ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Constance owned Greenacre in fee simple. She executed two instruments in the proper form of deeds. The first instrument purported to convey an undivided one-half interest in Greenacre to Henry and his wife, Audrey, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The second instrument purported to convey an undivided one-half interest in Greenacre to Susan, the only child of Henry. Susan was 13 years old at the time. The common law joint tenancy is unmodified by statute. No actual consideration was paid for the deeds. Constance handed the two deeds to Henry. Henry promptly and properly recorded the deed to himself and Audrey and put the deed to his daughter, Susan, in a safe-deposit box without recording it. The same year, Henry, Audrey, and Susan were on a vacation when the plane in which they were flying went down, and all three were killed simultaneously. Henry, Audrey, and Susan died intestate. The applicable statute in the jurisdiction provides that "when title to property on its devolution depends on priority of death and there is insufficient evidence that the persons have died otherwise than simultaneously, the property of each person shall be disposed of as if he had survived." An appropriate action was instituted by the heirs of Henry, Audrey, and Susan. Constance, who is not an heir of any of the deceased, was a party to the action. The court should determine that title to Greenacre is
A. entirely in Constance.
B. one-half in the heirs of Henry and one-half in the heirs of Audrey.
C. one-half in Constance, one-quarter in the heirs of Henry, and one-quarter in the heirs of Audrey. 
D. one-half in the heirs of Susan, one-quarter in the heirs of Henry, and one-quarter in the heirs of Audrey
Answer: D
In Peck's antitrust suit against manufacturers of insulation, Peck's interrogatories asked for information concerning total sales of insulation by each of the defendant manufacturers in a particular year. The defendants replied to the interrogatories by referring Peck to the Insulation Manufacturers' Annual Journal for the information. If, at trial, Peck offers the annual journal as evidence of the sales volume, this evidence is
A. admissible as an adoptive admission of the defendants.
B. admissible as a business record.
C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception. 
D. inadmissible as lacking sufficient authentication
Answer: A
When Denton heard that his neighbor, Prout, intended to sell his home to a minority purchaser, Denton told Prout that Prout and his wife and children would meet with "accidents" if he did so. Prout then called the prospective purchaser and told him that he was taking the house off the market.If Prout asserts a claim against Denton for assault, Prout will
A. recover if Denton intended to place Prout in fear of physical harm.
B. recover, because Denton's conduct was extreme and outrageous. 
C. not recover if Denton took no action that threatened immediate physical harm to Prout.
D. not recover, because Prout's action removed any threat of harmful force
Answer: C
When Denton heard that his neighbor, Prout, intended to sell his home to a minority purchaser, Denton told Prout that Prout and his wife and children would meet with "accidents" if he did so. Prout then called the prospective purchaser and told him that he was taking the house off the market.If Prout asserts a claim against Denton for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Prout will
A. recover if Prout suffered severe emotional distress as a consequence of Denton's conduct.
B. recover, because Denton intended to frighten Prout. 
C. not recover, because Denton made no threat of immediate physical harm to Prout or his family. 
D. not recover if Prout suffered no physical harm as a consequence of Denton's conduct
Answer: A
The German-made Doppelpferd, featuring sleek styling and remarkable fuel efficiency, is the most popular automobile in the United States. Its U.S. sales are booming, and the average retail markup in such sales is 30 percent. Hardsell Motors, Inc., a franchised Doppelpferd dealer in the United States, contracted with Shift to sell him a new Doppelpferd for $9,000 cash, the sale to be consummated after delivery to Hardsell of the car, which Hardsell ordered from the manufacturer specifically for Shift. The signed retail contractual document was a contract drafted by Hardsell's lawyer, and Shift did not question or object to any of its terms, including the price inserted by Hardsell. When the car arrived from Germany, Shift repudiated the contract. Hardsell at once sold the car for $9,000 cash to Karbuff, for whom Hardsell had also ordered from the manufacturer a Doppelpferd identical to Shift's. In an action against Shift for breach of contract, Hardsell will probably recover
