ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school: The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1. (The National Competition was conducted by an outside agency unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he had started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything."Assuming that the faculty's notice of November 1 was posted on a bulletin board or other conspicuous place commonly viewed by all persons in the law school, such notice constituted a
A. preliminary invitation to deal, analogous to newspaper advertisements for the sale of goods by merchants. 
B. contractual offer, creating a power of acceptance. 
C. preliminary invitation, because no offeree was named therein. 
D. promise to make a conditional, future gift of mone
Answer: B
On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school: The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1. (The National Competition was conducted by an outside agency unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he had started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything."As to Student, was the offer effectively revoked?
A. Yes, by the faculty's second notice. 
B. No, because it became irrevocable after a reasonable time had elapsed. 
C. No, because of Student's reliance, prior to April 1, on the offer. 
D. No, unless Student became aware of the April 1 posting and removal before submitting the paper
Answer: C
On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school: The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1. (The National Competition was conducted by an outside agency unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he had started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything."The offer proposed a
A. unilateral contract only.
B. bilateral contract only.
C. unilateral contract or bilateral contract at the offeree's option.
D. unilateral contract which ripened into a bilateral contract, binding on both parties, as soon as Student intensified his effort in response to the offe
Answer: A
On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school: The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1. (The National Competition was conducted by an outside agency unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he had started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything."The promise of the faculty on November 1 was
A. enforceable on principles of promissory estoppel.
B. enforceable by Student's personal representative even if Student had been killed in an accident on April 16.
C. not enforceable on policy grounds because it produced a noncommercial agreement 73 between a student and his teachers, analogous to intramural family agreements and informal social commitments. 
D. not enforceable, because Student, after entering the National Competition in October, was already under a duty to perform to the best of his ability.
Answer: B
Owner held 500 acres in fee simple absolute. In 1960 Owner platted and obtained all required governmental approvals of two subdivisions of 200 acres each. In 1960 and 1961 commercial buildings and parking facilities were constructed on one subdivision, Royal Center, in accordance with the plans disclosed by the plat for that subdivision. Royal Center continues to be used for commercial purposes. The plat of the other subdivision, Royal Oaks, showed 250 lots, streets, and utility and drainage easements. All of the lots in Royal Oaks were conveyed during 1960 and 1961. The deeds contained provisions, expressly stated to be binding upon the grantee and the grantee's heirs and assigns, requiring the lots to be used only for single-family, residential purposes until 1985. The deeds expressly stated that these provisions were enforceable by the owner of any lot in the Royal Oaks subdivision. At all times since 1949, the 200 acres of Royal Center have been zoned for shopping center use, and the 200 acres in Royal Oaks have been zoned for residential use in a classification which permits both singlefamily and multiple-family use."In an appropriate attack upon the limitation to residential use by single families, if the evidence disclosed no fact in addition to those listed above, the most probable judicial resolution would be that
A. there is no enforceable restriction because judicial recognition constitutes state action which is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
B. there is no enforceable restriction because of Owner's conflict of interest in that he did not make the restriction applicable to the 100 acres he retains.
C. the restriction in use set forth in the deeds will be enforced at the suit of any present owner of a lot in Royal Oaks residential subdivision.
D. any use consistent with zoning will be permitted but that such uses so permitted as are in conflict with the restrictions in the deeds will give rise to a right to damages from Owner or Owner's successor.
