ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Johnston bought 100 bolts of standard blue wool, No. 1 quality, from McHugh. The sales contract provided that Johnston would make payment prior to inspection. The 100 bolts were shipped, and Johnston paid McHugh. Upon inspection, however, Johnston discovered that the wool was No. 2 quality. Johnston thereupon tendered back the wool to McHugh and demanded return of his payment. McHugh refused on the ground that there is no difference between No. 1 quality wool and No. 2 quality wool.What is Johnston's remedy because the wool was nonconforming?
A. Specific performance.
B. Damages measured by the difference between the value of the goods delivered and the value of conforming goods.
C. Damages measured by the price paid plus the difference between the contract price and the cost of buying substitute goods.
D. None, since he waived his remedies by agreeing to pay before inspection
Answer: C
Johnston bought 100 bolts of standard blue wool, No. 1 quality, from McHugh. The sales contract provided that Johnston would make payment prior to inspection. The 100 bolts were shipped, and Johnston paid McHugh. Upon inspection, however, Johnston discovered that the wool was No. 2 quality. Johnston thereupon tendered back the wool to McHugh and demanded return of his payment. McHugh refused on the ground that there is no difference between No. 1 quality wool and No. 2 quality wool.Can Johnston resell the wool?
A. Yes, in a private sale. 
B. Yes, in a private sale but only after giving McHugh reasonable notice of his intention to resell. 
C. Yes, but only at a public sale. 
D. No
Answer: B
Lord leased a warehouse building and the lot on which it stood to Taylor for a term of 10 years. The lease contained a clause prohibiting Taylor from subletting his interest. Can Taylor assign his interest under the lease?
A. Yes, because restraints on alienation of land are strictly construed. 
B. Yes, because disabling restraints on alienation of land are invalid. 
C. No, because the term "subletting" includes "assignment" when the term is employed in a lease. 
D. No, because, even in the absence of an express prohibition on assignment, a tenant may not assign without the landlord's permission
Answer: A
Diner, a drive-in hamburger and ice cream stand, recently opened for business in the suburban town of Little City. Diner's business hours are from 9:00 a.m. to midnight. It is in an area that for 15 years has been zoned for small retail businesses, apartment buildings, and one- and two-family residences. The zoning code specifies that "small retail businesses" include "businesses where food and drink are dispensed for consumption on the premises." Diner is the first drive-in in Little City. For seven years Mr. and Mrs. Householder have owned and lived in their single-family residence, which is across the street from Diner. On opening day a brass band played in the parking lot of Diner until midnight, and the noise of cars and the unusual activity as a result of the new business prevented the Householders from getting to sleep until well after midnight, long after their usual time. Diner is heavily patronized during the day and night by highschool students. The noise of cars, the lights of the cars, the lights illuminating the parking lot at Diner, and the noise from the loudspeaker of the ordering system prevent the Householders from sleeping before midnight. Paper cups, napkins, and other items from the drive-in are regularly blown into the Householders' front yard by the prevailing wind. The traffic to and from Diner is so heavy on the street in front of their house that the Householders are afraid to allow their small children to play in the front yard. The Householders have asserted a claim against Diner based on private nuisance. The most likely effect of the fact that Householders were in the area before Diner is that it 
A. requires that the Householders' interest be given priority.
B. is irrelevant because of the zoning ordinance.
C. is irrelevant because conforming economic uses are given priority.
D. is some, but not controlling, evidence
Answer: D
Jack and Paul planned to hold up a bank. They drove to the bank in Jack's car. Jack entered while Paul remained as lookout in the car. After a few moments, Paul panicked and drove off. Jack looked over the various tellers, approached one, and whispered nervously, "Just hand over the cash. Don't look around, don't make a false move or it's your life." The teller looked at the fidgeting Jack, laughed, flipped him a dollar bill, and said, "Go on, beat it." Flustered, Jack grabbed the dollar and left. Soon after leaving the scene, Paul was stopped by the police for speeding. Noting his nervous condition, the police asked Paul if they might search the car. Paul agreed. The search turned up heroin concealed in the lid of the trunk"Paul's best defense to a charge of robbery would be that
