ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Five years ago, Sally acquired Blackacre, improved with a 15-year-old dwelling. This year Sally listed Blackacre for sale with Bill, a licensed real estate broker. Sally informed Bill of several defects in the house that were not readily discoverable by a reasonable inspection, including a leaky basement, an inadequate water supply, and a roof that leaked. Paul responded to Bill's advertisement, was taken by Bill to view Blackacre, and decided to buy it. Bill saw to it that the contract specified the property to be "as is" but neither Bill nor Sally pointed out the defects to Paul, who did not ask about the condition of the dwelling. After closing and taking possession, Paul discovered the defects, had them repaired, and demanded that Sally reimburse him for the cost of the repairs. Sally refused, and Paul brought an appropriate action against Sally for damages. If Sally wins, it will be because
A. Sally fulfilled the duty to disclose defects by disclosure to Bill.
B. the contract's "as is" provision controls the rights of the parties. 
C. Bill became the agent of both Paul and Sally and thus knowledge of the defects was imputed to Paul.
D. the seller of a used dwelling that has been viewed by the buyer has no responsibility toward the buyer
Answer: B
Hydro-King, Inc., a high-volume pleasure boat retailer, entered into a written contract with Zuma, signed by both parties, to sell Zuma a power boat for $12,000. The manufacturer's price of the boat delivered to Hydro-King was $9,500. As the contract provided, Zuma paid Hydro-King $4,000 in advance and promised to pay the full balance upon delivery of the boat. The contract contained no provision for liquidated damages. Prior to the agreed delivery date, Zuma notified Hydro-King that he would be financially unable to conclude the purchase; and Hydro-King thereupon resold the same boat that Zuma had ordered to a third person for $12,000 cash. If Zuma sues Hydro-King for restitution of the $4,000 advance payment, which of the following should the court decide?
A. Zuma's claim should be denied, because, as the party in default, he is deemed to have lost any right to restitution of a benefit conferred on Hydro-King. 
B. Zuma's claim should be denied, because, but for his repudiation, Hydro-King would have made a profit on two boat sales instead of one. 
C. Zuma's claim should be upheld in the amount of $4,000 minus the amount of Hydro-King's lost profit under its contract with Zuma. 
D. Zuma's claims should be upheld in the amount of $3,500 ($4,000 minus $500 as statutory damages under the UCC)
Answer: C
A federal statute prohibits the sale or resale, in any place in this country, of any product intended for human consumption or ingestion into the human body that contains designated chemicals known to cause cancer, unless the product is clearly labeled as dangerous. The constitutionality of this federal statute may most easily be justified on the basis of the power of Congress to
A. regulate commerce among the states.
B. enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. provide for the general welfare.
D. promote science and the useful arts
Answer: A
Shore decided to destroy his dilapidated building in order to collect the insurance money. He hired Parsons to burn down the building. Parsons broke into the building and carefully searched it to make sure no one was inside. He failed, however, to see a vagrant asleep in an office closet. He started a fire. The building was destroyed, and the vagrant died from burns a week later. Two days after the fire, Shore filed an insurance claim in which he stated that he had no information about the cause of the fire. If Shore is guilty of felony murder, it is because the vagrant's death occurred in connection with the felony of
A. arson.
B. fraud.
C. conspiracy.
D. burglary
Answer: A
Dalton is on trial for burglary. During crossexamination of Dalton, the prosecutor wants to inquire about Dalton's earlier conviction for falsifying a credit application. Which of the following facts concerning the conviction would be the best reason for the trial court's refusing to allow such examination?
