ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Walker, who knew nothing about horses, inherited Aberlone, a thoroughbred colt whose disagreeable behavior made him a pest around the barn. Walker sold the colt for $1,500 to Sherwood, an experienced racehorse-trainer who knew of Walker's ignorance about horses. At the time of sale, Walker said to Sherwood, "I hate to say it, but this horse is said to Sherwood, "I hate to say it, but this horse is bad-tempered and nothing special." Which one of the following scenarios would best support an action by Sherwood, rather than Walker, to rescind the sale? 
A. In his first race after the sale, Aberlone galloped to a huge lead but dropped dead 100 yards from the finish line because of a rare congenital heart defect that was undiscoverable except by autopsy. 
B. Aberlone won $5 million for Sherwood over a three-year racing career but upon being retired was found to be incurably sterile and useless as a breeder.
C. After Aberlone had won three races for Sherwood, it was discovered that by clerical error, unknown to either party, Aberlone's official birth registration listed an undistinguished racehorse as the sire rather than the famous racehorse that in fact was the sire. 
D. A week after the sale, Aberlone went berserk and inflicted injuries upon Sherwood that required his hospitalization for six months and a full hospitalization for six months and a full year for his recovery. 
Answer: A
Sixty years ago by a properly executed and recorded deed, Albert conveyed Greenacre, a tract of land: "To Louis for life, then to Louis's widow for her life, then to Louis's child or children in equal shares." At that time, Louis, who was Albert's grandson, was six years old. Shortly thereafter, Albert died testate. Louis was his only heir at law. Albert's will left his entire estate to First Church. Twenty-five years ago, when he was 41, Louis married Maria who was then 20 years old; they had one child, Norman. Maria and Norman were killed in an automobile accident three years ago when Norman was 21. Norman died testate, leaving his entire estate to the American Red Cross. His father, Louis, was Norman's sole heir at law. Two years ago, Louis married Zelda. They had no children. This year, Louis died testate, survived by his widow, Zelda, to whom he left his entire estate. The common-law Rule Against Perpetuities is unchanged by statute in the jurisdiction. In an appropriate action to determine the ownership of Greenacre, the court should find that title is vested in 
A. First Church, because the widow of Louis was unborn at the time of conveyance and, hence, the remainder violated the Rule Against Perpetuities. 
B. Zelda, because her life estate and her inheritance from Louis (who was Albert's sole heir at law and who was Norman's sole heir at law) merged the entire title in her. 
C. the American Red Cross, because Norman had a vested remainder interest (as the only child of Louis) that it (as the only child of Louis) that it inherited, the life estate to Louis's widow being of no force and effect. 
D. Zelda for life under the terms of Albert's deed, with the remainder to the American Red Cross as the successor in interest to Norman, Louis's only child. 
Answer: D
In an automobile collision case brought by Poe against Davies, Poe introduced evidence that Ellis made an excited utterance that Davies ran the red light. Davies called Witt to testify that later Ellis, a bystander, now deceased, told Witt that Davies went through a yellow light. Witt's testimony should be 
A. excluded, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
B. excluded, because Ellis is not available to explain or deny the inconsistency. 
C. admitted only for the purpose of impeaching Ellis.
D. admitted as impeachment and as substantive evidence of the color of the light.
Answer: C
Plaintiff, a jockey, was seriously injured in a race when another jockey, Daring, cut too sharply in front of her without adequate clearance. The two horses collided, causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground, sustaining injury. The State Racetrack Commission ruled that, by cutting in too sharply, Daring committed a foul in violation of racetrack rules requiring adequate clearance for crossing lanes. Plaintiff has brought an action against Daring for damages in which one count is based on battery. Will Plaintiff prevail on the battery claim? 
A. Yes, if Daring was reckless in cutting across in front of Plaintiff's horse. 
B. Yes, because the State Racetrack Commission determined that Daring committed a foul in violation of rules applicable to racing. 
C. No, unless Daring intended to cause impermissible contact between the two impermissible contact between the two horses or apprehension of such contact by Plaintiff. 