A. Jack alone entered the bank.
B. Paul withdrew before commission of the crime when he fled the scene.
C. Paul had no knowledge of what Jack whispered to the teller.
D. the teller was not placed in fear by Jack
Answer: D
Jack and Paul planned to hold up a bank. They drove to the bank in Jack's car. Jack entered while Paul remained as lookout in the car. After a few moments, Paul panicked and drove off. Jack looked over the various tellers, approached one, and whispered nervously, "Just hand over the cash. Don't look around, don't make a false move or it's your life." The teller looked at the fidgeting Jack, laughed, flipped him a dollar bill, and said, "Go on, beat it." Flustered, Jack grabbed the dollar and left. Soon after leaving the scene, Paul was stopped by the police for speeding. Noting his nervous condition, the police asked Paul if they might search the car. Paul agreed. The search turned up heroin concealed in the lid of the trunk"The prosecution's best argument to sustain the validity of the search of Jack's car would be that
A. the search was reasonable under the circumstances, including Paul's nervous condition. 
B. the search was incident to a valid arrest.
C. Paul had, under the circumstances, sufficient standing and authority to consent to the search. 
D. exigent circumstances, including the inherent mobility of a car, justified the search
Answer: C
Pace sued Def Company for injuries suffered when Pace's car collided with Def Company's truck. Def's general manager prepared a report of the accident at the request of the company's attorney in preparation for the trial and delivered the report to the attorney. Pace now demands that the report be produced. Will production of the report be required?
A. Yes, because business reports are not generally privileged. 
B. No, because it is a privileged communication from the client to the attorney. 
C. No, because such reports contain hearsay. 
D. No, because such reports are self-servin
Answer: B
The following facts concern a tract of land in a state which follows general United States law. Each instrument is in proper form and recorded, marital property rights were waived when necessary, and each person named was adult and competent at the time of the named transaction. 1. In 1940 Oleg, the owner, conveyed his interest in fee simple "to my brothers Bob and Bill, their heirs and assigns as joint tenants with right of survivorship." 2. In 1950 Bob died, devising his interest to his only child, "Charles, for life, and then to Charles' son, Sam, for life, and then to Sam's children, their heirs and assigns." 3. In 1970 Bill died, devising his interest "to my friend, Frank, his heirs and assigns." 4. In 1972 Frank conveyed by quitclaim deed "to Paul, his heirs and assigns whatever right, title, and interest I own." Paul has never married. Paul has contracted to convey marketable record title in the land to Patrick. Can Paul do so? 
A. Yes, without joinder of any other person in the conveyance. 
B. Yes, if Charles, Sam, and Sam's only child (Gene, aged 25) will join in the conveyance. 
C. No, regardless of who joins in the conveyance, because Sam may have additional children whose interests cannot be defeated. 
D. No, regardless of who joins in the conveyance, because a title acquired by quitclaim deed is impliedly unmerchantable.
Answer: A
Peter was rowing a boat on a mountain lake when a storm suddenly arose. Fearful that the boat might sink, Peter rowed to a boat dock on shore and tied the boat to the dock. The shore property and dock were the private property of Owner. While the boat was tied at the dock, Owner came down and ordered Peter to remove the boat, because the action of the waves was causing the boat to rub against a bumper on the dock. When Peter refused, Owner untied the boat and cast it adrift. The boat sank. Peter was wearing only a pair of swimming trunks. He had a pair of shoes and a parka in the boat, but they were lost when Owner set the boat adrift. Peter was staying at a cabin one mile from Owner's property. The only land routes back were a short, rocky trail that was dangerous during the storm, and a 15-mile road around the lake. The storm continued with heavy rain and hail, and Peter, having informed Owner of the location of his cabin, asked Owner to take him back there in Owner's car. Owner said, "You got here by yourself and you'll have to get back home yourself." After one hour the storm stopped, and Peter walked home over the trail. "A necessary element in determining if Peter is liable for a trespass is whether
