevocability of Stationer's offer was limited to a period of three months. 
D. No, because Lawyer did not accept Stationer's offer within a reasonable time. 
Answer: A
On December 15, Lawyer received from Stationer, Inc., a retailer of office supplies, an offer consisting of its catalog and a signed letter stating, "We will supply you with as many of the items in the enclosed catalog as you order during the next calendar year. We assure you that this offer and the prices in the catalog will remain firm throughout the coming year." Assume that on January 15, having at that time received no reply from Lawyer, Stationer notified Lawyer that effective February 1, it was increasing the prices of certain specified items in its catalog. Is the price increase effective with respect to catalog orders Stationer receives from Lawyer during the month of February? 
A. No, because Stationer's original offer, including the price term, became irrevocable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 
B. No, because Stationer is a merchant with respect to office supplies; and its original offer, including the price term, was irrevocable throughout the month of February. 
C. Yes, because Stationer received no consideration to support its assurance that it would not increase prices. 
D. Yes, because the period for which Stationer gave assurance that it would not raise prices was longer than three months.
Answer: B
State X enacted a statute "to regulate administratively the conduct of motor vehicle junkyard businesses in order to deter motor vehicle theft and trafficking in stolen motor vehicles or parts thereof." The statute requires a junkyard owner or operator "to permit representatives of the Department of Motor Vehicles or of any law enforcement agency upon request during normal business hours to take physical inventory of motor vehicles and parts thereof on the premises." The statute also states that a failure to comply with any of its requirements constitutes a felony. Police officers assigned to Magnolia City's Automobile Crimes Unit periodically visited all motor vehicle junkyards in town to make the inspections permitted by the statute. Janet owned such a business in Magnolia City. One summer day, the officers asked to inspect the vehicles on her lot. Janet said, "Do I have a choice?" The officers told her she did not. The officers conducted their inspection and discovered three stolen automobiles. Janet is charged with receiving stolen property. Janet moves pretrial to suppress the evidence relating to the three automobiles on the ground that the inspection was unconstitutional. Her motion should be 
A. sustained, because the statute grants unbridled discretion to law enforcement officers to make warrantless searches. 
B. sustained, because the stated regulatory purpose of the statute is a pretext to circumvent the warrant requirement in conducting criminal investigations. 
C. denied, because the statute deals reasonably with a highly regulated industry. 
D. denied, because administrative searches of commercial establishments do not require warrants. 
Answer: C
Current national statistics show a dramatic increase in the number of elementary and secondary school students bringing controlled substances (drugs) to school for personal use or distribution to others. In response, Congress enacted a statute requiring each state legislature to enact a state law that makes it a state crime for any person to possess, use, or distribute, within 1,000 feet of any elementary or secondary school, any controlled substance that has previously been transported in interstate commerce and that is not possessed, used, or distributed pursuant to a proper physician's prescription. This federal statute is 
A. unconstitutional, because Congress has no authority to require a state legislature to enact any specified legislation. 
B. unconstitutional, because the possession, use, or distribution, in close proximity to a school, of a controlled substance that has previously been transported in interstate commerce does not have a sufficiently close nexus to such commerce to justify its regulation by Congress. 
C. constitutional, because it contains a jurisdictional provision that will ensure, on a case-by-case basis, that any particular controlled substance subject to the terms of this statute will, in fact, affect interstate commerce. 
D. constitutional, because Congress possesses broad authority under both the general welfare clause and the commerce clause to regulate any activities affecting education that also have, in inseverable aggregates, a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Answer: A
Janet had a season ticket for the Scorpions' hockey games at Central Arena (Section B, Row 12, Seat 16). During the intermission between the first and second periods of a game between the Scorpions and the visiting Hornets, Janet solicited signatures for a petition urging that the coach of the Scorpions be fired. Central Arena and the Scorpions are owned by ABC, Inc., a privately owned entity. As evidenced by many prominently displayed signs, ABC prohibits all solicitations anywhere within Central Arena at any time and in any manner. ABC notified Janet to cease her solicitation of signatures. Janet continued to seek signatures on her petition during the Scorpions' next three home games at Central Arena. Each time, ABC notified Janet to cease such solicitation. Janet announced her intention to seek signatures on her petition again during the Scorpions' next home game at Central Arena. ABC wrote a letter informing Janet that her season ticket was canceled and tendering a refund for the unused portion. Janet refused the tender and brought an appropriate action to establish the right to attend all home games. In this action, the court will decide for 
A. ABC, because it has a right and obligation to control activities on realty it owns and has invited the public to visit. 
B. ABC, because Janet's ticket to hockey games created only a license. 
C. Janet, because, having paid value for the ticket, her right to be present cannot be revoked. 
D. Janet, because she was not committing a nuisance by her activities. 
Answer: B
Company designed and built a processing plant for the manufacture of an explosive chemical. Engineer was retained by Company to design a filter system for the processing plant. She prepared an application for a permit to build the plant's filter system and submitted it to the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). As required by DEP regulations, Engineer submitted a blueprint to the DEP with the application for permit. The blueprint showed the entire facility and was signed and sealed by her as a licensed professional engineer. After the project was completed, a portion of the processing plant exploded, injuring Plaintiff. During discovery in an action by Plaintiff against Engineer, it was established that the explosion was caused by a design defect in the processing plant that was unrelated to the filter system designed by Engineer. In that action, will Plaintiff prevail? 
A. Yes, if Engineer signed, sealed, and submitted a blueprint that showed the design defect. 
B. Yes, because all of the plant's designers are jointly and severally liable for the defect. 
C. No, because Engineer owed no duty to Plaintiff to prevent the particular risk of harm. 
D. No, if Engineer was an independent contractor.
Answer: C
Several years ago, Bart purchased Goldacre, financing a large part of the purchase price by a loan from Mort that was secured by a mortgage. Bart made the installment payments on the mortgage regularly until last year. Then Bart persuaded Pam to buy Goldacre, subject to the mortgage to Mort. They expressly agreed that Pam would not assume and agree to pay Bart's debt to Mort. Bart's mortgage to Mort contained a due-on-sale clause stating, "If Mortgagor transfers his/her interest without the written consent of Mortgagee first obtained, then at Mortgagee's option the entire principal balance of the debt secured by this Mortgage shall become immediately due and payable." However, without seeking Mort's consent, Bart conveyed Goldacre to Pam, the deed stating in pertinent part " . . . , subject to a mortgage to Mort [giving details and recording data]." Pam took possession of Goldacre and made several mortgage payments, which Mort accepted. Now, however, neither Pam nor Bart has made the last three mortgage payments. Mort has brought an appropriate action against Pam for the amount of the delinquent payments. In this action, judgment should be for 
A. Pam, because she did not assume and agree to pay Bart's mortgage debt. 
B. Pam, because she is not in privity of estate with Mort. 
C. Mort, because Bart's deed to Pam violated the due-on-sale clause. 
D. Mort, because Pam is in privity of estate with Mort. 
Answer: A