A. $9,000 minus what it cost Hardsell to purchase the car from the manufacturer. 
B. $9,000 minus the wholesale price of an identical Doppelpferd in the local wholesale market among dealers. 
C. nominal damages only, because Hardsell resold the car to Karbuff without lowering the retail price. 
D. nothing, because the parties' agreement was an adhesion contract and therefore unconscionable
Answer: A
A statute in a jurisdiction makes it a crime to sell ammunition to a minor (defined as a person under the age of 18). The courts have interpreted this statute as creating a strict liability offense that does not require knowledge of the age of the purchaser and as creating vicarious liability. Duncan, who was 16 years old, but looked four or five years older, entered a store owned by Matthews and asked a clerk for a box of .22-caliber shells. Matthews had instructed her employees not to sell ammunition to minors. The clerk asked Duncan his age. Duncan said he was 20. The clerk then placed a box of shells on the counter and asked, "Anything else?" Duncan said that was all he wanted but then discovered he did not have enough money to pay for the shells, so the clerk put the box back onto the shelf. If Matthews, the owner of the store, is charged with attempting to violate the statute, her best argument would be that
A. it was impossible for the sale to have occurred.
B. she had strictly instructed her employees not to sell ammunition to minors.
C. Duncan lied about his age.
D. the clerk did not have the mental state needed for attempt.
Answer: D
Otto conveyed Goldacre to "Andy, his heirs and assigns, but if Andy dies and is not survived by children by his present wife, Jane, then to Bob and his heirs and assigns." Shortly after taking possession, Andy discovered rich metal deposits on the land, opened a mining operation, and removed and sold a considerable quantity of valuable ore without giving Bob any notice of his action. Andy has no children. Andy, Jane, and Bob are all still living. Bob brought an action in equity for an accounting of the value of the ore removed and for an injunction against further removal. If the decision is for Andy, it will be because
A. Bob has no interest in Goldacre.
B. the right to take minerals is an incident of a defeasible fee simple.
C. the right to take minerals is an incident of the right to possession.
D. there was no showing that Andy acted in bad fait
Answer: B
A state statute makes fraud for personal financial gain a crime. Jones was convicted of violating this statute on three separate occasions. Following his most recent conviction, he professed to have undergone a religious conversion and proclaimed himself to be the divine minister of "St. Rockport," an alleged messiah who would shortly be making his appearance on earth. Jones solicited cash donations from the public to support his efforts to spread the word of St. Rockport and his coming appearance on earth. Following complaints by several contributors who claimed he defrauded them, Jones was again charged with fraud under this state statute. The charge was that Jones "should have known that his representations about St. Rockport were false and, therefore, that he made them solely to collect cash donations for his personal gain." A witness for the prosecution in Jones' trial stated that Jones had admitted that, at times, he had doubts about the existence of St. Rockport. Jones was the only religious minister prosecuted for fraud under this state statute. The strongest constitutional defense that Jones could assert would be that this prosecution
A. deprived him of the equal protection of the laws because other religious ministers have not been charged under this statute.
B. denied him procedural due process because it placed upon Jones the burden of rebutting evidence, submitted by the state, of his bad faith in raising this money. 
C. denied him rights conferred by the obligation of contracts clause by preventing him from taking money from persons who wished to contract with him to spread the word of St. Rockport.
D. denied him the free exercise of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it required the state to determine the truth or falsity of the content of his religious beliefs
Answer: D
Hammond decided to kill his wife by poisoning her. He asked his friend, Jordan, a pharmacist, to obtain some curare, a deadly poison, and to give it to him without recording the transaction. Because Jordan suspected Hammond's motive, she supplied Hammond with a small quantity of Marvane, an antibiotic, instead of curare. Marvane is harmless if administered in small quantities, except for the less than one percent of the population who are allergic to the drug. Hammond injected his wife with the Marvane while she slept. She was allergic to the drug and died from the injection. Jordan was distraught and confessed the entire affair to the police, explaining that she had failed to report Hammond's conduct to the authorities because she feared that it would end their friendship if she did.". Jordan is an accomplice to
