ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Rollem, an automobile retailer, had an adult daughter, Betsy, who needed a car in her employment but had only $3,000 with which to buy one. Rollem wrote to her, "Give me your $3,000 and I'll give you the car on our lot that we have been using as a demonstrator." Betsy thanked her father and paid him the $3,000. As both Rollem and Betsy knew, the demonstrator was reasonably worth $10,000. After Betsy had paid the $3,000, but before the car had been delivered to her, one of Rollem's sales staff sold and delivered the same car to a customer for $10,000. Neither the salesperson nor the customer was aware of the transaction between Rollem and Betsy. Does Betsy, after rejecting a tendered return of the $3,000 by Rollem, have an action against him for breach of contract? 
A. Yes, because Rollem's promise was supported by bargained-for consideration. 
B. Yes, because Rollem's promise was supported by the moral obligation a father owes his child as to the necessities of modern life. 
C. No, because the payment of $3,000 was inadequate consideration to support Rollem's promise. 
D. No, because the salesperson's delivery of the car to the customer made it impossible for Rollem to perform. 
Answer: A
Peter, who was 20 years old, purchased a new, high-powered sports car that was marketed with an intended and recognized appeal to youthful drivers. The car was designed with the capability to attain speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour. It was equipped with tires designed and tested only for a maximum safe speed of 85 miles per hour. The owner's manual that came with the car stated that "continuous driving over 90 miles per hour requires high-speed-capability tires," but the manual did not describe the speed capability of the tires sold with the car. Peter took his new car out for a spin on a straight, smooth country road where the posted speed limit was 55 miles per hour. Intending to test the car's power, he drove for a considerable distance at over 100 miles per hour. While he was doing so, the tread separated from the left rear tire, causing the car to leave the road and hit a tree. Peter sustained severe injuries. Peter has brought a strict product liability action in tort against the manufacturer of the car. You should assume that pure comparative fault principles apply to this case. Will Peter prevail? 
A. No, because Peter's driving at an excessive speed constituted a misuse of the car. 
B. No, because the car was not defective. 
C. Yes, if the statement in the manual concerning the tires did not adequately warn of the danger of high-speed driving on the tires mounted on the car. 
D. Yes, unless Peter's driving at a speed in excess of the posted speed limit was negligence per se that, by the law of the jurisdiction, was not excusable. 
Answer: C
In a federal court diversity action by Plant against Decord on an insurance claim, a question arose whether the court should apply a presumption that, where both husband and wife were killed in a common accident, the husband died last. Whether this presumption should be applied is to be determined according to 
A. traditional common law.
B. federal statutory law.
C. the law of the state whose substantive law is applied.
D. the federal common law.
Answer: C
Plagued by neighborhood youths who had been stealing lawn furniture from his back yard, Armando remained awake nightly watching for them. One evening Armando heard noises in his backyard. He yelled out, warning intruders to leave. Receiving no answer, he fired a shotgun filled with nonlethal buckshot into bushes along his back fence where he believed the intruders might be hiding. A six-year-old child was hiding in the bushes and was struck in the eye by some of the pellets, causing loss of sight. If Armando is charged with second-degree assault, which is defined in the jurisdiction as "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another," he is 
A. not guilty, because the child was trespassing and he was using what he believed was nondeadly force. 
B. not guilty, because he did not intend to kill or to cause serious physical injury. 
C. guilty, because he recklessly caused serious physical injury. 
D. guilty, because there is no privilege to use force against a person who is too young to be criminally responsible. 
Answer: C
Twenty percent of the residents of Green City are members of minority racial groups. These residents are evenly distributed among the many different residential areas of the city. The five city council members of Green City are elected from five single-member electoral districts that are nearly equally populated. No candidate has ever been elected to the city council who was a member of a minority racial group. A group of citizens who are members ofminority racial groups file suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that the single-member districts in Green City are unconstitutional. They claim that the single-member districting system in that city diminishes the ability of voters who are members of minority racial groups to affect the outcome of city elections. They seek an order from the court forcing the city to adopt an at-large election system in which the five candidates with the greatest vote totals would be elected to the city council. No state or federal statutes are applicable to the resolution of this suit. Which of the following constitutional provisions provides the most obvious basis for plaintiffs' claim in this suit?
A. The Thirteenth Amendment.
B. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. The Fifteenth Amendment.
Answer: D
Loomis, the owner and operator of a small business, encourages "wellness" on the part of his employees and supports various physicalfitness programs to that end. Learning that one of his employees, Graceful, was a dedicated jogger, Loomis promised to pay her a special award of $100 if she could and would run one mile in less than six minutes on the following Saturday. Graceful thanked him, and did in fact run a mile in less than six minutes on the day specified. Shortly thereafter, however, Loomis discovered that for more than a year Graceful had been running at least one mile in less than six minutes every day as a part of her personal fitness program. He refused to pay the $100. In an action by Graceful against Loomis for breach of contract, which of the following best summarizes the probable decision of the court? 