Answer: C
Owner held 500 acres in fee simple absolute. In 1960 Owner platted and obtained all required governmental approvals of two subdivisions of 200 acres each. In 1960 and 1961 commercial buildings and parking facilities were constructed on one subdivision, Royal Center, in accordance with the plans disclosed by the plat for that subdivision. Royal Center continues to be used for commercial purposes. The plat of the other subdivision, Royal Oaks, showed 250 lots, streets, and utility and drainage easements. All of the lots in Royal Oaks were conveyed during 1960 and 1961. The deeds contained provisions, expressly stated to be binding upon the grantee and the grantee's heirs and assigns, requiring the lots to be used only for single-family, residential purposes until 1985. The deeds expressly stated that these provisions were enforceable by the owner of any lot in the Royal Oaks subdivision. At all times since 1949, the 200 acres of Royal Center have been zoned for shopping center use, and the 200 acres in Royal Oaks have been zoned for residential use in a classification which permits both singlefamily and multiple-family use."For this question only, assume that Owner now desires to open his remaining 100 acres as a residential subdivision of 125 lots (with appropriate streets, etc.). He has, as an essential element of his scheme, the feature that the restrictions should be identical with those he planned for the original Royal Oaks residential subdivision and, further, that lot owners in Royal Oaks should be able to enforce (by lawsuits) restrictions on the lots in the 100 acres. The zoning for the 100 acres is identical with that for the 200 acres of Royal Oaks residential subdivision. Which of the following best states the chance of success for his scheme?
A. He can restrict use only to the extent of that imposed by zoning (that is, to residential use by not more than four dwelling units per lot). 
B. He cannot restrict the 100 acres to residential use because of the conflicting use for retail commercial purposes in the 200 acres composing the shopping center.
C. He cannot impose any enforceable restriction to residential use only.
D. Any chance of success depends upon the 100 acres being considered by the courts as a part of a common development scheme which also includes the 200 acres of Royal Oaks
Answer: D
A state accredits both public and private schools, licenses their teachers, and supplies textbooks on secular subjects to all such schools. Country Schoolhouse, a private school that offers elementary and secondary education in the state, denies admission to all non-Caucasians. In a suit to enjoin as unconstitutional the continued racially exclusionary admissions policy of the Country Schoolhouse, which of the following is the strongest argument AGAINST the school?
A. Because education is a public function, the Country Schoolhouse may not discriminate on racial grounds. 
B. The state is so involved in school regulation and support that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is applicable to the school.
C. The state is constitutionally obligated to eliminate segregation in all public and private educational institutions within the state.
D. Any school with teachers who are licensed by the state is forbidden to discriminate on racial grounds
Answer: B
Paul and Daniel entered into a contract in writing on November 1, the essential part of which read as follows: "Paul to supply Daniel with 200 personalized Christmas cards bearing a photograph of Daniel and his family on or before December 15, 1970, and Daniel to pay $100 30 days thereafter. Photograph to be taken by Paul at Daniel's house. Cards guaranteed to be fully satisfactory and on time." Because Daniel suddenly became ill, Paul was unable to take the necessary photograph of Daniel and his family until the first week of December. The final week's delay was caused by Paul's not being notified promptly by Daniel of his recovery. Before taking the photograph of Daniel and his family, Paul advised Daniel that he was likely to be delayed a day or two beyond December 15 in making delivery because of the time required to process the photograph and cards. Daniel told Paul to take the photograph anyway. The cards were finally delivered by Paul to Daniel on December 17, Paul having diligently worked on them in the interim. Although the cards pleased the rest of the family, Daniel refused to accept them because, as he said, squinting at one of the cards at arm's length without bothering to put on his reading glasses, "The photograph makes me look too old. Besides, the cards weren't delivered on time.""In an action by Paul against Daniel, which of the following would be Daniel's best defense?
A. The cards, objectively viewed, were not satisfactory. 
B. The cards, subjectively viewed, were not satisfactory. 
C. The cards were not delivered on time.
D. Daniel's illness excused him from further obligation under the contract
Answer: B
Paul and Daniel entered into a contract in writing on November 1, the essential part of which read as follows: "Paul to supply Daniel with 200 personalized Christmas cards bearing a photograph of Daniel and his family on or before December 15, 1970, and Daniel to pay $100 30 days thereafter. Photograph to be taken by Paul at Daniel's house. Cards guaranteed to be fully satisfactory and on time." Because Daniel suddenly became ill, Paul was unable to take the necessary photograph of Daniel and his family until the first week of December. The final week's delay was caused by Paul's not being notified promptly by Daniel of his recovery. Before taking the photograph of Daniel and his family, Paul advised Daniel that he was likely to be delayed a day or two beyond December 15 in making delivery because of the time required to process the photograph and cards. Daniel told Paul to take the photograph anyway. The cards were finally delivered by Paul to Daniel on December 17, Paul having diligently worked on them in the interim. Although the cards pleased the rest of the family, Daniel refused to accept them because, as he said, squinting at one of the cards at arm's length without bothering to put on his reading glasses, "The photograph makes me look too old. Besides, the cards weren't delivered on time.""Which of the following statements is most accurate?
