ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
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, two weeks after making the $5,000 payment to Stretch, Sartorial by written notice to Stretch terminated the agreement for purchase of the elasticized fabric because market conditions had in fact forced Sartorial out of the clothing manufacture business. In an immediate suit by Finance Company against Sartorial for total breach, which of the following would be useful in Sartorial's defense?
A. Stretch's rights under its agreement with Sartorial were personal and therefore nonassignable.
B. Stretch's "assignment of the contract" to Finance Company to secure a loan would normally be interpreted as a delegation of Stretch's duties under the contract as well as an assignment of its rights; and its duties, owed to Sartorial, were personal and therefore nondelegable. 
C. The original contract between Sartorial and Stretch was unenforceable by either party for want of a legally sufficient consideration for Stretch's promise to supply Sartorial's requirements of the elasticized fabric.
D. Sartorial ceased in good faith to have any further requirements for elasticized fabric
Answer: D
Seth owned a vacant lot known as Richacre. Seth entered into a written contract with Bobto build a house of stated specifications on Richacre and to sell the house and lot to Bob. The contract provided for an "inside date" of April 1, 1977, and an "outside date" of May 1, 1977, for completion of the house and delivery of a deed. Neither party tendered performance on the dates stated. On May 3, 1977, Bob notified Seth in writing of Bob's election to cancel the contract because of Seth's failure to deliver title by May 1. On May 12, Seth notified Bob that some unanticipated construction difficulties had been encountered but that Seth was entitled to a reasonable time to complete in any event. The notification also included a promise that Seth would be ready to perform by May 29 and that he was setting that date as an adjourned closing date. Seth obtained a certificate of occupancy and appropriate documents of title, and he tendered performance on May 29. Bob refused. Seth brought an action to recover damages for breach of contract. The decision in the case will most likely be determined by whether
A. Seth acted with due diligence in completing the house.
B. Bob can prove actual "undue hardship" caused by the delay. 
C. the expressions "inside date" and "outside date" are construed to make time of the essence. 
D. there is a showing of good faith in Bob's efforts to terminate the contract.
Answer: C
Metterly, the owner in fee simple of Brownacre, by quitclaim deed conveyed Brownacre to her daughter, Doris, who paid no consideration for the conveyance. The deed was never recorded. About a year after the delivery of the deed, Metterly decided that this gift had been illadvised. She asked Doris to destroy the deed, which Doris dutifully and voluntarily did. Within the month following the destruction of the deed, Metterly and Doris were killed in a common disaster. Each of the successors in interest claimed title to Brownacre. In an appropriate action to determine the title to Brownacre, the probable outcome will be that
A. Metterly was the owner of Brownacre, because Doris was a donee and therefore could not acquire title by quitclaim deed. 
B. Metterly was the owner of Brownacre, because title to Brownacre reverted to her upon the voluntary destruction of the deed by Doris. 
C. Doris was the owner of Brownacre, because her destruction of the deed to Brownacre was under the undue influence of Metterly. 
D. Doris was the owner of Brownacre, because the deed was merely evidence of her title, and its destruction was insufficient to cause title to pass back to Metterly. 
Answer: D
Motorist arranged to borrow his friend Owner's car to drive for one day while Motorist's car was being repaired. Owner knew that the brakes on his car were faulty and might fail in an emergency. Owner forgot to tell Motorist about the brakes when Motorist picked up the car, but Owner did telephone Spouse, Motorist's wife, and told her about them. Spouse, however, forgot to tell Motorist. Motorist was driving Owner's car at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit, with Spouse as a passenger. Another car, driven by Cross, crossed in front of Motorist at an intersection and in violation of the traffic signal. Motorist tried to stop, but the brakes failed, and the two cars collided. If the brakes had been in proper working order, Motorist could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Motorist and Spouse were injured.If Motorist asserts a claim against Cross, Motorist will
A. recover the full amount of his damages, because Motorist himself was not at fault. 
B. recover only a proportion of his damages, because Spouse was also at fault. 
C. not recover, because Spouse was negligent and a wife's negligence is imputed to her husband. 
D. not recover, because the failure of the brakes was the immediate cause of the collisio
Answer: A
Motorist arranged to borrow his friend Owner's car to drive for one day while Motorist's car was being repaired. Owner knew that the brakes on his car were faulty and might fail in an emergency. Owner forgot to tell Motorist about the brakes when Motorist picked up the car, but Owner did telephone Spouse, Motorist's wife, and told her about them. Spouse, however, forgot to tell Motorist. Motorist was driving Owner's car at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit, with Spouse as a passenger. Another car, driven by Cross, crossed in front of Motorist at an intersection and in violation of the traffic signal. Motorist tried to stop, but the brakes failed, and the two cars collided. If the brakes had been in proper working order, Motorist could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Motorist and Spouse were injured.If the jurisdiction has adopted "pure" comparative negligence and Spouse asserts a claim against Cross, Spouse will
A. recover in full for her injuries, because Motorist, who was driving the car in which she was riding, was not himself at fault. 