A. Dalton was released from prison 12 years ago.
B. Dalton was put on probation rather than imprisoned.
C. It was for a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
D. It is on appeal
Answer: A
Dent operates a residential rehabilitation center for emotionally disturbed and ungovernable children who have been committed to his custody by their parents or by juvenile authorities. The center's purpose is to modify the behavior of the children through a teaching program carried out in a family-like environment. Though the children are not permitted to leave the center without Dent's permission, there are no bars or guards to prevent them from doing so. It has been held in the state where the center is located that persons having custody of children have the same duties and responsibilities that they would have if they were the parents of the children. Camden, aged 12, who had been in Dent's custody for six months, left the center without permission. Dent became aware of Camden's absence almost immediately, but made no attempt to locate him or secure his return, though reports reached him that Camden had been seen in the vicinity. Thirtysix hours after Camden left the center, Camden committed a brutal assault upon Pell, a fiveyear-old child, causing Pell to suffer extensive permanent injury. If an action is brought against Dent on behalf of Pell to recover damages for Pell's injuries, will Pell prevail?
A. No, because parents are not personally liable for their child's intentional torts. 
B. Yes, if Camden was old enough to be liable for battery. 
C. Yes, because Camden was in Dent's custody. 
D. No, unless Dent knew or had reason to know that Camden had a propensity to attack younger children. 
Answer: D
Orin owned in fee simple Blueacre, a farm of 300 acres. He died and by will duly admitted to probate devised Blueacre to his surviving widow, Wilma, for life with remainder in fee simple to his three children, Cindy, Clara, and Carter. All three children survived Orin. At the time of Orin's death, there existed a mortgage on Blueacre that Orin had given 10 years before to secure a loan for the purchase of the farm. At his death, there remained unpaid $40,000 in principal, payable in installments of $4,000 per year for the next 10 years. In addition, there was due interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum, payable annually with the installment of principal. Wilma took possession and out of a gross income of $50,000 per year realized $25,000 net after paying all expenses and charges except the installment of principal and interest due on the mortgage. Carter and Cindy wanted the three children, including Clara, to each contribute one-third of the amounts needed to pay the mortgage installments. Clara objected, contending that Wilma should pay all of these amounts out of the profits she had made in operation of the farm. When foreclosure of the mortgage seemed imminent, Clara sought legal advice. If Clara obtained sound advice relating to her rights, she was told that 
A. her only protection lies in instituting an action for partition to compel the sale of the life estate of Wilma and to obtain the value of her own one-third interest in remainder.
B. she could obtain appropriate relief to compel Wilma personally to pay the sums due because the income is more than adequate to cover these amounts.
C. she could be compelled personally to pay her share of the amounts due because discharge of the mortgage enhances the principal.
D. she could not be held personally liable for any amount but that her share in remainder could be lost if the mortgage installments are not paid.
Answer: D
Ohner and Planner signed a detailed writing in which Planner, a landscape architect, agreed to landscape and replant Ohner's residential property in accordance with a design prepared by Planner and incorporated in the writing. Ohner agreed to pay $10,000 for the work upon its completion. Ohner's spouse was not a party to the agreement, and had no ownership interest in the premises.For this question only, assume the following facts. Shortly before the agreement was signed, Ohner and Planner orally agreed that the writing would not become binding on either party unless Ohner's spouse should approve the landscaping design. If Ohner's spouse disapproves the design and Ohner refuses to allow Planner to proceed with the work, is evidence of the oral agreement admissible in Planner's action against Ohner for breach of contract?
A. Yes, because the oral agreement required approval by a third party. 
B. Yes, because the evidence shows that the writing was intended to take effect only if the approval occurred 
C. No, because the parol evidence rule bars evidence of a prior oral agreement even if the latter is consistent with the terms of a partial integration. 
D. No, because the prior oral agreement contradicted the writing by making the parties' duties conditional.
Answer: B
Ohner and Planner signed a detailed writing in which Planner, a landscape architect, agreed to landscape and replant Ohner's residential property in accordance with a design prepared by Planner and incorporated in the writing. Ohner agreed to pay $10,000 for the work upon its completion. Ohner's spouse was not a party to the agreement, and had no ownership interest in the premises.For this question only, assume the following facts. At Ohner's insistence, the written OhnerPlanner agreement contained a provision that neither party would be bound unless Ohner's law partner, an avid student of landscaping, should approve Planner's design. Before Planner commenced the work, Ohner's law partner, in the presence of both Ohner and Planner, expressly disapproved the landscaping design. Nevertheless, Ohner ordered Planner to proceed with the work, and Planner reluctantly did so. When Planner's performance was 40 percent complete, Ohner repudiated his duty, if any, to pay the contract price or any part thereof. If Planner now sues Ohner for damages for breach of contract, which of the following concepts best supports Planner's claim?
