ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Dunbar and Balcom went into a drugstore, where Dunbar reached into the cash register and took out $200. Stone, the owner of the store, came out of a back room, saw what had happened, and told Dunbar to put the money back. Balcom then took a revolver from under his coat and shot and killed Stone. Dunbar claims that Stone owed her $200 and that she went to the drugstore to try to collect the debt. She said that she asked Balcom to come along just in case Stone made trouble but that she did not plan on using any force and did not know that Balcom was armed. If Dunbar is prosecuted for murder on the basis of being an accessory to Balcom in committing a murder and the jury believes her claim, she should be found
A. guilty, because in firing the shot Balcom was trying to help her. 
B. guilty, because she and Balcom were acting in concert in a dangerous undertaking. 
C. not guilty, because she had no idea that Balcom was armed and she did not plan to use force. 
D. not guilty, because she was exercising selfhelp and did not intend to steal. 
Answer: C
The President of the United States recognizes the country of Ruritania and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government through the Secretary of State. Ruritania is governed by a repressive totalitarian government. In an appropriate federal court, Dunn brings a suit against the President and Secretary of State to set aside this action on the ground that it is inconsistent with the principles of our constitutional form of government. Dunn has a lucrative contract with the United States Department of Commerce to provide commercial information about Ruritania. The contract expressly terminates, however, "when the President recognizes the country of Ruritania and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government." Which of the following is the most proper disposition of the Dunn suit by the federal court?
A. Suit dismissed, because Dunn does not have standing to bring this action. 
B. Suit dismissed, because there is no adversity between Dunn and the defendants. 
C. Suit dismissed, because it presents a nonjustifiable political question. 
D. Suit decided on the merits
Answer: C
Acorp and Beeco are companies that each manufacture pesticide X. Their plants are located along the same river. During a specific 24-hour period, each plant discharged pesticide into the river. Both plants were operated negligently and such negligence caused the discharge of the pesticide into the river. Landesmann operated a cattle ranch downstream from the plants of Acorp and Beeco. Landesmann's cattle drank from the river and were poisoned by the pesticide. The amount of the discharge from either plant alone would not have been sufficient to cause any harm to Landesmann's cattle. If Landesmann asserts a claim against Acorp and Beeco, what, if anything, will Landesmann recover?
A. Nothing, because neither company discharged enough pesticide to cause harm to Landesmann's cattle. 
B. Nothing, unless Landesmann can establish how much pesticide each plant discharged. 
C. One-half of Landesmann's damages from each company.
D. The entire amount of Landesmann's damages, jointly and severally, from the two companies
Answer: D
Paulsen sued Daly for nonpayment of a personal loan to Daly, as evidenced by Daly's promissory note to Paulsen. Paulsen called Walters to testify that he knows Daly's handwriting and that the signature on the note is Daly's. On direct examination, to identify himself, Walters gave his name and address and testified that he had been employed by a roofing company for seven years. During presentation of Daly's case, Daly called Wilson to testify that she is the roofing company's personnel manager and that she had determined, by examining the company's employment records, that Walters had worked there only three years. The trial judge should rule that Wilson's testimony is
A. inadmissible, because it is not the best evidence. 
B. inadmissible, because it is impeachment on a collateral question. 
C. admissible as evidence of a regularly conducted activity.
D. admissible as tending to impeach Walters' credibility
Answer: B
Andres conveyed Applewood Farm "to Bogatz, her heirs and assigns, so long as the premises are used for residential and farm purposes, then to Cohen and his heirs." The common law Rule Against Perpetuities, unmodified by statute, is part of the law of the jurisdiction in which Applewood Farm is located. As a consequence of the conveyance, Cohen's interest in Applewood Farm is
A. nothing.
B. a valid executory interest.
C. a possibility of reverter.
D. a right of entry for condition broken
Answer: A
Cycle Company manufactured a bicycle that it sold to Bike Shop, a retail bicycle dealer, which in turn sold it to Roth. Shortly thereafter, while Roth was riding the bicycle along a city street, he saw a traffic light facing him turn from green to yellow. He sped up, hoping to cross the intersection before the light turned red. However, Roth quickly realized that he could not do so and applied the brake, which failed. To avoid the traffic that was then crossing in front of him, Roth turned sharply to his right and onto the sidewalk, where he struck Perez, a pedestrian. Both Perez and Roth sustained injuries."If Roth asserts a claim against Bike Shop based on strict liability in tort, will Roth prevail?