A. Payment by Daniel of the $100 was a condition precedent to Paul's duty of performance
B. The performances of Paul and Daniel under the contract were concurrently conditional.
C. Payment by Daniel of the $100 was a condition subsequent to Paul's duty of performance.
D. Performance by Paul under the contract was a condition precedent to Daniel's duty of payment of the $100.
Answer: D
Paul and Daniel entered into a contract in writing on November 1, the essential part of which read as follows: "Paul to supply Daniel with 200 personalized Christmas cards bearing a photograph of Daniel and his family on or before December 15, 1970, and Daniel to pay $100 30 days thereafter. Photograph to be taken by Paul at Daniel's house. Cards guaranteed to be fully satisfactory and on time." Because Daniel suddenly became ill, Paul was unable to take the necessary photograph of Daniel and his family until the first week of December. The final week's delay was caused by Paul's not being notified promptly by Daniel of his recovery. Before taking the photograph of Daniel and his family, Paul advised Daniel that he was likely to be delayed a day or two beyond December 15 in making delivery because of the time required to process the photograph and cards. Daniel told Paul to take the photograph anyway. The cards were finally delivered by Paul to Daniel on December 17, Paul having diligently worked on them in the interim. Although the cards pleased the rest of the family, Daniel refused to accept them because, as he said, squinting at one of the cards at arm's length without bothering to put on his reading glasses, "The photograph makes me look too old. Besides, the cards weren't delivered on time.""Which of the following statements regarding the legal effect of Daniel's illness is LEAST accurate?
A. Daniel's illness and the related development excused Paul from his obligations to deliver the cards on or before December 15.
B. Prompt notice by Daniel to Paul of Daniel's recovery from illness was an implied condition of Paul's duty under the circumstances.
C. Paul was under a duty of immediate performance of his promise to deliver the cards on or before December 15 by reason of the express language of the contract and despite the illness of Daniel and the related developments.
D. Daniel's conduct after his illness constituted a waiver of the necessity of Paul's performing on or before December 15.
Answer: C
Carr ran into and injured Pedersen, a pedestrian. With Carr in his car were Wanda and Walter Passenger. Passerby saw the accident and called the police department, which sent Sheriff to investigate. All of these people were available as potential witnesses in the case of Pedersen v. Carr. Pedersen alleges that Carr, while drunk, struck Pedersen, who was in a duly marked crosswalk.Pedersen's counsel wishes to prove that after the accident Carr went to Pedersen and offered $1,000 to settle Pedersen's claim. The trial judge should rule this evidence
A. admissible as an admission of a party.
B. admissible as an admission to show Carr's liability, provided that the court gives a cautionary instruction that the statement should not be considered as bearing on the issue of damages. 
C. inadmissible, since it is not relevant to either the question of liability or the question of damages. 
D. inadmissible, because even though it is relevant and an admission, the policy of the law is to encourage settlement negotiations.
Answer: D
Carr ran into and injured Pedersen, a pedestrian. With Carr in his car were Wanda and Walter Passenger. Passerby saw the accident and called the police department, which sent Sheriff to investigate. All of these people were available as potential witnesses in the case of Pedersen v. Carr. Pedersen alleges that Carr, while drunk, struck Pedersen, who was in a duly marked crosswalk.Pedersen's counsel wants to have Sheriff testify to the following statement made to him by Walter Passenger, out of the presence of Carr: "We were returning from a party at which we had all been drinking." The trial judge should rule this testimony
A. admissible as an admission of a party.
B. admissible as a declaration against interest.
C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception. 