A. murder.
B. manslaughter.
C. criminally negligent homicide.
D. no degree of criminal homicide
Answer: D
Hammond decided to kill his wife by poisoning her. He asked his friend, Jordan, a pharmacist, to obtain some curare, a deadly poison, and to give it to him without recording the transaction. Because Jordan suspected Hammond's motive, she supplied Hammond with a small quantity of Marvane, an antibiotic, instead of curare. Marvane is harmless if administered in small quantities, except for the less than one percent of the population who are allergic to the drug. Hammond injected his wife with the Marvane while she slept. She was allergic to the drug and died from the injection. Jordan was distraught and confessed the entire affair to the police, explaining that she had failed to report Hammond's conduct to the authorities because she feared that it would end their friendship if she did."In a common law jurisdiction, Hammond is guilty of
A. murder only.
B. murder and conspiracy.
C. attempted murder only.
D. attempted murder and conspirac
Answer: A
While on a hiking trip during the late fall, Page arrived, toward the end of the day, at a clearing where several similar cabins were located, none of which was occupied. One of the cabins belonged to Levin, Page's friend, who had given Page permission to use it. Page entered one of the cabins, which she thought was Levin's, and prepared to spend the night. In fact the cabin was owned, not by Levin, but by Dwyer. When the night turned cold, Page started a fire in the stove. Unknown to Page, there was a defect in the stove that allowed carbon monoxide fumes to escape into the cabin. During the night the fumes caused serious injury to Page. If Page asserts a claim against Dwyer for her injury, will Page recover?
A. Yes, if Dwyer knew that the stove was defective. 
B. Yes, if Dwyer could have discovered the defect in the stove by a reasonable inspection. 
C. No, because Dwyer had no reason to anticipate Page's presence in the cabin. 
D. No, unless Page needed to use the cabin for her own protection.
Answer: C
On January 1, Awl and Howser agreed in writing that Awl would build a house on Howser's lot according to Howser's plans and specifications for $60,000, the work to commence on April 1. Howser agreed to make an initial payment of $10,000 on April 1, and to pay the balance upon completion of the work. On February 1, Awl notified Howser that he (Awl) would lose money on the job at that price, and would not proceed with the work unless Howser would agree to increase the price to $90,000. Howser thereupon, without notifying Awl, agreed in writing with Gutter for Gutter, commencing April 1, to build the house for $75,000, which was the fair market cost of the work to be done. On April 1, both Awl and Gutter showed up at the building site to begin work, Awl telling Howser that he had decided to "take the loss" and would build the house for $60,000 as originally agreed. Howser dismissed Awl and allowed Gutter to begin work on the house.""In a contract action by Awl against Howser, which of the following would the court decide under the prevailing American view? 
A. Howser will win, because Awl in legal effect committed a total breach of contract. 
B. Howser will win, because Gutter's contract price was $15,000 lower than the $90,000 demanded by Awl on February 1. 
C. Awl will win, because Howser did not tell him before April 1 about the contract with Gutter. 
D. Awl will win, because he attempted to perform the contract as originally agreed
Answer: A
On January 1, Awl and Howser agreed in writing that Awl would build a house on Howser's lot according to Howser's plans and specifications for $60,000, the work to commence on April 1. Howser agreed to make an initial payment of $10,000 on April 1, and to pay the balance upon completion of the work. On February 1, Awl notified Howser that he (Awl) would lose money on the job at that price, and would not proceed with the work unless Howser would agree to increase the price to $90,000. Howser thereupon, without notifying Awl, agreed in writing with Gutter for Gutter, commencing April 1, to build the house for $75,000, which was the fair market cost of the work to be done. On April 1, both Awl and Gutter showed up at the building site to begin work, Awl telling Howser that he had decided to "take the loss" and would build the house for $60,000 as originally agreed. Howser dismissed Awl and allowed Gutter to begin work on the house."For this question only, assume that Awl is liable to Howser for breach of contract and also assume the following additional facts: Gutter finished the house on schedule and then showed Howser that he (Gutter) had spent $85,000 on the job. Howser thereupon paid Gutter the full balance of their contract price plus an additional $10,000 so that Gutter would not lose money. In a contract action by Howser against Awl, Howser will recover
A. the difference between the fair market value of the completed house and Awl's original contract price.
B. $30,000, the difference between Awl's original contract price and the amount Awl demanded on February 1. 
C. $25,000, the difference between Awl's original contract price and the total amount Howser paid Gutter for building the house. 