A. Yes, if the brake failed because of a defect present when the bicycle left the factory of Cycle Company. 
B. Yes, because the brake failed while Roth was riding the bicycle. 
C. No, if Roth contributed to his own injury by speeding up. 
D. No, if Bike Shop carefully inspected the bicycle before selling it. 
Answer: A
Cycle Company manufactured a bicycle that it sold to Bike Shop, a retail bicycle dealer, which in turn sold it to Roth. Shortly thereafter, while Roth was riding the bicycle along a city street, he saw a traffic light facing him turn from green to yellow. He sped up, hoping to cross the intersection before the light turned red. However, Roth quickly realized that he could not do so and applied the brake, which failed. To avoid the traffic that was then crossing in front of him, Roth turned sharply to his right and onto the sidewalk, where he struck Perez, a pedestrian. Both Perez and Roth sustained injuries.""If Perez asserts a claim based on negligence against Cycle Company and if it is found that the brake failure resulted from a manufacturing defect in the bicycle, will Perez prevail?
A. Yes, because Cycle Company placed a defective bicycle into the stream of commerce. 
B. Yes, if the defect could have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable care by Cycle Company. 
C. No, because Perez was not a purchaser of the bicycle. 
D. No, if Roth was negligent in turning onto the sidewalk
Answer: B
Damson was short of money. He decided to go into Winston's house to take Winston's silverware and then to sell it. That night, while Winston was away, Damson entered by picking the lock on the front door. He picked up a chest of silverware from the dining room and went out the front door of the house to his car. As he was putting the chest of silverware into the trunk, he had second thoughts and decided that he did not wish to become a thief. He reentered the house and replaced the chest of silverware where he had found it. As he came out of the house the second time, he was arrested by the police, who had been called by a neighbor. Damson is 
A. guilty of burglary and larceny.
B. guilty of burglary and attempted larceny.
C. guilty of burglary but not guilty of any larceny offense.
D. not guilty of burglary or any larceny offense
Answer: A
On October 1, Toy Store, Inc., entered into a written contract with Fido Factory, Inc., for the purchase at $20 per unit of 1,000 mechanical dogs, to be specially manufactured by Fido according to Toy Store's specifications. Fido promised to deliver all of the dogs "not later than November 15, for the Yule shopping season," and Toy Store promised to pay the full $20,000 price upon delivery. In order to obtain operating funds, Fido as borrower entered into a written loan agreement on October 5 with the High Finance Company. In relevant part, this agreement recited, "Fido Factory hereby transfers and assigns to High Finance its (Fido Factory's) October 1 mechanical dog contract with Toy Store, as security for a 50-day loan of $15,000, the advance and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged by Fido Factory." No copy of this agreement, or statement relating to it, was filed in an office of public record. On October 15, Fido notified Toy Store, "We regret to advise that our master shaft burned out last night because our night supervisor let the lubricant level get too low. We have just fired the supervisor, but the shaft cannot be repaired or replaced until about January 1. We can guarantee delivery of your order, however, not later than January 20." Toy Store rejected this proposal as unacceptable and immediately contracted with the only other available manufacturer to obtain the 1,000 dogs at $30 per unit by November 15. "For this question only, assume that on November 1, Toy Store sues Fido for damages and alleges the above facts, except those relating to the Fido-High Finance loan agreement. Upon Fido's motion to dismiss the complaint, the court should
A. sustain the motion, because Fido on October 15 stated its willingness, and gave assurance of its ability, to perform the contract in January. 
