ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Lester, the owner in fee simple of a small farm consisting of 30 acres of land improved with a house and several outbuildings, leased the same to Tanner for a 10-year period. After two years had expired, the government condemned 20 acres of the property and allocated the compensation award to Lester and Tanner according to their respective interest so taken. It so happened, however, that the 20 acres taken embraced all of the farm's tillable land, leaving only the house, outbuildings, and a small woodlot. There is no applicable statute in the jurisdiction where the property is located nor any provision in the lease relating to condemnation. Tanner quit possession, and Lester brought suit against him to recover rent. Lester will
A. lose, because there has been a frustration of purpose which excuses Tanner from further performance of his contract to pay rent. 
B. lose, because there has been a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by Lester's inability to provide Tanner with possession of the whole of the property for the entire term. 
C. win, because of the implied warranty on the part of the tenant to return the demised premises in the same condition at the end of the term as they were at the beginning. 
D. win, because the relationship of landlord and tenant was unaffected by the condemnation, thus leaving Tanner still obligated to pay rent.
Answer: D
Statutes in the jurisdiction define criminal assault as "an attempt to commit a criminal battery" and criminal battery as "causing an offensive touching." As Edward was walking down the street, a gust of wind blew his hat off. Edward reached out, trying to grab his hat, and narrowly missed striking Margaret in the face with his hand. Margaret, fearful of being struck by Edward, pushed Edward away "If charged with criminal assault, Edward should be found
A. guilty, because he caused Margaret to be in apprehension of an offensive touching. 
B. guilty, because he should have realized that he might strike someone by reaching out. 
C. not guilty, because he did not intend to hit Margaret. 
D. not guilty, because he did not hit Margaret
Answer: C
Statutes in the jurisdiction define criminal assault as "an attempt to commit a criminal battery" and criminal battery as "causing an offensive touching." As Edward was walking down the street, a gust of wind blew his hat off. Edward reached out, trying to grab his hat, and narrowly missed striking Margaret in the face with his hand. Margaret, fearful of being struck by Edward, pushed Edward away "If charged with criminal battery, Margaret should be found
A. guilty, because she intentionally pushed Edward. 
B. guilty, because she caused the touching of Edward whether she meant to do so or not. 
C. not guilty, because a push is not an offensive touching. 
D. not guilty, because she was justified in pushing Edward
Answer: D
Police were concerned about an increase in marijuana traffic in Defendant's neighborhood. One night, Police Officers, accompanied by dogs trained to sniff out marijuana, went into the backyard of Defendant's house and onto his porch. Defendant and his friend were inside 34 having dinner. The dogs acted as if they smelled marijuana. Police Officers knocked on the back door. Defendant answered the door and let them in. Defendant was immediately placed under arrest. After a brief search, Police Officers confiscated a large quantity of marijuana which they found in Defendant's linen closet. Defendant's motion to prevent introduction of the marijuana into evidence will most probably be
A. denied, because the search was incident to a valid arrest. 
B. denied, because Defendant permitted Police Officers to enter his house. 
C. granted, because under the circumstances the police activity violated Defendant's reasonable expectations of privacy. 
D. granted, because this kind of detection by trained dogs has not been scientifically verified and cannot be the basis for probable cause.
Answer: C
Drew was tried for the July 21 murder of Victor.In his case in chief, Drew called his first witness, Wilma, to testify to Drew's reputation in his community as a "peaceable man." The testimony is
A. admissible as tending to prove that Drew is believable.
B. admissible as trying to prove that Drew is innocent.
C. inadmissible, because Drew has not testified. 
D. inadmissible, because reputation is not a proper way to prove character
Answer: B
Drew was tried for the July 21 murder of Victor.Drew called William to testify that on July 20 Drew said that he was about to leave that day to visit relatives in a distant state. The testimony is
A. admissible, because it is a declaration of present mental state. 
B. admissible, because it is not hearsay. 
C. inadmissible, because it is irrelevant. 
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception.
Answer: A
Drew was tried for the July 21 murder of Victor."Drew called Wilson to testify to alibi. On crossexamination of Wilson, the prosecution asked, "Isn't it a fact that you are Drew's first cousin?" The question is
A. proper, because it goes to bias. 
B. proper, because a relative is not competent to give reputation testimony. 
C. improper, because the question goes beyond the scope of direct examination. 
D. improper, because the evidence being sought is irrelevant
Answer: A
Drew was tried for the July 21 murder of Victor.Drew called Warren to testify to alibi. On crossexamination of Warren, the prosecutor asked, "Weren't you on the jury that acquitted Drew of another criminal charge?" The best reason for sustaining an objection to this question is th
A. the question goes beyond the scope of direct examination.
B. the probative value of the answer would be outweighed by its tendency to mislead.
C. the question is leading.
D. prior jury service in a case involving a party renders the witness incompetent.
Answer: B
Redirect examination of a witness must be permitted in which of the following circumstances?