A. Owner had clearly posted his property with a sign indicating that it was private property.
B. Peter knew that the property belonged to a private person.
C. Peter had reasonable grounds to believe that the property belonged to a private person.
D. Peter had reasonable grounds to believe that his boat might be swamped and sink
Answer: D
Peter was rowing a boat on a mountain lake when a storm suddenly arose. Fearful that the boat might sink, Peter rowed to a boat dock on shore and tied the boat to the dock. The shore property and dock were the private property of Owner. While the boat was tied at the dock, Owner came down and ordered Peter to remove the boat, because the action of the waves was causing the boat to rub against a bumper on the dock. When Peter refused, Owner untied the boat and cast it adrift. The boat sank. Peter was wearing only a pair of swimming trunks. He had a pair of shoes and a parka in the boat, but they were lost when Owner set the boat adrift. Peter was staying at a cabin one mile from Owner's property. The only land routes back were a short, rocky trail that was dangerous during the storm, and a 15-mile road around the lake. The storm continued with heavy rain and hail, and Peter, having informed Owner of the location of his cabin, asked Owner to take him back there in Owner's car. Owner said, "You got here by yourself and you'll have to get back home yourself." After one hour the storm stopped, and Peter walked home over the trail. ". If Peter asserts a claim against Owner for loss of the boat, the most likely result is that Owner will
A. have no defense under the circumstances.
B. prevail, because Peter was a trespasser ab initio. 
C. prevail, because the boat might have damaged the dock. 
D. prevail, because Peter became a trespasser when he refused to remove the boat
Answer: A
Park brought an action against Dan for injuries received in an automobile accident, alleging negligence in that Dan was speeding and inattentive. Park calls White to testify that Dan had a reputation in the community of being a reckless driver and was known as "daredevil Dan." White's testimony is
A. admissible as habit evidence.
B. admissible, because it tends to prove that Dan was negligent at the time of this collision. 
C. inadmissible, because Dan has not offered testimony of his own good character. 
D. inadmissible to show negligence
Answer: D
Alex and Sam were arrested for holding up a gas station. They were taken to police headquarters and placed in a room for interrogation. As a police officer addressing both started to give them the Miranda warnings prior to the questioning, Alex said, "Look, Sam planned the damned thing and I was dumb enough to go along with it. We robbed the place what else is there to say?" Sam said nothing. Sam was escorted into another room and a full written confession was then obtained from Alex. If Sam is brought to trial on an indictment charging him with robbery, the fact that Sam failed to object to Alex's statement and remained silent after Alex had implicated him in the crime should be ruled
A. admissible, because his silence was an implied admission by Sam that he had participated in the crime. 
B. admissible, because a statement of a participant in a crime is admissible against another participant. 
C. inadmissible, because, under the circumstances, there was no duty or responsibility on Sam's part to respond. 
D. inadmissible, because whatever Alex may have said has no probative value in a trial against Sam
Answer: C
Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs 20 miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand.  Sincerely,  [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified.  Sincerely,  [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10. Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $1,050 a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said, "I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me 46 yours for $950?" Slicker replied, "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:15 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until 12:15 p.m. Duffer then rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's"In Duffer's letter of October 8, what was the legal effect of the language: "This offer is not subject to countermand"?
A. Under the Uniform Commercial Code the offer was irrevocable until noon, November 12. 
B. Such language prevented an effective acceptance by Slicker prior to noon, November 12. 
C. At common law, such language created a binding option in Slicker's favor. 
D. Such language did not affect the offerer's power of revocation of the offer
Answer: D
Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs 20 miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand.  Sincerely,  [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified.  Sincerely,  [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10. Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $1,050 a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said, "I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me 46 yours for $950?" Slicker replied, "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:15 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until 12:15 p.m. Duffer then rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's"In a lawsuit by Slicker against Duffer for breach of contract, what would the court probably decide regarding Slicker's letter of October 9?
A. The letter bound both parties to a unilateral contract as soon as Slicker mailed it.
B. Mailing of the letter by Slicker did not, of itself, prevent a subsequent, effective revocation by Duffer of his offer. 
C. The letter bound both parties to a bilateral contract, but only when received by Duffer on November 10. 
D. Regardless of whether Duffer's offer had proposed a unilateral or a bilateral contract, the letter was an effective acceptance upon receipt, if not upon dispatch
Answer: B
Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs 20 miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand.  Sincerely,  [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified.  Sincerely,  [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10. Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $1,050 a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said, "I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me 46 yours for $950?" Slicker replied, "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:15 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until 12:15 p.m. Duffer then rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's"What is the probable legal effect of Koolcat's conversation with Slicker and report that he (Koolcat) had sold his Sujocki to Duffer on November 10?
A. This report had no legal effect because Duffer's offer was irrevocable until November 12.
B. Unless a contract had already been formed between Slicker and Duffer, Koolcat's report to Slicker operated to terminate Slicker's power of accepting Duffer's offer. 