B. sustain the motion, because Toy Store's lawsuit is premature in any case until after November 15. 
C. deny the motion, because Toy Store's complaint alleges an actionable tort by Fido. 
D. deny the motion, because Toy Store's complaint alleges an actionable breach of contract by Fido.
Answer: D
On October 1, Toy Store, Inc., entered into a written contract with Fido Factory, Inc., for the purchase at $20 per unit of 1,000 mechanical dogs, to be specially manufactured by Fido according to Toy Store's specifications. Fido promised to deliver all of the dogs "not later than November 15, for the Yule shopping season," and Toy Store promised to pay the full $20,000 price upon delivery. In order to obtain operating funds, Fido as borrower entered into a written loan agreement on October 5 with the High Finance Company. In relevant part, this agreement recited, "Fido Factory hereby transfers and assigns to High Finance its (Fido Factory's) October 1 mechanical dog contract with Toy Store, as security for a 50-day loan of $15,000, the advance and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged by Fido Factory." No copy of this agreement, or statement relating to it, was filed in an office of public record. On October 15, Fido notified Toy Store, "We regret to advise that our master shaft burned out last night because our night supervisor let the lubricant level get too low. We have just fired the supervisor, but the shaft cannot be repaired or replaced until about January 1. We can guarantee delivery of your order, however, not later than January 20." Toy Store rejected this proposal as unacceptable and immediately contracted with the only other available manufacturer to obtain the 1,000 dogs at $30 per unit by November 15. ". For this question only, assume that by November 16, Fido, without legal excuse, has delivered no dogs, and that Toy Store has brought an action against Fido. In an action brought on November 16 by Toy Store against High Finance Company on account of Fido's default, Toy Store can recover
A. nothing, because the October 5 assignment by Fido to High Finance of Fido's contract with Toy Store was only an assignment for security. 
B. nothing, because no record of the October 5 transaction between Fido and High Finance was publicly filed. 
C. $10,000 in damages, because Toy Store was a third-party intended beneficiary of the October 5 transaction between Fido and High Finance. 
D. $10,000 in damages, because the October 5 transaction between Fido and High Finance effected, with respect to Toy Store as creditor, a novation of debtors.
Answer: A
A 10-lot subdivision was approved by the proper governmental authority. The authority's action was pursuant to a map filed by Diaz, which included an undesignated parcel in addition to the 10 numbered lots. The undesignated parcel is differently shaped and somewhat larger than any one of the numbered lots. Subdivision building restrictions were imposed on "all the lots shown on said map." Diaz contracts to sell the unnumbered lot, described by metes and bounds, to Butts. Is title to the parcel marketable?
A. Yes, because the undesignated parcel is not a lot to which the subdivision building restrictions apply. 
B. Yes, because the undesignated parcel is not part of the subdivision. 
C. No, because the undesignated parcel has never been approved by the proper governmental authority. 
D. No, because the map leaves it uncertain as to whether the unnumbered lot is subject to the building restrictions.
Answer: D
A state statute requires the permanent removal from parental custody of any child who has suffered "child abuse." That term is defined to include "corporal punishment of any sort." Zeller very gently spanks his six-year-old son on the buttocks whenever he believes that spanking is necessary to enforce discipline on him. Such a spanking occurs not more than once a month and has never physically harmed the child. The state files suit under the statute to terminate Zeller's parental rights solely because of these spankings. Zeller defends only on the ground that the statute in question is unconstitutional as applied to his admitted conduct. In light of the nature of the rights involved, which of the following is the most probable burden of persuasion on this constitutional issue?
A. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to Zeller is necessary to vindicate an important state interest.
B. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to Zeller is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
C. Zeller has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to him is not necessary to vindicate an important state interest.
D. Zeller has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to him is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Answer: A
According to a statute of the state of Kiowa, a candidate for state office may have his name placed on the official election ballot only if he files with the appropriate state official a petition containing a specified number of voter signatures. Roderick failed to get his name placed on the state ballot as an independent candidate for governor because he failed to file a petition with the number of voter signatures required by state statute. In a suit against the appropriate state officials in federal district court, Roderick sought an injunction against the petition signature requirement on the ground that it was unconstitutional. Which of the following, if established, constitutes the strongest argument for Roderick?
A. Compliance with the petition signature requirement is burdensome.
B. The objectives of the statute could be satisfactorily achieved by less burdensome means.
C. Because of the petition signature requirement, very few independent candidates have ever succeeded in getting on the ballot. 
D. The motivation for the statute was a desire to keep candidates off the ballot if they did not have strong support among voters.