A. To reply to any matter raised in crossexamination.
B. Only to reply to significant new matter raised in cross-examination.
C. Only to reiterate the essential elements of the case.
D. Only to supply significant information inadvertently omitted on direct examination
Answer: B
On March 1, Mechanic agreed to repair Ohner's machine for $5,000, to be paid on completion of the work. On March 15, before the work was completed, Mechanic sent a letter to Ohner with a copy to Jones, telling Ohner to pay the $5,000 to Jones, who was one of Mechanic's creditors. Mechanic then completed the work. Which of the following, if true, would best serve Ohner as a defense in an action brought against him by Jones for $5,000?
A. Jones was incapable of performing Mechanic's work.
B. Mechanic had not performed his work in a workmanlike manner. 35
C. On March 1, Mechanic had promised Ohner that he would not assign the contract. 
D. Jones was not the intended beneficiary of the Ohner-Mechanic contract
Answer: B
BCD, a manufacturer of computers, pays its salespeople a salary of $1,000 per month and a commission of five percent on billings actually rendered for machines that they sell. BCD salespeople are employed at will under written agreements which provide that in order to receive a commission the salesperson must be in the employment of the company when the bill is sent to the customer. In 1976, John, a salesperson for BCD, worked for eight months to get an order from Bobb Corporation for a large $750,000 computer. He consulted extensively with Bobb's top executives and worked with its operating personnel to develop detailed specifications for the new equipment. He also promised Bobb, with BCD's knowledge and approval, to assist Bobb for six months after installation in making the equipment work. On January 1, 1977, Bobb signed an order, and on March 1, the computer was installed. On March 15, BCD fired John on the stated ground that he had failed to meet his 1975 and 1976 sales quotas. John thought that BCD was correct in this statement. Another salesperson, Franklin, was thereupon assigned to service the Bobb account. On March 31, BCD billed Bobb for the computer."Assume for this question only that BCD's termination of John's employment was not wrongful. If John, after demand and refusal, sues BCD for the Bobb sale commission, which of the following is the most likely to result?
A. John will win, because he had procured the sale of the computer. 
B. John will win, because he had promised Bobb to assist in making the equipment work. 
C. BCD will win, because Franklin is entitled to the commission on a quantum meruit basis. 
D. BCD will win, because John was not employed as a BCD salesperson when Bobb was billed for the computer.
Answer: D
BCD, a manufacturer of computers, pays its salespeople a salary of $1,000 per month and a commission of five percent on billings actually rendered for machines that they sell. BCD salespeople are employed at will under written agreements which provide that in order to receive a commission the salesperson must be in the employment of the company when the bill is sent to the customer. In 1976, John, a salesperson for BCD, worked for eight months to get an order from Bobb Corporation for a large $750,000 computer. He consulted extensively with Bobb's top executives and worked with its operating personnel to develop detailed specifications for the new equipment. He also promised Bobb, with BCD's knowledge and approval, to assist Bobb for six months after installation in making the equipment work. On January 1, 1977, Bobb signed an order, and on March 1, the computer was installed. On March 15, BCD fired John on the stated ground that he had failed to meet his 1975 and 1976 sales quotas. John thought that BCD was correct in this statement. Another salesperson, Franklin, was thereupon assigned to service the Bobb account. On March 31, BCD billed Bobb for the computer."Assume for this question only that BCD's termination of John's employment was not wrongful. If John sues BCD for the reasonable value of his services, which of the following is the most likely result?
A. John will win, because BCD benefited as a result of John's services. 
B. John will win, because BCD made an implied-in-fact promise to pay a reasonable commission for services that result in sales. 
C. John will lose, because there is an express contractual provision pre-empting the subject of compensation for his services. 
D. John will lose, because he cannot perform his agreement to assist the customer for six months
Answer: C
BCD, a manufacturer of computers, pays its salespeople a salary of $1,000 per month and a commission of five percent on billings actually rendered for machines that they sell. BCD salespeople are employed at will under written agreements which provide that in order to receive a commission the salesperson must be in the employment of the company when the bill is sent to the customer. In 1976, John, a salesperson for BCD, worked for eight months to get an order from Bobb Corporation for a large $750,000 computer. He consulted extensively with Bobb's top executives and worked with its operating personnel to develop detailed specifications for the new equipment. He also promised Bobb, with BCD's knowledge and approval, to assist Bobb for six months after installation in making the equipment work. On January 1, 1977, Bobb signed an order, and on March 1, the computer was installed. On March 15, BCD fired John on the stated ground that he had failed to meet his 1975 and 1976 sales quotas. John thought that BCD was correct in this statement. Another salesperson, Franklin, was thereupon assigned to service the Bobb account. On March 31, BCD billed Bobb for the computer.""Which of the following additional facts, if shown by the evidence, would support a claim by John against BCD? I. BCD terminated John because Franklin is the son of the company's president, who wanted his son to have the commission instead of John. II. BCD and John were mistaken; John had in fact exceeded his sales quotas for 1975 and 1976. III. John had worked for BCD as a salesperson for 20 years.