A. Substantial performance.
B. Promissory estoppel.
C. Irrevocable waiver of condition.
D. Unjust enrichment.
Answer: C
A federal statute enacted pursuant to the powers of Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and to regulate commerce among the states prohibits any state from requiring any of its employees to retire from state employment solely because of their age. The statute expressly authorizes employees required by a state to retire from state employment solely because of their age to sue the state government in federal district court for any damages resulting from that state action. On the basis of this federal statute, Retiree sues State X in federal district court. State X moves to dismiss the suit on the ground that Congress lacks authority to authorize such suits against a state. Which of the following is the strongest argument that Retiree can offer in opposition to the state's motion to dismiss this suit?
A. When Congress exercises power vested in it by the Fourteenth Amendment and/or the commerce clause, Congress may enact appropriate remedial legislation expressly subjecting the states to private suits for damages in federal court. 
B. When Congress exercises power vested in it by any provision of the Constitution, Congress has unlimited authority to authorize private actions for damages against a state. 
C. While the Eleventh Amendment restrains the federal judiciary, that amendment does not limit the power of Congress to modify the sovereign immunity of the states. 
D. While the Eleventh Amendment applies to suits in federal court by citizens of one state against another state, it does not apply to such suits by citizens against their own state.
Answer: A
Suspecting that Scott had slain his wife, police detectives persuaded one of Scott's employees to remove a drinking glass from Scott's office so that it could be used for fingerprint comparisons with a knife found near the body. The fingerprints matched. The prosecutor announced that he would present comparisons and evidence to the grand jury. Scott's lawyer immediately filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the fingerprint comparisons to bar its consideration by the grand jury, contending that the evidence was illegally acquired. The motion should be 
A. granted, because, if there was no probable cause, the grand jury should not consider the evidence. 
B. granted, because the employee was acting as a police agent and his seizure of the glass without a warrant was unconstitutional. 
C. denied, because motions based on the exclusionary rule are premature in grand jury proceedings. 
D. denied, because the glass was removed from Scott's possession by a private citizen and not a police officer
Answer: C
Deetz was prosecuted for homicide. He testified that he shot in self-defense. In rebuttal, Officer Watts testified that he came to the scene in response to a telephone call from Deetz. Watts offers to testify that he asked, "What is the problem here, sir?" and Deetz replied, "I was cleaning my gun and it went off accidentally." The offered testimony is
A. admissible as an excited utterance.
B. admissible to impeach Deetz and as evidence that he did not act in self-defense.
C. inadmissible, because of Deetz's privilege against self-incrimination. 
D. inadmissible, because it tends to exculpate without corroboration
Answer: B
Landco owns and operates a 12-story apartment building containing 72 apartments, 70 of which are rented. Walker has brought an action against Landco alleging that while he was walking along a public sidewalk adjacent to Landco's apartment building a flowerpot fell from above and struck him on the shoulder, causing extensive injuries. The action is to recover damages for those injuries. If Walker proves the foregoing facts and offers no other evidence explaining the accident, will his claim survive a motion for directed verdict offered by the defense?