C. This report has no legal effect because the offer had been made by a prospective buyer (Duffer) rather than a prospective seller.
D. Koolcat's conversation with Slicker on November 11 terminated Duffer's original offer and operated as an offer by Koolcat to buy Slicker's Sujocki for $950.
Answer: B
In a suit attacking the validity of a deed executed 15 years ago, Plaintiff alleges mental incompetency of Joe, the grantor, and offers in evidence a properly authenticated affidavit of Harry, Joe's brother. The affidavit, which was executed shortly after the deed, stated that Harry had observed Joe closely over a period of weeks, that Joe had engaged in instances of unusual behavior (which were described), and that Joe's appearance had changed from one of neatness and alertness to one of disorder and absentmindedness. The judge should rule Harry's affidavit
A. inadmissible as opinion.
B. inadmissible as hearsay, not within any exception. 
C. admissible as an official document.
D. admissible as an ancient document
Answer: B
Oscar, the owner in fee simple, laid out a subdivision of 325 lots on 150 acres of land. He obtained governmental approval (as required by applicable ordinances) and, between 1968 and 1970, he sold 140 of the lots, inserting in each of the 140 deeds the following provision: "The Grantee, for himself and his heirs, assigns and successors, covenants and agrees that the premises conveyed herein shall have erected thereon one single-family dwelling and that no other structure (other than a detached garage, normally incident to a single-family dwelling) shall be erected or maintained; and, further, that no use shall ever be made or permitted to be made other than occupancy by a single family for residential purposes only." Because of difficulty encountered in selling the remaining lots for single-family use, in January 1971, Oscar advertised the remaining lots with prominent emphasis: "These lots are not subject to any restriction and purchasers will find them adaptable to a wide range of uses.""Payne had purchased one of the 140 lots and brought suit against Oscar to establish that the remaining 185 lots, as well as the 140 sold previously, can be used only for residential purposes by single families. Assuming that procedural requirements have been met to permit adjudication of the issue Payne has tendered, which of the following is the most appropriate comment?
A. Oscar should win because the provision binds only the grantee.
B. The outcome turns on whether a common development scheme had been established for the entire subdivision.
C. The outcome turns on whether there are sufficient land areas devoted to multiplefamily uses within the municipality to afford reasonable opportunity for all economic classes to move into the area so as to satisfy the standards of equal protection of the law.
D. Payne should win under an application of the doctrine which requires construction of deeds to resolve any doubt against the grantor.
Answer: B
Oscar, the owner in fee simple, laid out a subdivision of 325 lots on 150 acres of land. He obtained governmental approval (as required by applicable ordinances) and, between 1968 and 1970, he sold 140 of the lots, inserting in each of the 140 deeds the following provision: "The Grantee, for himself and his heirs, assigns and successors, covenants and agrees that the premises conveyed herein shall have erected thereon one single-family dwelling and that no other structure (other than a detached garage, normally incident to a single-family dwelling) shall be erected or maintained; and, further, that no use shall ever be made or permitted to be made other than occupancy by a single family for residential purposes only." Because of difficulty encountered in selling the remaining lots for single-family use, in January 1971, Oscar advertised the remaining lots with prominent emphasis: "These lots are not subject to any restriction and purchasers will find them adaptable to a wide range of uses.""Suppose that Oscar sold 50 lots during 1971 without inserting in the deeds any provisions relating to structures or uses. Doyle purchased one of the 50 lots and proposes to erect a service station and to conduct a retail business for the sale of gasoline, etc. Pringle purchased a lot from Boyer. Boyer had purchased from Oscar in 1968 and the deed had the provision that is quoted in the fact situation. Pringle brings suit to prevent Doyle from erecting the service station and from conducting a retail business. In the litigation between Pringle and Doyle, which of the following constitutes the best defense for Doyle?
A. Oscar's difficulty in selling with provisions relating to use establishes a change in circumstances which renders any restrictions which may once have existed unenforceable.
B. Enforcement of the restriction, in view of the change of circumstances, would be an unreasonable restraint on alienation. 
C. Since the proof (as stated) does not establish a danger of monetary loss to Pringle, Pringle has failed to establish one of the necessary elements in a cause of action to prevent Doyle from using his lot for business purposes. 
D. The facts do not establish a common building or development scheme for the entire subdivision.
Answer: D