B. recover a proportion of her damages based on the respective degrees of her negligence and that of Cross.
C. not recover, because but for the failure of the brakes the collision would not have occurred. 
D. not recover, because she was negligent and her negligence continued until the moment of impact.
Answer: B
Motorist arranged to borrow his friend Owner's car to drive for one day while Motorist's car was being repaired. Owner knew that the brakes on his car were faulty and might fail in an emergency. Owner forgot to tell Motorist about the brakes when Motorist picked up the car, but Owner did telephone Spouse, Motorist's wife, and told her about them. Spouse, however, forgot to tell Motorist. Motorist was driving Owner's car at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit, with Spouse as a passenger. Another car, driven by Cross, crossed in front of Motorist at an intersection and in violation of the traffic signal. Motorist tried to stop, but the brakes failed, and the two cars collided. If the brakes had been in proper working order, Motorist could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Motorist and Spouse were injured.If Motorist asserts a claim against Owner, will Motorist prevail?
A. Yes, in negligence, because Owner knew the brakes were faulty and failed to tell Motorist. 
B. Yes, in strict liability in tort, because the car was defective and Owner lent it to Motorist. 
C. No, because Owner was a gratuitous lender, and thus his duty of care was slight. 
D. No, because the failure of Spouse to tell Motorist about the brakes was the cause in fact of Motorist's harm
Answer: A
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of larceny?
A. Defendant took Sue's television set, with the intention of returning it the next day. However, he dropped it and damaged it beyond repair. 
B. Defendant went into Tom's house and took $100 in the belief that Tom had damaged Defendant's car to that amount. 40
C. Mistakenly believing that larceny does not include the taking of a dog, Defendant took his neighbor's dog and sold it. 
D. Unreasonably mistaking George's car for his own, Defendant got into George's car in a parking lot and drove it home
Answer: C
Acting on an anonymous telephone call, police went to Desmond's apartment, knocked on the door, and demanded to search the apartment for narcotics. When Desmond refused, the police forced the door open and placed him under arrest. As they were removing him from the apartment, Desmond offered to give the officers "valuable information" in exchange for his release. Before he could say anything else, Desmond was given Miranda warnings by the police. Thereafter he told the police that he had stored some heroin in his friend's apartment and that he and his friend had been going to sell it. The heroin was recovered, and Desmond was prosecuted for conspiracy to sell narcotics and for possession of narcotics. At his trial, Desmond moved to suppress his statements. Which of the following is Desmond's best argument in support of the motion to suppress?
A. Desmond is entitled to know the identity of his accuser, and the state cannot supply this information. 
B. The police should have given Desmond Miranda warnings prior to entry into the apartment, and the warnings were ineffectual once Desmond offered to give the police information. 
C. Desmond was intimidated by the forced entry into the apartment, and since the statements were involuntary and coerced, their use against him would violate due process of law. 
D. The statements were fruits of an unlawful arrest, and though the Miranda warnings may have been sufficient to protect Desmond's right against selfincrimination, they were not sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest
Answer: D
Kane, a member of the legislature of State, is prosecuted in federal court for a violation of the Federal Securities Act arising out of the activities of a state-owned corporation. Kane's defense includes a claim that the alleged wrongful acts were committed in the course of legislative business and are immune from scrutiny"Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument supporting Kane?
A. Because of doctrines of federalism, federal law generally cannot be applied to state legislators acting in the course of their official duties. 
B. State legislators enjoy the protection of the speech and debate clause of the United States Constitution.
C. A federal court must follow state law respecting the scope of legislative immunity.
D. To apply the Federal Securities Act to state legislators would violate the due process clause
Answer: A
Kane, a member of the legislature of State, is prosecuted in federal court for a violation of the Federal Securities Act arising out of the activities of a state-owned corporation. Kane's defense includes a claim that the alleged wrongful acts were committed in the course of legislative business and are immune from scrutiny"Which of the following is the strongest argument against Kane's constitutional defense?