A. Yes, because Walker was injured by an artificial condition of the premises while using an adjacent public way. 
B. Yes, because such an accident does not ordinarily happen in the absence of negligence. 
C. No, if Landco is in no better position than Walker to explain the accident. 
D. No, because there is no basis for a reasonable inference that Landco was negligent
Answer: D
Rohan executed and delivered a promissory note and a mortgage securing the note to Acme Mortgage Company, which was named as payee in the note and as mortgagee in the mortgage. The note included a statement that the indebtedness evidenced by the note was "subject to the terms of a contract between the maker and the payee of the note executed on the same day" and that the note was "secured by a mortgage of even date." The mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. Subsequently, Acme sold the Rohan note and mortgage to XYZ Bank and delivered to XYZ Bank a written assignment of the Rohan note and mortgage. The assignment was promptly and properly recorded. Acme retained possession of both the note and the mortgage in order to act as collecting agent. Later, being short of funds, Acme sold the note and mortgage to Peterson at a substantial discount. Acme executed a written assignment of the note and mortgage to Peterson and delivered to him the note, the mortgage, and the assignment. Peterson paid value for the assignment without actual knowledge of the prior assignment to XYZ Bank and promptly and properly recorded his assignment. The principal of the note was not then due, and there had been no default in payment of either interest or principal. If the issue of ownership of the Rohan note and mortgage is subsequently raised in an appropriate action by XYZ Bank to foreclose, the court should hold that
A. Peterson owns both the note and the mortgage.
B. XYZ Bank owns both the note and the mortgage.
C. Peterson owns the note and XYZ Bank owns the mortgage.
D. XYZ Bank owns the note and Peterson owns the mortgag
Answer: B
Fruitko, Inc., ordered from Orchard, Inc., 500 bushels of No. 1 Royal Fuzz peaches, at a specified price, "for prompt shipment." Orchard promptly shipped 500 bushels, but by mistake shipped No. 2 Royal Fuzz peaches instead of No. 1. The error in shipment was caused by the negligence of Orchard's shipping clerk. Which of the following best states Fruitko's rights and duties upon delivery of the peaches?
A. Orchard's shipment of the peaches was a counteroffer and Fruitko can refuse to accept them.
B. Orchard's shipment of the peaches was a counteroffer but, since peaches are perishable, Fruitko, if it does not want to accept them, must reship the peaches to Orchard in order to mitigate Orchard's losses. 
C. Fruitko must accept the peaches because a contract was formed when Orchard shipped them.
D. Although a contract was formed when Orchard shipped the peaches, Fruitko does not have to accept them
Answer: D
A federal law provides that all motor vehicle tires discarded in this country must be disposed of in facilities licensed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Pursuant to this federal law and all proper federal procedural requirements, that agency has adopted very strict standards for the licensing of such facilities. As a result, the cost of disposing of tires in licensed facilities is substantial. The state of East Dakota has a very large fleet of motor vehicles, including police cars and trucks used to support state-owned commercial activities. East Dakota disposes of used tires from both kinds of state motor vehicles in a state-owned and stateoperated facility. This state facility is unlicensed, but its operation in actual practice meets most of the standards imposed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency on facilities it licenses to dispose of tires. Consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent, may the state of East Dakota continue to dispose of its used tires in this manner?
A. No, because a state must comply with valid federal laws that regulate matters affecting interstate commerce. 
B. No, because some of the tires come from vehicles that are used by the state solely in its commercial activities. 
C. Yes, because some of the tires come from vehicles that are used by the state in the performance of core state governmental functions such as law enforcement. 
D. Yes, because the legitimate needs of the) Yes, because the legitimate needs of the federal government are satisfied by the fact that the unlicensed state disposal scheme meets, in actual practice, most of the federal standards for the licensing of such facilities.