D. No, because Plaintiff assumed the risk of accidental injury inherent in riding as a jockey in a horse race. 
Answer: C
Able entered into a written contract with Baker to sell Greenacre. The contract was dated June 19 and called for a closing date on the following August 19. There was no other provision in the contract concerning the closing date. The contract contained the following clause: "subject to the purchaser, Baker, obtaining a satisfactory mortgage at the current rate." On the date provided for closing, Baker advised Able that he was unable to close because his mortgage application was still being processed by a bank. Able desired to declare the contract at an end and consulted his attorney in regard to his legal position. Which of the following are relevant in advising Able of his legal position? I. Is time of the essence? II. Parol evidence rule. III. Statute of Frauds. IV. Specific performance. 
A. I and III only.
B. II and IV only.
C. II, III, and IV only. 
D. I, II, III, and IV. 
Answer: D
Lester was engaged to marry Sylvia. One evening, Lester became enraged at the comments of Sylvia's eight-year-old daughter, Cynthia, who was complaining, in her usual fashion, that she did not want her mother to marry Lester. Lester, who had had too much to drink, began beating her. Cynthia suffered some bruises and a broken arm. Sylvia took Cynthia to the hospital. The police were notified by the hospital staff. Lester was notified by the hospital staff. Lester was indicted for felony child abuse. Lester pleaded with Sylvia to forgive him and to run away with him. She agreed. They moved out of state and took Cynthia with them. Without the testimony of the child, the prosecution was forced to dismiss the case. Some time later, Sylvia returned for a visit with her family and was arrested and indicted as an accessory-after-the-fact to child abuse. At her trial, the court should 
A. dismiss the charge, because Lester had not been convicted. 
B. dismiss the charge, because the evidence shows that any aid she rendered occurred after the crime was completed. 
C. submit the case to the jury, on an instruction to convict only if Sylvia knew Lester had been indicted. 
D. submit the case to the jury, on an instruction to convict only if her purpose in moving was to prevent Lester's conviction. 
Answer: D
In response to massive layoffs of employees of automobile assembly plants located in the state of Ames, the legislature of that state enacted a statute which prohibits the parking of automobiles manufactured outside of the United States in any parking lot or parking structure that is owned or operated by the state or any of its instrumentalities. This statute does not apply to parking on public streets. Which of the following is the strongest argument with which to challenge the constitutionality of this statute? 
A. The statute imposes an undue burden on foreign commerce.
B. The statute denies the owners of foreignmade automobiles the equal protection of the laws.
C. The statute deprives the owners of foreign-made automobiles of liberty or property without due process of law.
D. The statute is inconsistent with the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Answer: A
Pate sued Dr. Doke for psychiatric malpractice and called Dr. Will as an expert witness. During Will's direct testimony, Will identified a text as a reliable authority in the field. He seeks to read to the jury passages from this book on which he had relied in forming his opinion on the proper standard of care. The passage is 
A. admissible, as a basis for his opinion and as substantive evidence of the proper standard of care. 
B. admissible, as a basis for his opinion but not as substantive evidence of the proper standard of care. 
C. inadmissible, because a witness's credibility cannot be supported unless attacked. 
D. inadmissible, because the passage should be received as an exhibit and not read to the jury by the witness.
Answer: A
The Daily Sun, a newspaper, printed an article that stated: Kitchen, the popular restaurant on the town square, has closed its doors. Kitchen employees have told the Daily Sun that the closing resulted from the owner's belief that Kitchen's general manager has embezzled thousands of dollars from the restaurant over the last several years. A decision on reopening the restaurant will be made after the completion of an audit of Kitchen's books. Plaintiff, who is Kitchen's general manager, brought a libel action against the Daily Sun based on the publication of this article. The parties stipulated that Plaintiff never embezzled any funds from Kitchen. They also stipulated that Plaintiff is well known among many people in the community because of his job with Kitchen. The case went to trial before a jury. The defendant's motion for a directed verdict in its favor, made at the close of the evidence, should be granted if the 
A. record contains no evidence that Plaintiff suffered special harm as a result of the publication.
B. record contains no evidence that the defendant was negligent as to the truth or falsity of the charge of embezzlement.