A. Congress has plenary power under the commerce clause
B. Congress may impose liability on state legislators as a means of guaranteeing a republican form of government.
C. Congress does not significantly interfere with state government by applying this law to state legislators.
D. Congress may impose liability on state legislators by virtue of the necessary and proper clause
Answer: C
Jim watched a liquor store furtively for some time, planning to hold it up. He bought a realistic-looking toy gun for the job. One night, just before the store's closing time, he drove to the store, opened the front door, and entered. He reached into his pocket for the toy gun, but he became frightened and began to move back toward the front door. However, the shopkeeper had seen the butt of the gun. Fearing a holdup, the shopkeeper produced a gun from under the counter, pointed it at Jim, and yelled, "Stop!" Jim ran to the door and the toy gun fell from his pocket. The shopkeeper fired. The shot missed Jim, but struck and killed a passerby outside the store A statute in the jurisdiction defines burglary as "breaking and entering any building or structure with the intent to commit a felony or to steal therein." On a charge of burglary, Jim's best defense would be that
A. the intent required was not present.
B. the liquor store was open to the public.
C. he had a change of heart and withdrew before committing any crime inside the store.
D. he was unsuccessful, and so at most could be guilty of attempted burglary
Answer: B
A water pipe burst in the basement of Supermart, a grocery store, flooding the basement and damaging cases of canned goods on the floor. The plumbing contractor's workmen, in repairing the leak, knocked over several stacks of canned goods in cases, denting the cans. After settling its claims against the landlord for the water leak and against the plumbing contractor for the damage done by his workmen, Supermart put the goods on special sale. Four weeks later, Dotty was shopping in Supermart. Several tables in the market were covered with assorted canned foods, all of which were dirty and dented. A sign on each of the tables read: "Damaged Cans Half Price." Dotty was having Guest for dinner that evening and purchased two dented cans of tuna, packed by Canco, from one of the tables displaying the damaged cans. Before Guest arrived, Dotty prepared a tuna casserole which she and Guest ate. Both became ill, and the medical testimony established that the illness was caused by the tuna's being unfit for consumption. The tuna consumed by Dotty and Guest came from the case that was at the top of one of the stacks knocked over by the workmen. The tuna in undamaged cans from the same Canco shipment was fit for consumption"If Dotty asserts a claim against Canco based on negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is
A. applicable, because the tuna was packed in a sealed can. 
B. applicable, because Canco as the packer is strictly liable. 
C. not applicable, because the case of tuna had been knocked over by the workmen. 
D. not applicable, because of the sign on the table from which Dotty purchased the tuna
Answer: C
A water pipe burst in the basement of Supermart, a grocery store, flooding the basement and damaging cases of canned goods on the floor. The plumbing contractor's workmen, in repairing the leak, knocked over several stacks of canned goods in cases, denting the cans. After settling its claims against the landlord for the water leak and against the plumbing contractor for the damage done by his workmen, Supermart put the goods on special sale. Four weeks later, Dotty was shopping in Supermart. Several tables in the market were covered with assorted canned foods, all of which were dirty and dented. A sign on each of the tables read: "Damaged Cans Half Price." Dotty was having Guest for dinner that evening and purchased two dented cans of tuna, packed by Canco, from one of the tables displaying the damaged cans. Before Guest arrived, Dotty prepared a tuna casserole which she and Guest ate. Both became ill, and the medical testimony established that the illness was caused by the tuna's being unfit for consumption. The tuna consumed by Dotty and Guest came from the case that was at the top of one of the stacks knocked over by the workmen. The tuna in undamaged cans from the same Canco shipment was fit for consumption"If Guest asserts a claim against Dotty, Dotty most likely will
A. be held strictly liable in tort for serving spoiled tuna.
B. be held liable only if she was negligent.
C. not be held liable unless her conduct was in reckless disregard of the safety of Guest.
D. not be held liable, because Guest was a social visito
Answer: B
A water pipe burst in the basement of Supermart, a grocery store, flooding the basement and damaging cases of canned goods on the floor. The plumbing contractor's workmen, in repairing the leak, knocked over several stacks of canned goods in cases, denting the cans. After settling its claims against the landlord for the water leak and against the plumbing contractor for the damage done by his workmen, Supermart put the goods on special sale. Four weeks later, Dotty was shopping in Supermart. Several tables in the market were covered with assorted canned foods, all of which were dirty and dented. A sign on each of the tables read: "Damaged Cans Half Price." Dotty was having Guest for dinner that evening and purchased two dented cans of tuna, packed by Canco, from one of the tables displaying the damaged cans. Before Guest arrived, Dotty prepared a tuna casserole which she and Guest ate. Both became ill, and the medical testimony established that the illness was caused by the tuna's being unfit for consumption. The tuna consumed by Dotty and Guest came from the case that was at the top of one of the stacks knocked over by the workmen. The tuna in undamaged cans from the same Canco shipment was fit for consumption"If Guest asserts a claim against Supermart, the most likely result is that Guest will
A. recover on the theory of res ipsa loquitur.
B. recover on the theory of strict liability in tort.
C. not recover, because Supermart gave proper warning. 
D. not recover, because Guest was not the purchaser of the cans
Answer: B
Addle, who has been in the painting and contracting business for 10 years and has a fine reputation, contracts to paint Boone's barn. Boone's barn is a standard red barn with a loft. The contract has no provision regarding assignment."If Addle assigns the contract to Coot, who has comparable experience and reputation, which of the following statements is correct?