D. $15,000, the difference between Awl's original contract price and Gutter's contract price.
Answer: D
During the night, Murphy broke into a house with the intention of stealing a typewriter. On not finding a typewriter, she became angry, poured lighter fluid onto a couch, and set it on fire. The flames destroyed the couch and also burned a portion of the ceiling in the room. In a common law jurisdiction, Murphy is guilty of
A. burglary only.
B. arson only.
C. burglary and attempted arson.
D. burglary and arson
Answer: D
Argus Corporation is privately owned and incorporated in the state of Kiowa. It contracted with the United States to construct a dam across the Big Sandy River in the state of Arapaho. The state of Arapaho imposed a gross receipts tax on all business conducted within the state. Arapaho sued Argus Corporation to collect that tax on the receipts Argus received under this federal contract. No federal statutes or administrative rules are applicable, and the contract between the United States and Argus Corporation does not mention state taxation. The court should hold the state tax, as applied here, to be
A. constitutional, because a state has exclusive jurisdiction over all commercial transactions executed wholly within its borders. 
B. constitutional, because private contractors performing work under a federal contract are not immune in these circumstances from nondiscriminatory state taxation. 
C. unconstitutional, because it violates the supremacy clause. 
D. unconstitutional, because it imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce
Answer: B
Parmott sued Dexter in an automobile collision case. At trial, Parmott wishes to show by extrinsic evidence that Wade, Dexter's primary witness, is Dexter's partner in a gambling operation. This evidence is
A. admissible as evidence of Wade's character.
B. admissible as evidence of Wade's possible bias in favor of Dexter.
C. inadmissible, because criminal conduct can be shown only by admission or a record of conviction. 
D. inadmissible, because bias must be shown on cross-examination and not by extrinsic evidence.
Answer: B
Taylor and Scott, an unmarried couple, purchased a condominium as tenants in common and lived in the condominium for three years. Subsequently, they made a verbal agreement that, on the death of either of them, the survivor would own the entire condominium, and, as a result, they decided they did not need wills. Two years later, Taylor and Scott were involved in the same automobile accident. Taylor was killed immediately. Scott died one week later. Both died intestate. Taylor's sole heir is his brother, Mark. Scott's sole heir is her mother, Martha. Mark claimed one-half of the condominium, and Martha claimed all of it. The jurisdiction has no applicable statute except for the Statute of Frauds; nor does it recognize common law marriages. In an appropriate action by Martha claiming the entire ownership of the condominium, the court will find that
A. Martha owns the entire interest because Taylor and Scott did not make wills in reliance upon their oral agreement.
B. Martha owns the entire interest because she is entitled to reformation of the deed to reflect the verbal agreement.
C. Mark and Martha each own an undivided one-half interest because Taylor and Scott each died as the result of the same accident.
D. Mark and Martha each own an undivided one-half interest because the Statute of Frauds applies
Answer: D
Telco, a local telephone company, negligently allowed one of its telephone poles, located between a street and a sidewalk, to become termite-ridden. Rhodes, who was intoxicated and driving at an excessive rate of speed, lost control of her car and hit the weakened telephone pole. One week later, the pole fell and struck Walker, a pedestrian who was walking on the sidewalk. The pole fell because of the combination of the force of the impact and the pole's termite-ridden condition. If Walker asserts a claim against Telco and Rhodes, will Walker prevail?
