ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
In a prosecution of Dale for murdering Vera, Dale testified that the killing had occurred in self defense when Vera tried to shoot him. In rebuttal, the prosecution seeks to call Walter, Vera's father, to testify that the day before the killing, Vera told Walter that she loved Dale so much she could never hurt him. Walter's testimony is 
A. admissible within the hearsay exception for statements of the declarant's then existing state of mind.
B. admissible, because Vera is unavailable as a witness. 
C. inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception.
D. inadmissible, because Vera's character is not an issue. 
Answer: A
For an agreed price of $20 million, Bildko, Inc., contracted with Venture to design and build on Venture's commercial plot a 15-story office building. In excavating for the foundation and underground utilities, Bildko encountered a massive layer of granite at a depth of 15 feet. By reasonable safety criteria, the building's foundation required a minimum excavation of 25 feet. When the contract was made, neither Venture nor Bildko was aware of the subsurface granite, for the presence of which neither party had hired a qualified expert to test. Claiming accurately that removal of enough granite to permit the construction as planned would cost him an additional $3 million and a probable net loss on the contract of $2 million, Bildko refused to proceed with the work unless Venture would promise to pay an additional $2.5 million for the completed building. If Venture refuses and sues Bildko for breach of contract, which of the following will the court probably decide? 
A. Bildko is excused under the modern doctrine of supervening impossibility, which includes severe impracticability. 
B. Bildko is excused, because the contract is voidable on account of the parties' mutual mistake concerning an essential underlying fact. 
C. Venture prevails, because Bildko assumed the risk of encountering subsurface granite that was unknown to Venture. 
D. Venture prevails, unless subsurface granite was previously unknown anywhere in the vicinity of Venture's construction site. 
Answer: C
Owens owned Whiteacre, a dwelling house situated on a two-acre lot in an area zoned for single-family residential uses only. Although it was not discernible from the outside, Whiteacre had been converted by Owens from a single-family house to a structure that contained three separate apartments, in violation of the zoning ordinance. Further, the conversion was in violation of the building code. Owens and Peters entered into a valid written contract for the purchase and sale of Whiteacre. The contract provided that Owens was to convey to Peters a marketable title. The contract was silent as to zoning. Peters had fully inspected Whiteacre. Prior to the closing, Peters learned that Whiteacre did not conform to the zoning ordinance and refused to close although Owens was ready, willing, and able to perform his contract obligations. Owens brought an appropriate action for specific performance against Peters. In that action, Owens should 
A. win, because Owens was able to convey a marketable title. 
B. win, because Peters was charged with knowledge of the zoning ordinance prior to entering the contract. 
C. lose, because the illegal conversion of Whiteacre creates the risk of litigation. 
D. lose, because the illegal conversion of Whiteacre was done by Owens rather than by a predecessor. 
Answer: C
Morten was the general manager and chief executive officer of the Woolen Company, a knitting mill. Morten delegated all operational decision making to Crouse, the supervising manager of the mill. The child labor laws in the jurisdiction provide, "It is a violation of the law for one to employ a person under the age of 17 years for full-time labor." Without Morten's knowledge, Crouse hired a number of 15- and 16-year-olds to work at the mill full time. He did not ask their ages and they did not disclose them. Crouse could have discovered their ages easily by asking for identification, but he did not do so because he was not aware of the law and believed that company policy was to hire young people. If the statute is interpreted to create strict liability and Crouse is charged with violating it, Crouse is 
A. guilty, because he should have inquired as to the ages of the children. 
B. guilty, because he hired the children. 
C. not guilty, because in law the Woolen Company, not Crouse, is the employer of the children. 
D. not guilty, because he believed he was following company policy and was not aware of the violation. 
Answer: B
Ann's three-year-old daughter, Janet, was killed in an automobile accident. At Ann's direction, Janet's body was taken to a mausoleum for interment. Normally, the mausoleum's vaults are permanently sealed with marble plates secured by "tamper-proof" screws. After Janet's body was placed in the mausoleum, however, only a fiberglass panel secured by caulking compound covered her vault. About a month later, Janet's body was discovered in a cemetery located near the mausoleum. It had apparently been left there by vandals who had taken it from the mausoleum. As a result of this experience, Ann suffered great emotional distress. If Ann sues the mausoleum for the damages arising from her emotional distress, will she prevail? 