A. Addle is in breach of contract.
B. Boone may refuse to accept performance by Coot.
C. Boone is required to accept performance by Coot.
D. There is a novation
Answer: C
Addle, who has been in the painting and contracting business for 10 years and has a fine reputation, contracts to paint Boone's barn. Boone's barn is a standard red barn with a loft. The contract has no provision regarding assignment."If Addle assigns the contract to Coot and thereafter Coot does not meet the contract specifications in painting Boone's barn, Boone
A. has a cause of action against Addle for damages.
B. has a cause of action only against Coot for damages.
C. has a cause of action against Addle for damages only after he has first exhausted his remedies against Coot.
D. does not have a cause of action against Addle for damages, because he waived his rights against Addle by permitting Coot to perform the wor
Answer: A
Jackson and Brannick planned to break into a federal government office to steal food stamps. Jackson telephoned Crowley one night and asked whether Crowley wanted to buy some "hot" food stamps. Crowley, who understood that "hot" meant stolen, said, "Sure, bring them right over." Jackson and Brannick then successfully executed their scheme. That same night they delivered the food stamps to Crowley, who bought them for $500. Crowley did not ask when or by whom the stamps had been stolen. All three were arrested. Jackson and Brannick entered guilty pleas in federal court to a charge of larceny in connection with the theft. Crowley was brought to trial in the state court on a charge of conspiracy to steal food stamps. On the evidence stated, Crowley should be found
A. guilty, because, when a new confederate enters a conspiracy already in progress, he becomes a party to it. 
B. guilty, because he knowingly and willingly aided and abetted the conspiracy and is chargeable as a principal. 
C. not guilty, because, although Crowley knew the stamps were stolen, he neither helped to plan nor participated or assisted in the theft. 
D. not guilty, because Jackson and Brannick had not been convicted of or charged with conspiracy, and Crowley cannot be guilty of conspiracy by himself.
Answer: C
Owens contracted to sell a tract of land, Overlea, to Painter by general warranty deed. However, at the closing Painter did not carefully examine the deed and accepted a quitclaim deed without covenants of title. Painter later attempted to sell Overlea to Thompson, who refused to perform because Owens had conveyed an easement for a highway across Overlea before Painter bought the property. Painter sued Owens for damages. Which of the following arguments will most likely succeed in Owens' defense?
A. The existence of the easement does not violate the contract.
B. The mere existence of an easement which is not being used does not give rise to a cause of action.
C. Painter's cause of action must be based on the deed and not on the contract.
D. The proper remedy is rescission of the deed
Answer: C
Rider, a bus passenger, sued Transit Company for injuries to his back from an accident caused by Transit's negligence. Transit denies that Rider received any injury in the accident.Rider's counsel seeks to introduce an affidavit he obtained in preparation for trial from Dr. Bond, who has since died. The affidavit avers that Dr. Bond examined Rider two days after the Transit Company accident and found him suffering from a recently incurred back injury. The judge should rule the affidavit
A. admissible, as a statement of present bodily condition made to a physician. 
B. admissible, as prior recorded testimony. 
C. inadmissible, because it is irrelevant. 
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception
Answer: D
Rider, a bus passenger, sued Transit Company for injuries to his back from an accident caused by Transit's negligence. Transit denies that Rider received any injury in the accident."Transit Company calls Observer to testify that right after the accident, Rider told him that he had recently suffered a recurrence of an old back injury. The judge should rule Observer's testimony
A. admissible, as an admission of a party opponent. 
B. admissible, as a spontaneous declaration. 
C. inadmissible, because it is irrelevant. 
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception
Answer: A
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."Which of the following statements regarding the contract provision for preinspection payment is correct?
A. It constitutes an acceptance of the goods. 43
B. It constitutes a waiver of the buyer's remedy of private sale in the case of nonconforming goods.
C. It does not impair a buyer's right of inspection or his remedies.
D. It is invalid
Answer: C