C. evidence is not clear and convincing that the defendant published the article with "actual malice." 
D. record contains uncontradicted evidence that the article accurately reported what the employees told the Daily Sun.
Answer: B
Surgeon performed a sterilization operation on Patient. After the surgery, Surgeon performed a test that showed that Patient's fallopian tubes a test that showed that Patient's fallopian tubes were not severed, as was necessary for sterilization. Surgeon did not reveal the failure of the operation to Patient, who three years later became pregnant and delivered a baby afflicted with a severe birth defect that will require substantial medical care throughout its life. The birth defect resulted from a genetic defect unknown to, and undiscoverable by, Surgeon. Patient brought an action on her own behalf against Surgeon, seeking to recover the cost of her medical care for the delivery of the baby, and the baby's extraordinary future medical expenses for which Patient will be responsible. Which of the following questions is relevant to the lawsuit and currently most difficult to answer? 
A. Did Surgeon owe a duty of care to the baby in respect to medical services rendered to Patient three years before the baby was conceived?
B. Can a person recover damages for a life burdened by a severe birth defect based on a physician's wrongful failure to prevent that person's birth from occurring?
C. Did Surgeon owe a duty to Patient to inform her that the sterilization operation had failed?
D. Is Patient entitled to recover damages for the baby's extraordinary future medical expenses?
Answer: D
Robert walked into a store that had a checkcashing service and tried to cash a $550 check which was payable to him. The attendant on duty refused to cash the check because Robert did not have two forms of identification, which the store's policies required. Robert, who had no money except for the check and who needed cash to pay for food and a place to sleep, became agitated. He put his hand into his pocket and growled, "Give me the money or I'll start shooting." The attendant, who knew Robert as a neighborhood character, did not believe that he was violent or had a gun. However, because the attendant felt sorry for Robert, he handed over the cash. Robert left the check on the counter and departed. The attendant picked up the check and found that Robert had failed to endorse it. If Robert is guilty of any crime, he is most likely guilty of 
A. robbery.
B. attempted robbery.
C. theft by false pretenses.
D. larceny by trick.
Answer: B
Kabb, the owner of a fleet of taxis, contracted with Petrol, a dealer in petroleum products, for the purchase and sale of Kabb's total requirements of gasoline and oil for one year. As part of that agreement, Petrol also agreed with Kabb that for one year Petrol would place all his advertising with Ada Artiste, Kabb's wife, who owned her own small advertising agency. When Artiste was informed of the Kabb-Petrol contract, she declined to accept an advertising account from the Deturgid Soap Company because she could not handle both the Petrol and Deturgid accounts during the same year. For this question only, assume the following facts. During the first month of the contract, Kabb purchased substantial amounts of his gasoline from a supplier other than Petrol, and Petrol thereupon notified Artiste that he would no longer place his advertising with her agency. In an action against Petrol for breach of contract, Artiste probably will 
A. succeed, because she is a third-party beneficiary of the Kabb-Petrol contract. 
B. succeed, because Kabb was acting as Artiste's agent when he contracted with Petrol. 
C. not succeed, because the failure of a constructive condition precedent excused Petrol's duty to place his advertising with Artiste. 
D. not succeed, because Artiste did not provide any consideration to support Petrol's promise to place his advertising with her. 