Answer: A
Kathy, a two-year-old, became ill with meningitis. Jim and Joan, her parents, were members of a group who believed fervently that if they prayed enough, God would not permit their child to die. Accordingly, they did not seek medical aid for Kathy and refused all offers of such aid. They prayed continuously. Kathy died of the illness within a week. Jim and Joan are charged with murder in a common law jurisdiction. Their best defense to the charge is that
A. they did not intend to kill or to harm Kathy.
B. they were pursuing a constitutionally protected religious belief.
C. Kathy's death was not proximately caused by their conduct.
D. they neither premeditated nor deliberated
Answer: A
Decker, charged with armed robbery of a store, denied that he was the person who had robbed the store. In presenting the state's case, the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that Decker had robbed two other stores in the past year. This evidence is
A. admissible to prove a pertinent trait of Decker's character and Decker's action in conformity therewith.
B. admissible to prove Decker's intent and identity.
C. inadmissible, because character must be proved by reputation or opinion and may not be proved by specific acts. 
D. inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudic
Answer: D
Palmco owns and operates a beachfront hotel. Under a contract with City to restore a public beach, Dredgeco placed a large and unavoidably dangerous stone-crushing machine on City land near Palmco's hotel. The machine creates a continuous and intense noise that is so disturbing to the hotel guests that they have canceled their hotel reservations in large numbers, resulting in a substantial loss to Palmco. Palmco's best chance to recover damages for its financial losses from Dredgeco is under the theory that the operation of the stone-crushing machine constitutes
A. an abnormally dangerous activity.
B. a private nuisance.
C. negligence.
D. a trespass
Answer: B
Owen owned Greenacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. By warranty deed he conveyed Greenacre to Lafe for life "and from and after the death of Lafe to Rem, her heirs and assigns." Subsequently Rem died, devising all of her estate to Dan. Rem was survived by Hannah, her sole heir at law. Shortly thereafter Lafe died, survived by Owen, Dan, and Hannah. Title to Greenacre now is in
A. Owen, because the contingent remainder never vested and Owen's reversion was entitled to possession immediately upon Lafe's death. 
B. Dan, because the vested remainder in Rem was transmitted by her will. 
C. Hannah, because she is Rem's heir. 
D. either Owen or Hannah, depending upon whether the destructibility of contingent remainders is recognized in the applicable jurisdiction. 
Answer: B
Pater and his adult daughter, Carmen, encountered Tertius, an old family friend, on the street. Carmen said to Tertius, "How about lending me $1,000 to buy a used car? I'll pay you back with interest one year from today." Pater added, "And if she doesn't pay it back as promised, I will." Tertius thereupon wrote out and handed to Carmen his personal check, payable to her, for $1,000, and Carmen subsequently used the funds to buy a used car. When the debt became due, both Carmen and Pater refused to repay it, or any part of it. In an action by Tertius against Pater to recover $1,000 plus interest, which of the following statements would summarize Pater's best defense?
A. He received no consideration for his conditional promise to Tertius.
B. His conditional promise to Tertius was not to be performed in less than a year from the time it was made.
C. His conditional promise to Tertius was not made for the primary purpose of benefiting himself (Pater).
D. The loan by Tertius was made without any agreement concerning the applicable interest rate.
Answer: C
After several well-publicized deaths caused by fires in products made from highly flammable fabrics, the state of Orange enacted a statute prohibiting "the manufacture or assembly of any product in this state which contains any fabric that has not been tested and approved for flame retardancy by the Zetest Testing Company." The Zetest Testing Company is a privately owned and operated business located in Orange. For many years, Fabric Mill, located in the state of Orange, has had its fabric tested for flame retardancy by the Alpha Testing Company, located in the state of Green. Alpha Testing Company is a reliable organization that uses a process for testing and approving fabrics for flame retardancy identical in all respects to that used by the Zetest Testing Company. Because Fabric Mill wishes to continue to have its fabric tested solely by Alpha Testing Company, Fabric Mill files an action in Orange state court challenging the constitutionality of the Orange statute as applied to its circumstances. In this suit, the court should hold the statute to be
A. constitutional, because it is reasonably related to the protection of the reputation of the fabric industry located in the state of Orange. 
B. constitutional, because it is a legitimate means of protecting the safety of the public. 
C. unconstitutional, because it denies to Fabric Mill the equal protection of the laws. 
D. unconstitutional, because it imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce
Answer: D