A. I only
B. II only
C. I and II only
D. I, II, and II
Answer: C
In 1963, Hobson was appointed to a tribunal established pursuant to a congressional act. The tribunal's duties were to review claims made by veterans and to make recommendations to the Veterans Administration on their merits. Congress later abolished the tribunal and established a different format for review of such claims. Hobson was offered a federal administrative position in the same bureau at a lesser salary. He thereupon sued the government on the ground that Congress may not remove a federal judge from office during good behavior nor diminish his compensation during continuance in office. Government attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the action. The court should
A. deny the motion, because of the independence of the federal judiciary constitutionally guaranteed by Article III. 
B. deny the motion, because Hobson has established a property right to his federal employment on the tribunal. 
C. grant the motion, because Hobson lacks standing to raise the question. 
D. grant the motion, because Hobson was not a judge under Article III and is not entitled to life tenure
Answer: D
In 1940, Cattle Company paid $30,000 for a 150- acre tract of agricultural land well suited for a cattle feedlot. The tract was 10 miles from the city of Metropolis, then a community of 50,000 people, and five miles from the nearest home. By 1976, the city limits extended to Cattle Company's feedlot, and the city had a population of 350,000. About 10,000 people lived within three miles of the cattle-feeding operation. The Cattle Company land is outside the city limits and no zoning ordinance applies. The Cattle Company land is now worth $300,000, and $25,000 has been invested in buildings and pens. Cattle Company, conscious of its obligations to its neighbors, uses the best and most sanitary feedlot procedures, including chemical sprays, to keep down flies and odors, and frequently removes manure. Despite these measures, residents of Metropolis complain of flies and odors. An action has been filed by five individual homeowners who live within half a mile of the Cattle Company feedlot. The plaintiffs' homes are valued currently at $25,000 to $40,000 each. Flies in the area are five to ten times more numerous than in other parts of Metropolis, and extremely obnoxious odors are frequently carried by the wind to the plaintiffs' homes. The flies and odors are a substantial health hazard."If plaintiffs assert a claim based on public nuisance, plaintiffs will
A. prevail if plaintiffs sustained harm different from that suffered by the public at large.
B. prevail if Cattle Company's acts interfered with any person's enjoyment of his property.
C. not prevail, because only the state may bring an action based on public nuisance. 
D. not prevail, because plaintiffs came to the nuisance
Answer: A
Alan, who was already married, went through a marriage ceremony with Betty and committed bigamy. Carl, his friend, who did not know of Alan's previous marriage, had encouraged Alan to marry Betty and was best man at the ceremony. If Carl is charged with being an accessory to bigamy, he should be found
A. not guilty, because his encouragement and assistance were not the legal cause of the crime. 
B. not guilty, because he did not have the mental state required for aiding and abetting. 
C. guilty, because he encouraged Alan, and his mistake as to the existence of a prior marriage is not a defense to a charge of bigamy. 
D. guilty, because he was present when the crime occurred and is thus a principal in the second degre
Answer: B
Darlene was arrested on a murder charge. She was given Miranda warnings and refused to talk further with the police. At trial, she testified in her own defense. She recounted in some detail her whereabouts on the day of the crime and explained why she could not have committed the crime. On cross-examination and over defense objection, the prosecution emphasized the fact that she did not tell the police this story following her arrest. The prosecution thereby suggested that her testimony was false. Darlene was convicted. On appeal, she claims error in the prosecutor's cross-examination. Her conviction will most probably be
A. affirmed, because Darlene's silence at time of arrest is tantamount to a prior inconsistent statement, giving rise to an inference that the story was fabricated. 
B. affirmed, because Darlene's silence was not used as direct evidence but only for impeachment, a purpose consistent with legitimate cross-examination. 
C. reversed, because post-arrest silence constituted Darlene's exercise of her Miranda rights and use of that silence against her at trial violated due process. 