A. Loomis wins, because it is a compelling inference that Loomis's promise did not induce Graceful to run the specified mile. 
B. Loomis wins, because Graceful's running of the specified mile was beneficial, not detrimental, to her in any event. 
C. Graceful wins, because running a mile in less than six minutes is a significantly demanding enterprise. 
D. Graceful wins, because she ran the specified mile as requested, and her motives for doing so are irrelevant. 
Answer: D
Able was the owner of Blackacre, an undeveloped city lot. Able and Baker executed a written document in which Able agreed to sell Blackacre to Baker and Baker agreed to buy Blackacre from Able for $100,000; the document did not provide for an earnest money down payment. Able recorded the document, as authorized by statute. Able orally gave Baker permission to park his car on Blackacre without charge prior to the closing. Thereafter, Baker frequently parked his car on Blackacre. Another property came on the market that Baker wanted more than Blackacre. Baker decided to try to escape any obligation to Able. Baker had been told that contracts for the purchase and sale of real property require consideration and concluded that because he had made no earnest money down payment, he could refuse to close and not be liable. Baker notified Able of his intention not to close and, in fact, did refuse to close on the date set for the closing. Able brought an appropriate action to compel specific performance by Baker. If Able wins, it will be because 
A. Baker's use of Blackacre for parking constitutes part performance.
B. general contract rules regarding consideration apply to real estate contracts.
C. the doctrine of equitable conversion applies.
D. the document was recorded.
Answer: B
Under the terms of a written contract, Karp agreed to construct for Manor a garage for $10,000. Nothing was said in the parties' negotiations or in the contract about progress payments during the course of the work. For this question only, assume the following facts. After completing 25% of the garage strictly according to Manor's specifications, Karp demanded payment of $2,000 as a "reasonable progress payment." Manor refused, and Karp abandoned the job. If each party sues the other for breach of contract, which of the following will the court decide? 
A. Both parties are in breach, and each is entitled to damages, if any, from the other. 
B. Only Karp is in breach and liable for Manor's damages, if any. 
C. Only Manor is in breach and liable for Karp's damages, if any. 
D. Both parties took reasonable positions, and neither is in breach. 
Answer: B
Under the terms of a written contract, Karp agreed to construct for Manor a garage for $10,000. Nothing was said in the parties' negotiations or in the contract about progress payments during the course of the work. For this question only, assume the following facts. After completing 25% of the garage strictly according to Manor's specifications, Karp assigned his rights under the contract to Banquo as security for an $8,000 loan. Banquo immediately notified Manor of the assignment. Karp thereafter, without legal excuse, abandoned the job before it was half-complete. Karp subsequently defaulted on the loan from Banquo. Karp has no assets. It will cost Manor at least $8,000 to get the garage finished by another builder. If Banquo sues Manor for $8,000, which of the following will the court decide? 
A. Banquo wins, because the Karp-Manor contract was in existence and Karp was contract was in existence and Karp was not in breach when Banquo gave Manor notice of the assignment. 
B. Banquo wins, because Banquo as a secured creditor over Karp is entitled to priority over Manor's unsecured claim against Karp. 
C. Manor wins, because his right to recoupment on account of Karp's breach is available against Banquo as Karp's assignee. 
D. Manor wins, because his claim against Karp arose prior to Karp's default on his loan from Banquo. 
Answer: C
The Sports Championship Revenue Enhancement Act is a federal statute that was enacted as part of a comprehensive program to eliminate the federal budget deficit. That act imposed, for a period of five years, a 50% excise tax on the price of tickets to championship sporting events. Such events included the World Series, the Super Bowl, major college bowl games, and similar major college bowl games, and similar championship sports events. This federal tax is probably 
A. constitutional, because the compelling national interest in reducing the federal budget deficit justifies this tax as a temporary emergency measure. 
B. constitutional, because an act of Congress that appears to be a revenue raising measure on its face is not rendered invalid because it may have adverse economic consequences for the activity taxed. 
C. unconstitutional, because a 50% tax is likely to reduce attendance at championship sporting events and, therefore, is not rationally related to the legitimate interest of Congress in eliminating the budget deficit. 
D. unconstitutional, because Congress violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment by singling out championship sporting events for this tax while failing to tax other major sporting, artistic, or entertainment events to which tickets are sold. 