D. inadmissible, because it would lead the court into nonessential side issues
Answer: C
Carr ran into and injured Pedersen, a pedestrian. With Carr in his car were Wanda and Walter Passenger. Passerby saw the accident and called the police department, which sent Sheriff to investigate. All of these people were available as potential witnesses in the case of Pedersen v. Carr. Pedersen alleges that Carr, while drunk, struck Pedersen, who was in a duly marked crosswalk.On the evening of the day of the accident, Walter Passenger wrote a letter to his sister in which he described the accident. When Walter is later testifying on direct examination and says he cannot remember some details of the accident, Pedersen's counsel seeks to show him the letter to assist him. The trial judge should rule this
A. permissible under the doctrine of present recollection refreshed.
B. permissible under the doctrine of past recollection recorded.
C. objectionable, because the letter was not a spontaneous utterance. 
D. objectionable, because the letter is a selfserving declaration insofar as the witness, Walter, is concerned
Answer: A
The most generally accepted basis on which a court will hold that X has a legal duty to aid another is the recognition by X that there is immediate danger of serious harm to
A. another human being from a stranger's wrongful conduct.
B. his neighbor from a stranger's wrongful conduct.
C. his cousin from a stranger's wrongful conduct.
D. another human being from X's own nonnegligent conduct
Answer: D
Jones, angry at a neighbor with whom he had quarreled, for revenge surreptitiously removed a piece of stone statuary from the neighbor's garden and concealed it in his garage. He intended to return it a day or two later, after giving the neighbor a chance to feel bad over its being stolen. Suspecting who was guilty, the neighbor had Jones arrested and charged with larceny.
A. Commonwealth v. Mason. Two sisters see a wealthy neighbor's pedigreed dog on the street. They take the dog home, intending to conceal it until the owner offers a reward. Held, guilty of larceny. 
B. Saferite v. State. Two young men saw a motorcar on the street with the keys in the ignition. They drove the car to a neighboring town with the intention, they said, of visiting the wife of one of them. The car was wrecked on their way back. Conviction for larceny reversed. 
C. People v. Noblett. Defendant, a tenant of a city apartment, advertised it for sublease. Will agreed to sublease for three months, and on March 12 paid Defendant $550, the total agreed rental. Will was to receive possession on March 20, but possession was never given him. Held, not guilty of common law larceny. 
D. King v. Pear. From a stablekeeper, Defendant hired a horse to go to Sutton and back, saying that he would be back at 8 p.m. He did not return. Investigation shows that Defendant had given a false address, and that he sold the horse the same day. Conviction of larceny affirmed
Answer: B
Harris, a heroin addict, broke into a house and took several cameras and watches, which he promptly pawned to obtain cash with which to obtain a "fix." Harris was later charged with larceny of the cameras and watches.
A. Commonwealth v. Mason. Two sisters see a wealthy neighbor's pedigreed dog on the street. They take the dog home, intending to conceal it until the owner offers a reward. Held, guilty of larceny. 
B. Saferite v. State. Two young men saw a motorcar on the street with the keys in the ignition. They drove the car to a neighboring town with the intention, they said, of visiting the wife of one of them. The car was wrecked on their way back. Conviction for larceny reversed. 
C. People v. Noblett. Defendant, a tenant of a city apartment, advertised it for sublease. Will agreed to sublease for three months, and on March 12 paid Defendant $550, the total agreed rental. Will was to receive possession on March 20, but possession was never given him. Held, not guilty of common law larceny. 
D. King v. Pear. From a stablekeeper, Defendant hired a horse to go to Sutton and back, saying that he would be back at 8 p.m. He did not return. Investigation shows that Defendant had given a false address, and that he sold the horse the same day. Conviction of larceny affirmed
Answer: A
Chase, as seller, and Scott, as buyer, enter into a written contract for the sale and purchase of land that is complete in all respects except that no reference is made to the quality of title to be conveyed. Which of the following will result?
A. The contract will be unenforceable. 76
B. Chase will be required to convey a marketable title.
C. Chase will be required to convey only what he owned on the date of the contract.
D. Chase will be required to convey only what he owned on the date of the contract plus whatever additional title rights he may acquire prior to the closing date
Answer: B