D. reversed, because to require the defense to acquaint the prosecution with Darlene's testimony prior to trial would constitute unconstitutional pretrial discover
Answer: C
Alice was held up at the point of a gun, an unusual revolver with a red-painted barrel, while she was clerking in a neighborhood grocery store. Dennis is charged with armed robbery of Alice. The prosecutor calls Winthrop to testify that, a week after the robbery of Alice, he was robbed by Dennis with a pistol that had red paint on the barrel. Winthrop's testimony is 
A. admissible as establishing an identifying circumstance.
B. admissible as showing that Dennis was willing to commit robbery.
C. inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence. 
D. inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudic
Answer: A
Maria is the owner and possessor of Goodacre, on which there is a lumberyard. Maria conveyed to Reliable Electric Company the right to construct and use an overhead electric line across Goodacre to serve other properties. The conveyance was in writing, but the writing made no provision concerning the responsibility for repair or maintenance of the line. Reliable installed the poles and erected the electric line in a proper and workmanlike manner. Neither Maria nor Reliable took any steps toward the maintenance or repair of the line after it was built. Neither party complained to the other about any failure to repair. Because of the failure to repair or properly maintain the line, it fell to the ground during a storm. In doing so, it caused a fire in the lumberyard and did considerable damage. Maria sued Reliable Electric Company to recover for damages to the lumberyard. The decision should be for 
A. Maria, because the owner of an easement has a duty to so maintain the easement as to avoid unreasonable interference with the use of the servient tenement by its lawful possessor. 
B. Maria, because the owner of an easement is absolutely liable for any damage caused to the servient tenement by the exercise of the easement. 
C. Reliable Electric Company, because the possessor of the servient tenement has a duty to give the easement holder notice of defective conditions. 
D. Reliable Electric Company, because an easement holder's right to repair is a right for his own benefit, and is therefore inconsistent with any duty to repair for the benefit of another
Answer: A
Sartorial, Inc., a new business enterprise about to commence the manufacture of clothing, entered into a written agreement to purchase all of its monthly requirements of a certain elasticized fabric for a period of three years from the Stretch Company at a specified unit price and agreed delivery and payment terms. The agreement also provided: 1. The parties covenant not to assign this contract. 2. Payments coming due hereunder for the first two months shall be made directly by Sartorial to Virginia Wear and Son, Inc., a creditor of Stretch. Stretch promptly made an "assignment of the contract" to Finance Company as security for a $100,000 loan. Sartorial subsequently ordered, took delivery of, and paid Stretch the agreed price ($5,000) for Sartorial's requirement of the fabric for the first month of its operation.Which of the following accurately states the legal effect of the covenant not to assign the contract?
A. The covenant made the assignment to Finance Company ineffective.
B. The covenant had no legal effect.
C. Stretch's assignment was a breach of its contract with Sartorial but was 38 nevertheless effective to transfer to Finance Company Stretch's rights against Sartorial.
D. By normal interpretation, a covenant against assignment in a sale-of-goods agreement applies to only the buyer, not the seller
Answer: C
Sartorial, Inc., a new business enterprise about to commence the manufacture of clothing, entered into a written agreement to purchase all of its monthly requirements of a certain elasticized fabric for a period of three years from the Stretch Company at a specified unit price and agreed delivery and payment terms. The agreement also provided: 1. The parties covenant not to assign this contract. 2. Payments coming due hereunder for the first two months shall be made directly by Sartorial to Virginia Wear and Son, Inc., a creditor of Stretch. Stretch promptly made an "assignment of the contract" to Finance Company as security for a $100,000 loan. Sartorial subsequently ordered, took delivery of, and paid Stretch the agreed price ($5,000) for Sartorial's requirement of the fabric for the first month of its operation.Assume for this question only that the assignment from Stretch to Finance Company was effective, and that Sartorial was unaware of the assignment when it paid Stretch the $5,000. Which of the following is correct?
A. Sartorial is liable to Finance Company for $5,000. 
B. Stretch is liable to Finance Company for $5,000. 
C. Sartorial and Stretch are each liable to Finance Company for $2,500. 
D. Neither Sartorial nor Stretch is liable to Finance Company for any amount
Answer: B
Sartorial, Inc., a new business enterprise about to commence the manufacture of clothing, entered into a written agreement to purchase all of its monthly requirements of a certain elasticized fabric for a period of three years from the Stretch Company at a specified unit price and agreed delivery and payment terms. The agreement also provided: 1. The parties covenant not to assign this contract. 2. Payments coming due hereunder for the first two months shall be made directly by Sartorial to Virginia Wear and Son, Inc., a creditor of Stretch. Stretch promptly made an "assignment of the contract" to Finance Company as security for a $100,000 loan. Sartorial subsequently ordered, took delivery of, and paid Stretch the agreed price ($5,000) for Sartorial's requirement of the fabric for the first month of its operation."Assume for this question only that the assignment from Stretch to Finance Company was effective, and that Virginia Wear and Son, Inc., did not become aware of the original agreement between Sartorial and Stretch until after Stretch's acceptance of the $5,000 payment from Sartorial. Which of the following, if any, is/are correct? I. Virginia Wear and Son, Inc., was an incidental beneficiary of the SartorialStretch agreement. II. Virginia Wear and Son, Inc., has a prior right to Sartorial's $5,000 payment as against either Stretch or Finance Company.
A. I only
B. II only
C. Both I and II
D. Neither I nor I
Answer: D