A. No, because Ann experienced no threat to her own safety. 
B. No, unless the mausoleum's behavior was extreme and outrageous. 
C. Yes, if the mausoleum failed to use reasonable care to safeguard the body. 
D. Yes, unless Ann suffered no physical harm as a consequence of her emotional distress. 
Answer: C
Wastrel, a notorious spendthrift who was usually broke for that reason, received the following letter from his Uncle Bullion, a wealthy and prudent man: "I understand you're in financial difficulties again. I promise to give you $5,000 on your birthday next month, but you'd better use it wisely or you'll never get another dime from me." Wastrel thereupon signed a contract with a car dealer to purchase a $40,000 automobile and to make a $5,000 down payment on the day after his birthday. If Wastrel sues Bullion for $5,000 after the latter learned of the car-purchase contract and then repudiated his promise, which of the following is Bullion's best defense? 
A. A promise to make a gift in the future is not enforceable.
B. Reliance by the promisee on a promise to make a future gift does not make the promise enforceable unless the value of the promised gift is substantially equivalent to the promisee's loss by reliance.
C. Reliance by the promisee on a promise to make a future gift does not make the promise enforceable unless that reliance also results in an economic benefit to the promisor.
D. Reliance by the promisee on a promise to make a future gift does not make the promise enforceable unless injustice can be avoided only by such enforcement.
Answer: D
Congress passed a bill prohibiting the President from granting a pardon to any person who had not served at least one-third of the sentence imposed by the court which convicted that person. The President vetoed the bill, claiming that it was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Congress passed it over his veto by a two-thirds vote of each house. This act of Congress is 
A. constitutional, because it was enacted over the President's veto by a two-thirds vote of each house. 
B. constitutional, because it is a necessary and proper means of carrying out the powers of Congress. 
C. unconstitutional, because it interferes with the plenary power of the President to grant pardons. 
D. unconstitutional, because a Presidential veto based upon constitutional grounds may be overridden only with the concurrence of three-fourths of the state legislatures. 
Answer: C
Defendant is on trial for the crime of obstructing justice by concealing records subpoenaed May 1, in a government investigation. The government calls Attorney to testify that on May 3, Defendant asked him how to comply with the regulations regarding the transfer of records to a safe-deposit box in Mexico. The testimony of Attorney is 
A. privileged, because it relates to conduct outside the jurisdiction of the United States. 
B. privileged, because an attorney is required to keep the confidences of his clients. 
C. not privileged, provided Attorney knew of the concededly illegal purpose for which the advice was sought. 
D. not privileged, whether or not Attorney knew of the concededly illegal purpose for which the advice was sought. 
Answer: D
Prad entered Drug Store to make some purchases. As he was searching the aisles for various items, he noticed a display card containing automatic pencils. The display card was on a high shelf behind a cashier's counter. Prad saw a sign on the counter that read, "No Admittance, Employees Only." Seeing no clerks in the vicinity to help him, Prad went behind the counter to get a pencil. A clerk then appeared behind the counter and asked whether she could help him. He said he just wanted a pencil and that he could reach the display card himself. The clerk said nothing further. While reaching for the display card, Prad stepped sideways into an open shaft and fell to the basement, ten feet below. The clerk knew of the presence of the open shaft, but assumed incorrectly that Prad had noticed it. Prad sued Drug Store to recover damages for the injuries he sustained in the fall. The jurisdiction has adopted a rule of pure comparative negligence, and it follows traditional common-law rules governing the duties of a land possessor. Will Prad recover a judgment against Drug Store? 
A. No, because Prad was a trespasser. 
B. No, unless Prad's injuries resulted from the defendant's willful or wanton misconduct. 
C. Yes, because the premises were defective with respect to a public invitee. 
D. Yes, if the clerk had reason to believe that Prad was unaware of the open shaft. 
Answer: D
A statute in the jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as knowingly killing another person after deliberation. Deliberation is defined as "cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief." Murder in the second degree is defined as "all other murder at common law except felony-murder." Felony-murder is murder in the third degree. Manslaughter is defined by the common law. At 2 a.m., Duncan held up an all-night liquor store using an assault rifle. During the holdup, two police cars with flashing lights drove up in front of the store. In order to create a situation where the police would hesitate to come into the store (and thus give Duncan a chance to escape out the back) Duncan fired several rounds through the front window of the store. Duncan then ran out the back but upon discovering another police car there, surrendered quietly. One of the shots he fired while in the store struck and killed a burglar who was stealing items from a closed store across the street. The most serious degree of criminal homicide Duncan is guilty of is 
A. murder in the first degree.
B. murder in the second degree.
C. murder in the third degree.
D. manslaughter.
Answer: B
Denn is on trial for arson. In its case in chief, the prosecution offers evidence that Denn had secretly obtained duplicate insurance from two companies on the property that burned and that Denn had threatened to kill his ex-wife if she testified for the prosecution. The court should admit evidence of 
A. Denn's obtaining duplicate insurance only.
B. Denn's threatening to kill his ex-wife only.
C. both Denn's obtaining duplicate insurance and threatening to kill his ex-wife.
D. neither Denn's obtaining duplicate insurance nor threatening to kill his ex-wife.
Answer: C
In the course of a bank holdup, Robber fired a gun at Guard. Guard drew his revolver and returned the fire. One of the bullets fired by Guard ricocheted, striking Plaintiff. If Plaintiff asserts a claim against Guard based upon battery, will Plaintiff prevail? 