A. Yes, against Telco but not Rhodes. 
B. Yes, against Rhodes but not Telco. 
C. Yes, against Telco and Rhodes, each for one-half of his damages. 
D. Yes, against both Telco and Rhodes for the full amount of his damages
Answer: D
Dirk broke into Vera's house one night. As he started to stuff silverware into a sack, he was surprised by Vera, who had arrived home earlier than usual. Dirk struck Vera on the head with a candlestick and tied her up. He finished filling his sack and left. The police discovered Vera several hours later and rushed her to the hospital. Dirk was apprehended by the police early the following morning with the loot still in his possession. He was taken to police headquarters, given Miranda warnings, and asked if he wished to make a statement about the prior evening's events. The police did not mention that Vera had been seriously injured and was in the hospital. Dirk said he understood his rights and was willing to talk. He then admitted that he committed the burglary of Vera's house. The following day, Vera died from injuries caused by the blow to her head. If, at Dirk's trial for murder, Dirk moves to prevent introduction of the confession into evidence, his motion should most probably be
A. denied, because failure of the police to advise Dirk of Vera's condition was harmless error since felony murder does not require intent to kill or injure. 
B. denied, because Dirk's waiver of his rights did not depend upon the nature of the charges that were later filed against him. 
C. granted, because Dirk could not make a knowing and intelligent waiver unless he had information concerning Vera's condition. 
D. granted, because the use of a confession to burglary in a prosecution for murder violates due process where the police withheld information about the potential seriousness of the offense
Answer: B
In 1956, Silo Cement Company constructed a plant for manufacturing ready-mix concrete in Lakeville. At that time Silo was using bagged cement, which caused little or no dust. In 1970, Petrone bought a home approximately 1,800 feet from the Silo plant. One year ago, Silo stopped using bagged cement and began to receive cement in bulk shipments. Since then at least five truckloads of cement have passed Petrone's house daily. Cement blows off the trucks and into Petrone's house. When the cement arrives at the Silo plant, it is blown by forced air from the trucks into the storage bin. As a consequence cement dust fills the air surrounding the plant to a distance of 2,000 feet. Petrone's house is the only residence within 2,000 feet of the plant. If Petrone asserts a claim against Silo based on nuisance, will Petrone prevail? 
A. Yes, unless using bagged cement would substantially increase Silo's costs. 
B. Yes, if the cement dust interfered unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of Petrone's property. 
C. No, because Silo is not required to change its industrial methods to accommodate the needs of one individual. 
D. No, if Silo's methods are in conformity with those in general use in the industry.
Answer: B
On a wholly random basis, a state agency has given a few probationary employees who were not rehired at the end of their probationary periods a statement of reasons and an opportunity for a hearing; but the agency has very rarely done so. No statute or rule of the agency required such a statement of reasons or a hearing. The employment of Masters, a probationary employee, was terminated without a statement of reasons or an opportunity for a hearing. The agency did not even consider whether it should give him either. A suit by Masters requesting a statement of reasons and a hearing will probably be
A. successful on the grounds that failure to give Masters reasons and an opportunity for a hearing constituted a bill of attainder.
B. successful on the grounds that an agency's inconsistent practices, even if unintentional, deny adversely affected persons the equal protection of the laws. 
C. unsuccessful, because Masters does not have a right to be rehired that is protected by procedural due process. 122 
D. unsuccessful, because the conditions of state employment are matters reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
Answer: C
Able, an attorney, sued Clinton, a client, for his fee, based on an agreed hourly rate. Clinton subpoenaed the attorney's time records for the days on which he purported to have worked for Clinton, in order to show that Able had billed an impossible number of hours to Clinton and others on those days. Clinton's subpoena provided that any information concerning the matters handled for other clients be deleted or masked. Able moved to quash the subpoena on the ground of attorney-client privilege. The subpoena should be
A. upheld, because the information about hours billed is not within the privilege 
B. upheld, because an attorney has no right to invoke his clients' privilege without instructions from the clients. 
C. quashed, because an attorney is entitled to a right of privacy for the work product in his files. 
D. quashed, because no permission was obtained from the other clients to divulge information from their files.
Answer: A