Answer: B
On June 1, Topline Wholesale, Inc., received a purchase-order form from Wonder-Good, Inc., a retailer and new customer, in which the latter ordered 1,000 anti-recoil widgets for delivery no later than August 30 at a delivered total price of $10,000, as quoted in Topline's current catalog. Both parties are merchants with respect to widgets of all types. On June 2, Topline mailed to Wonder-Good its own form, across the top of which Topline's president had written, "We are pleased to accept your order." This form contained the same terms as Wonder-Good's form except for an additional printed clause in Topline's form that provided for a maximum liability of $100 for any breach of contract by Topline. As of June 5, when Wonder-Good received Topline's acceptance form, which of the following is an accurate statement concerning the legal relationship between Topline and Wonder-Good? 
A. There is no contract, because the liability-limitation clause in Topline's form is a material alteration of WonderGood's offer. 
B. There is no contract, because WonderGood did not consent to the liabilitylimitation clause in Topline's form. 
C. There is an enforceable contract whose terms include the liability-limitation clause in Topline's form, because liquidation of damages is expressly authorized by the Uniform Commercial Code. 
D. There is an enforceable contract whose terms do not include the liabilitylimitation clause in Topline's form.
Answer: D
Electco operates a factory that requires the use of very high voltage electricity. Paul owns property adjacent to the Electco plant where property adjacent to the Electco plant where he has attempted to carry on a business that requires the use of sensitive electronic equipment. The effectiveness of Paul's electronic equipment is impaired by electrical interference arising from the high voltage currents used in Electco's plant. Paul has complained to Electco several times, with no result. There is no way that Electco, by taking reasonable precautions, can avoid the interference with Paul's operation that arises from the high voltage currents necessary to Electco's operation. In Paul's action against Electco to recover damages for the economic loss caused to him by the electrical interference, will Paul prevail? 
A. Yes, because Electco's activity is abnormally dangerous. 
B. Yes, for loss suffered by Paul after Electco was made aware of the harm its activity was causing to Paul. 
C. No, unless Electco caused a substantial and unreasonable interference with Paul's business. 
D. No, because Paul's harm was purely (D) No, because Paul's harm was purely economic and did not arise from physical harm to his person or property. 
Answer: C
Les leased a barn to his neighbor, Tom, for a term of three years. Tom took possession of the barn and used it for his farming purposes. The lease made Les responsible for structural repairs to the barn, unless they were made necessary by actions of Tom. One year later, Les conveyed the barn and its associated land to Lottie "subject to the lease to Tom." Tom paid the next month's rent to Lottie. The next day a portion of an exterior wall of the barn collapsed because of rot in the interior structure of the wall. The wall had appeared to be sound, but a competent engineer, on inspection, would have discovered its condition. Neither Lottie nor Tom had the barn inspected by an engineer. Tom was injured as a result of the collapse of the wall. Les had known that the wall was dangerously weakened by rot and needed immediate repairs, but had not told Tom or Lottie. There is no applicable statute. Tom brought an appropriate action against Les to recover damages for the injuries he sustained. Lottie was not a party. Which of the following is the most appropriate comment concerning the outcome of this action? 
A. Tom should lose, because Lottie assumed all of Les's obligations by reason of Tom's attornment to her. 
B. Tom should recover, because there is privity between lessor and lessee and it cannot be broken unilaterally. 
C. Tom should recover, because Les knew of the danger but did not warn Tom. 
D. Tom should lose, because he failed to inspect the barn. 
Answer: C
Dahle is charged with possession of heroin. Prosecution witness Walker, an experienced dog trainer, testified that he was in the airport with a dog trained to detect heroin. As Dahle with a dog trained to detect heroin. As Dahle approached, the dog immediately became alert and pawed and barked frantically at Dahle's briefcase. Dahle managed to run outside and throw his briefcase into the river, from which it could not be recovered. After Walker's experience is established, he is asked to testify as an expert that the dog's reaction told him that Dahle's briefcase contained heroin. Walker's testimony is 
A. admissible, as evidence of Dahle's guilt. 
B. admissible, because an expert may rely on hearsay. 
C. inadmissible, because it is based on hearsay not within any exception. 
D. inadmissible, because of the unreliability of the reactions of an animal. 
Answer: A
Doe negligently caused a fire in his house, and the house burned to the ground. As a result, the sun streamed into Peter's yard next door, which previously had been shaded by Doe's house. The sunshine destroyed some delicate and valuable trees in Peter's yard that could grow only in the shade. Peter has brought a grow only in the shade. Peter has brought a negligence action against Doe for the loss of Peter's trees. Doe has moved to dismiss the complaint. The best argument in support of this motion would be that 
A. Doe's negligence was not the active cause of the loss of Peter's trees.
B. Doe's duty to avoid the risks created by a fire did not encompass the risk that sunshine would damage Peter's trees.
C. the loss of the trees was not a natural and probable consequence of Doe's negligence.
D. Peter suffered a purely economic loss, which is not compensable in a negligence action. 
Answer: B
Phillips bought a new rifle and wanted to try it out by doing some target shooting. He went out into the country to an area where he had previously hunted. Much to his surprise, he noticed that the area beyond a clearing noticed that the area beyond a clearing contained several newly constructed houses that had not been there before. Between the houses there was a small playground where several children were playing. Nevertheless, Phillips nailed a paper target to a tree and went to a point where the tree was between himself and the playground. He then fired several shots at the target. One of the shots missed the target and the tree and hit and killed one of the children in the playground. Phillips was convicted of murder. He appealed, contending that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction of murder. The appellate court should 
A. affirm the conviction, as the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of murder. 
B. reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but will support a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. 
C. reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but will support a sufficient for murder but will support a conviction of involuntary manslaughter. 
D. reverse the conviction and order the case dismissed, because the evidence is sufficient only for a finding of negligence and negligence alone cannot support a criminal conviction. 
Answer: A
Dominique obtained a bid of $10,000 to tear down her old building and another bid of $90,000 to replace it with a new structure in which she planned to operate a sporting goods store. Having only limited cash available, Dominique asked Hardcash for a $100,000 loan. After reviewing the plans for the project, Hardcash in a signed writing promised to lend Dominique $100,000 secured by a mortgage on the property and repayable over ten years in equal monthly installments at 10% annual interest. Dominique promptly accepted the demolition bid and the old building was removed, but Hardcash thereafter refused to make the loan. Despite diligent efforts, Dominique was unable to obtain a loan from any other source. Does Dominique have a cause of action against Hardcash? 
A. Yes, because by having the building demolished, she accepted Hardcash's offer to make the loan. 
B. Yes, because her reliance on Hardcash's promise was substantial, reasonable, and foreseeable. 
C. No, because there was no bargained-for exchange of consideration for Hardcash's promise to make the loan. 
D. No, because Dominique's inability to obtain a loan from any other source demonstrated that the project lacked the financial soundness that was a constructive condition to Hardcash's performance. 
Answer: B
Dominique obtained a bid of $10,000 to tear down her old building and another bid of $90,000 to replace it with a new structure in which she planned to operate a sporting goods store. Having only limited cash available, Dominique asked Hardcash for a $100,000 loan. After reviewing the plans for the project, Hardcash in a signed writing promised to lend Dominique $100,000 secured by a mortgage on the property and repayable over ten years in equal monthly installments at 10% annual interest. Dominique promptly accepted the demolition bid and the old building was removed, but Hardcash thereafter refused to make the loan. Despite diligent efforts, Dominique was unable to obtain a loan from any other source. For this question only, assume that Dominique has a cause of action against Hardcash. If she sues him for monetary relief, what is the probable measure of her recovery? 
A. Expectancy damages, measured by the difference between the value of the new building and the old building, less the amount of the proposed loan ($100,000). 
B. Expectancy damages, measured by the estimated profits from operating the proposed sporting goods store for ten years, less the cost of repaying a $100,000 loan at 10% interest over ten years. 
C. Reliance damages, measured by the $10,000 expense of removing the old building, adjusted by the decrease or increase in the market value of Dominique's land immediately thereafter. 
D. Nominal damages only, because both expectancy and reliance damages are speculative, and there is no legal or equitable basis for awarding restitution. 
Answer: C
Dan, an eight-year-old, rode his bicycle downhis driveway into a busy highway and Driver had to stop her car suddenly to avoid colliding with the bike. Because of the sudden stop, Driver's two-year-old son, Peter, who was sitting on the seat without any restraint, was thrown into the dashboard and injured. Had Peter been properly restrained in a baby car seat, as required by a state safety statute of which his mother was aware, he would not have been injured. In an action brought on Peter's behalf against Dan's parents to recover for Peter's injuries, Peter will 
A. not prevail, because parents are not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their children. 
B. not prevail, because Peter's injury was attributable to his mother's knowing violation of a safety statute. 
C. prevail, if Dan's parents knew that he sometimes drove into the highway, and they took no steps to prevent it. they took no steps to prevent it. 
D. prevail, if Dan's riding into the highway was negligent and the proximate cause of Peter's injuries. 
Answer: C
While Hill was in her kitchen, she heard the screech of automobile tires. She ran to the window and saw a tricycle flying through the air. The tricycle had been hit by a car driven by Weber, who had been speeding. She also saw a child's body in the grass adjacent to the street. As a result of her shock from this experience, Hill suffered a heart attack. In a claim by Hill against Weber, the issue on which Hill's right to recover will depend is whether 
A. a person can recover damages based on the defendant's breach of a duty owed to another.
B. it is foreseeable that a person may sufferphysical harm caused solely by an injury inflicted on another.
C. a person can recover damages caused by (C) a person can recover damages caused by shock unaccompanied by bodily impact.
D. a person can recover damages for harm resulting from shock caused solely by another's peril or injury.
Answer: D