A. Yes, unless Plaintiff was Robber's accomplice. 
B. Yes, under the doctrine of transferred intent. 
C. No, if Guard fired reasonably in his own defense. 
D. No, if Guard did not intend to shoot Plaintiff. 
Answer: C
Mural, a wallpaper hanger, sent Gennybelle, a general contractor, this telegram: Will do all paperhanging on new Doctors' Building, per owner's specs, for $14,000 if you accept within reasonable time after main contract awarded./s/ Mural Three other competing hangers sent Gennybelle similar bids in the respective amounts of $18,000, $19,000, and $20,000. Gennybelle used Mural's $14,000 figure in preparing and submitting her own sealed bid on Doctors' Building. Before the bids were opened, Mural truthfully advised Gennybelle that the former's telegraphic sub-bid had been based on a $4,000 computational error and was therefore revoked. Shortly thereafter, Gennybelle was awarded the Doctors' Building construction contract and subsequently contracted with another paperhanger for a price of $18,000. Gennybelle now sues Mural to recover $4,000. Which of the following, if proved, would most strengthen Gennybelle's prospect of recovery? 
A. After Mural's notice of revocation, Gennybelle made a reasonable effort to subcontract with another paperhanger at the lowest possible price. 
B. Gennybelle had been required by the owner to submit a bid bond and could not have withdrawn or amended her bid on the main contract without forfeiting that bond.
C. Mural was negligent in erroneously calculating the amount of his sub-bid.
D. Gennybelle dealt with all of her subcontractors in good faith and without seeking to renegotiate (lower) the prices they had bid.
Answer: B
Mural, a wallpaper hanger, sent Gennybelle, a general contractor, this telegram: Will do all paperhanging on new Doctors' Building, per owner's specs, for $14,000 if you accept within reasonable time after main contract awarded./s/ Mural Three other competing hangers sent Gennybelle similar bids in the respective amounts of $18,000, $19,000, and $20,000. Gennybelle used Mural's $14,000 figure in preparing and submitting her own sealed bid on Doctors' Building. Before the bids were opened, Mural truthfully advised Gennybelle that the former's telegraphic sub-bid had been based on a $4,000 computational error and was therefore revoked. Shortly thereafter, Gennybelle was awarded the Doctors' Building construction contract and subsequently contracted with another paperhanger for a price of $18,000. Gennybelle now sues Mural to recover $4,000. Which of the following, if proved, would best support Mural's defense? 
A. Gennybelle gave Mural no consideration for an irrevocable sub-bid.
B. Mural's sub-bid expressly requested Gennybelle's acceptance after awarding of the main contract.
C. Even after paying $18,000 for the paperhanging, Gennybelle would make a net profit of $100,000 on the Doctors' Building contract. 
D. Before submitting her own bid, Gennybelle had reason to suspect that Mural had made a computational mistake in figuring his sub-bid. 
Answer: D
Roberta Monk, a famous author, had a life insurance policy with Drummond Life Insurance Company. Her son, Peter, was beneficiary. Roberta disappeared from her residence in the city of Metropolis two years ago and has not been seen since. On the day that Roberta disappeared, Sky Airlines Flight 22 left Metropolis for Rio de Janeiro and vanished; the plane's passenger list included a Roberta Rector. Peter is now suing Drummond Life Insurance Company for the proceeds of his mother's policy. At trial, Peter offers to testify that his mother told him that she planned to write her next novel under the pen name of Roberta Rector. Peter's testimony is 
A. admissible as circumstantial evidence that Roberta Monk was on the plane.
B. admissible as a party admission, because Roberta and Peter Monk are in privity with each other. 
C. inadmissible, because Roberta Monk has not been missing more than seven years. 
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
Answer: A
Jones and Smith, who were professional rivals, were attending a computer industry dinner where each was to receive an award for achievement in the field of data processing. Smith engaged Jones in conversation and expressed the opinion that if they joined forces, they could do even better. Jones replied that she would not consider Smith as a business partner and when Smith demanded to know why, told him that he, Smith, was incompetent. The exchange was overheard by Brown, who attended the dinner. Smith suffered emotional distress but no pecuniary loss. If Smith asserts a claim against Jones based on defamation, will Smith prevail? 