Answer: C
Kabb, the owner of a fleet of taxis, contracted with Petrol, a dealer in petroleum products, for the purchase and sale of Kabb's total requirements of gasoline and oil for one year. As part of that agreement, Petrol also agreed with Kabb that for one year Petrol would place all his advertising with Ada Artiste, Kabb's wife, who owned her own small advertising agency. When Artiste was informed of the Kabb-Petrol contract, she declined to accept an advertising account from the Deturgid Soap Company because she could not handle both the Petrol and Deturgid accounts during the same year. For this question only, make the following assumptions. Artiste was an intended beneficiary under the Kabb-Petrol contract. Kabb performed his contract with Petrol for six months, and during that time Petrol placed his advertising with Artiste. At the end of the six months, Kabb and Artiste were divorced, and Kabb then told Petrol that he had no further obligation to place his advertising with Artiste. Petrol thereupon notified Artiste that he would no longer place his advertising with her. In an action against Petrol for breach of contract, Artiste probably will 
A. succeed, because, on the facts of this case, Petrol and Kabb could not, without Artiste's consent, modify their contract so as to discharge Petrol's duties to Artiste. 
B. succeed, because Kabb acted in bad faith in releasing Petrol from his duty with respect to Artiste. 
C. not succeed, because, absent a provision in the contract to the contrary, the promisor and promisee of a third-party beneficiary contract retain by law the right to modify or terminate the contract. 
D. not succeed, because the agency relationship, if any, between Kabb and Artiste terminated upon their divorce. 
Answer: A
76. Drew, the owner of a truck leasing company, asked Pat, one of Drew's employees, to deliver $1,000 to the dealership's main office. The following week, as a result of a dispute over whether the money had been delivered, Drew instructed Pat to come to the office to submit to a lie detector test. When Pat reported to Drew's office for the test, it was not administered. Instead, without hearing Pat's story, Drew shouted at him, hearing Pat's story, Drew shouted at him, "You're a thief!" and fired him. Drew's shout was overheard by several other employees who were in another office, which was separated from Drew's office by a thin partition. The next day, Pat accepted another job at a higher salary. Several weeks later, upon discovering that the money had not been stolen, Drew offered to rehire Pat. In a suit for slander by Pat against Drew, Pat will 
A. prevail, because Pat was fraudulently induced to go to the office for a lie detector test, which was not, in fact, given. 
B. prevail, if Drew should have foreseen that the statement would be overheard by other employees. 
C. not prevail, if Drew made the charge in good faith, believing it to be true. 
D. not prevail, because the statement was made to Pat alone and intended for his ears only. 
Answer: B
Adam owns his home, Blackacre, which was mortgaged to Bank by a duly recorded purchase money mortgage. Last year, Adam purchase money mortgage. Last year, Adam replaced all of Blackacre's old windows with new windows. Each new window consists of a window frame with three inserts: regular windows, storm windows, and screens. The windows are designed so that each insert can be easily inserted or removed from the window frame without tools to adjust to seasonal change and to facilitate the cleaning of the inserts. The new windows were expensive. Adam purchased them on credit, signed a financing statement, and granted a security interest in the windows to Vend, the supplier of the windows. Vend promptly and properly filed and recorded the financing statement before the windows were installed. Adam stored the old windows in the basement of Blackacre. This year, Adam has suffered severe financial reverses and has defaulted on his mortgage obligation to Bank and on his obligation to Vend. Bank brought an appropriate action to enjoin Vend from its proposed repossession of the Vend from its proposed repossession of the window inserts. In the action, the court should rule for 
A. Bank, because its mortgage was recorded first. 
B. Bank, because windows and screens, no matter their characteristics, are an integral part of a house. 
C. Vend, because the inserts are removable. 
D. Vend, because the availability of the old windows enables Bank to return Blackacre to its original condition. 
Answer: C
In a suit by Palmer against Denby, Palmer sought to subpoena an audiotape on which Denby had narrated his version of the dispute for his attorney. Counsel for Denby moves to quash the subpoena on the ground of privilege. The audiotape is most likely to be subject to subpoena if 