A. No, because Smith suffered no pecuniary loss. 
B. No, because Jones's statement was made to Smith and not to Brown. 
C. No, unless Jones should have foreseen that her statement would be overheard by another person. 
D. No, unless Jones intended to cause Smith emotional distress. 
Answer: C
Ozzie owned and occupied Blackacre, which was a tract of land improved with a onefamily house. His friend, Victor, orally offered Ozzie $50,000 for Blackacre, the fair market value, and Ozzie accepted. Because they were friends, they saw no need for attorneys or written contracts and shook hands on the deal. Victor paid Ozzie $5,000 down in cash and agreed to pay the balance of $45,000 at an agreed closing time and place. Before the closing, Victor inherited another home and asked Ozzie to return his $5,000. Ozzie refused, and, at the time set for the closing, Ozzie tendered a good deed to Victor and declared his intention to vacate Blackacre the next day. Ozzie demanded that Victor complete the purchase. Victor refused. The fair market value of Blackacre has remained $50,000. In an appropriate action brought by Ozzie against Victor for specific performance, if Ozzie loses, the most likely reason will be that 
A. the agreement was oral.
B. keeping the $5,000 is Ozzie's exclusive remedy. 
C. Victor had a valid reason for not closing.
D. Ozzie remained in possession on the day set for the closing.
Answer: A
The Pinners, a retired couple, had lived in their home in a residential neighborhood for 20 years when the Darleys moved into the house next door and built a swimming pool in the back yard. The four young Darley children frequently played in the pool after school. They often were joined by other neighborhood children. The Pinners were in the habit of reading and listening to classical music in the afternoons. Sometimes they took naps. The boisterous sounds of the children playing in the pool disturbed the Pinners' customary enjoyment of quiet afternoons. In the Pinners' nuisance action for damages against the Darleys, the Pinners should 
A. prevail, if the children's noise constituted a substantial interference with the Pinners' use and enjoyment of their home. 
B. prevail, because the Pinners' interest in the quiet enjoyment of their home takes precedence in time over the Darleys' interests. 
C. not prevail, unless the noise constituted a substantial and unreasonable disturbance to persons of normal sensibilities. 
D. not prevail, because the children's interest in healthy play has priority over the Pinners' interest in peace and quiet. 
Answer: C
Which of the following items of evidence is LEAST likely to be admitted without a supporting witness?
A. In a libel action, a copy of a newspaper purporting to be published by Defendant Newspaper Publishing Company. 
B. In a case involving contaminated food, a can label purporting to identify the canner as Defendant Company. 
C. In a defamation case, a document purporting to be a memorandum from the Defendant Company president to "All Personnel," printed on Defendant's letterhead. 
D. In a case involving injury to a pedestrian, a pamphlet on stopping distances issued by the State Highway Department. 
Answer: C
For several weeks Mater, a wealthy, unemployed widow, and Nirvana Motors, Inc., negotiated unsuccessfully over the purchase price of a new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan, which, as Nirvana knew, Mater wanted her son Dilbert to have as a wedding gift. On April 27, Nirvana sent Mater a signed, dated memo saying, "If we can arrive at the same price within the next week, do we have a deal?" Mater wrote "Yes" and her signature at the bottom of this memo and delivered it back to Nirvana on April 29. On May 1, Mater wrote Nirvana a signed letter offering to buy "one new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan, with all available equipment, for $180,000 cash on delivery not later than June 1." By coincidence, Nirvana wrote Mater a signed letter on May 1 offering to sell her "one new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan, with all available equipment, for $180,000 cash on delivery not later than June 1." These letters crossed in the mails and were respectively received and read by Mater and Nirvana on May 2. If Mater subsequently asserts and Nirvana denies that the parties had a binding contract on May 3, which of the following most persuasively supports Mater's position? 
A. A sale-of-goods contract may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, even though the moment of its making is undetermined. 
B. A sale-of-goods contract does not require that an acceptance be a mirror image of the offer.
C. With respect both to the making of an agreement and the requirement of consideration, identical cross-offers are functionally the same as an offer followed by a responsive acceptance. 
D. Since Nirvana was a merchant in the transaction and Mater was not, Nirvana is estopped to deny that the parties' correspondence created a binding contract. 
Answer: A