A. Denby played the audiotape for his father to get his reactions.
B. the lawsuit involved alleged criminal behavior by Denby.
C. Denby has been deposed and there is good reason to believe that the audiotape may contain inconsistent statements.
D. Denby is deceased and thus unavailable to give testimony in person.
Answer: A
The National Ecological Balance Act prohibits the destruction or removal of any wild animals located on lands owned by the United States without express permission from the Federal Bureau of Land Management. Violators are subject to fines of up to $1,000 per offense. After substantial property damage was inflicted on residents of the state of Arkota by hungry coyotes, the state legislature passed the Coyote Bounty Bill, which offers $25 for each coyote killed or captured within the state. The Kota National Forest, owned by the federal government, is located entirely within the state of Arkota. Many coyotes live in the Kota National Forest. National Forest. Without seeking permission from the Bureau of Land Management, Hunter shot several coyotes in the Kota National Forest and collected the bounty from the state of Arkota. As a result, he was subsequently tried in federal district court, convicted, and fined $1,000 for violating the National Ecological Balance Act. Hunter appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals. On appeal, the Court of Appeals should hold the National Ecological Balance Act, as applied to Hunter, to be 
A. constitutional, because the property clause of Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution authorizes such federal statutory controls and sanctions. 
B. constitutional, because Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact all laws necessary and proper to advance the general welfare. 
C. unconstitutional, because Congress may not use its delegated powers to override the Tenth Amendment right of the state of Arkota to legislate in areas of traditional state governmental functions, such as the protection of the property of its residents. 
D. unconstitutional, because Congress violates the full faith and credit clause of Article IV when it punishes conduct that has been authorized by state action. 
Answer: A
A kidnapping statute in State A makes it a crime for a person, including a parent, to "take a child from the custody of his custodial parent, knowing he has no privilege to do so." After a bitter court battle Ann and Dave were divorced and Ann was given custody of their daughter, Maria. Dave later moved to State B where he brought an action to obtain custody of Maria. A local judge awarded him custody. His attorney incorrectly advised him that, under this award, he was entitled to take Maria away from Ann. Dave drove to State A, picked Maria up at her preschool, and took her back to State B with him. He was indicted for kidnapping in State A, extradited from State B, and tried. At trial, he testified that he had relied on his attorney's advice in taking Maria, and that at the time he believed his conduct was not illegal. If the jury believes his testimony, Dave should be 
A. acquitted, because he acted on the advice of an attorney. 
B. acquitted, because he lacked a necessary mental element of the crime. 
C. convicted, because reliance on an attorney's advice is not a defense. 
D. convicted, provided a reasonable person (D) convicted, provided a reasonable person would have known that the attorney's advice was erroneous. 
Answer: B
Owen, the owner of Greenacre, a tract of land, mortgaged Greenacre to ABC Bank to secure his preexisting obligation to ABC Bank. The mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. Owen and Newton then entered into a valid written contract for the purchase and sale of Greenacre, which provided for the transfer of "a marketable title, free of encumbrances." The contract did not expressly refer to the mortgage. Shortly after entering into the contract, Newton found another property that much better suited her needs and decided to try to avoid her contract with Owen. When Newton discovered the existence of the mortgage, she asserted that the title was encumbered and that she would not close. Owen responded by offering to provide for payment and discharge of the mortgage at the closing from the proceeds of the closing. Newton refused to go forward, and Owen brought an appropriate action against her for specific performance. If the court holds for Owen in this action, it will most likely be because 
A. the mortgage is not entitled to priority because it was granted for preexisting obligations.
B. the doctrine of equitable conversion supports the result.
C. Owen's arrangements for the payment of the mortgage fully satisfied Owen's obligation to deliver marketable title.
D. the existence of the mortgage was not Newton's real reason for refusing to close.
Answer: C
Pawn sued Dalton for injuries received when she fell down a stairway in Dalton's apartment building. Pawn, a guest in the building, alleged that she caught the heel of her shoe in a tear in the stair carpet. Pawn calls Witt, a tenant, to testify that Young, another tenant, had said to him a week before Pawn's fall: "When I paid my rent this morning, I told the manager he my rent this morning, I told the manager he had better fix that torn carpet." Young's statement, reported by Witt, is 
A. admissible, to prove that the carpet was defective. 
B. admissible, to prove that Dalton had notice of the defect. 
C. admissible, to prove both that the carpet was defective and that Dalton had notice of the defect. 
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
Answer: D