Answer: B
In March, when Ohm was 17, Stereo delivered to Ohm a television set. At that time Ohm agreed in writing to pay $400 for the set on July 1 when he would reach his 18th birthday. Eighteen is the applicable statutory age of majority, and on that date Ohm was to receive the proceeds of a trust. On July 1, when the reasonable value of the television set was $250, Ohm sent Stereo a signed letter stating, "I'll only pay you $300; that is all the set is worth." In an action against Ohm for money damages on July 2, what is the maximum amount that Stereo will be entitled to recover?
A. Nothing
B. $250, the reasonable value of the set 
C. $300, the amount Ohm promised to pay in his letter of July 1 
D. $400, the original sale price
Answer: C
Dray was prosecuted for bank robbery. At trial, the bank teller, Wall, was unable to identify Dray, now bearded, as the bank robber. The prosecutor then showed Wall a group of photographs, and Wall testified that she had previously told the prosecutor that the middle picture (concededly a picture of Dray before he grew a beard) was a picture of the bank robber. Wall's testimony is
A. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception. 
B. inadmissible, because it is a violation of Dray's right of confrontation. 
C. admissible as prior identification by the witness.
D. admissible as past recollection recorded
Answer: C
Which of the following is LEAST likely to be the underlying felony in a prosecution for felony murder?
A. Arson.
B. Manslaughter.
C. Attempted rape.
D. Burglary
Answer: B
Morris was driving north on an interstate highway at about 50 miles per hour when a tractor-trailer rig, owned and driven by Dixon, passed her. The tractor was pulling a refrigerated meat trailer fully loaded with beef carcasses hanging freely from the trailer ceiling. When Dixon cut back in front of Morris, the shifting weight of the beef caused the trailer to overturn. Morris was unable to avoid a collision with the overturned trailer and was injured. The trailer had been manufactured by Trailco. A number of truckers had complained to Trailco that the design of the trailer, which allowed the load to swing freely, was dangerous. Dixon knew of the dangerous propensity of the trailer. A restraining device that could be installed in the trailer would prevent the load from shifting and was available at nominal cost. Dixon knew of the restraining device but had not installed it"If Morris asserts a claim based on strict liability tort against Trailco, she will
A. recover unless Morris was negligently driving when the truck overturned.
B. recover, because Dixon's knowledge of the dangerous propensity of the trailer does not relieve Trailco of liability. 
C. not recover, because there was no privity of contract between Morris and Trailco. 
D. not recover if Dixon was negligent in failing to install the restraining device in the trailer
Answer: B
Morris was driving north on an interstate highway at about 50 miles per hour when a tractor-trailer rig, owned and driven by Dixon, passed her. The tractor was pulling a refrigerated meat trailer fully loaded with beef carcasses hanging freely from the trailer ceiling. When Dixon cut back in front of Morris, the shifting weight of the beef caused the trailer to overturn. Morris was unable to avoid a collision with the overturned trailer and was injured. The trailer had been manufactured by Trailco. A number of truckers had complained to Trailco that the design of the trailer, which allowed the load to swing freely, was dangerous. Dixon knew of the dangerous propensity of the trailer. A restraining device that could be installed in the trailer would prevent the load from shifting and was available at nominal cost. Dixon knew of the restraining device but had not installed it"If Morris asserts a claim for her injuries against Dixon, she will
A. prevail if the use of a restraining device would have prevented the trailer from overturning.
B. prevail, because Dixon is strictly liable to Morris for injuries resulting from defects in the trailer. 
C. not prevail unless Dixon was driving in a negligent manner at the time Morris was injured.
D. not prevail, because Dixon was not the manufacturer or seller of the trailer
Answer: A
Fernwood Realty Company developed a residential development, known as the Fernwood Development, which included single-family dwellings, townhouses, and high-rise apartments for a total of 25,000 dwelling units. Included in the deed to each unit was a covenant under which the grantee and the grantee's "heirs and assigns" agreed to purchase electrical power from only a plant Fernwood promised to build and maintain within the development. Fernwood constructed the plant and the necessary power 111 lines. The plant did not supply power outside the development. An appropriate and fair formula was used to determine price. After constructing and selling 12,500 of the units, Fernwood sold its interest in the development to Gaint Realty Investors. Gaint operated the power plant and constructed and sold the remaining 12,500 units. Each conveyance from Gaint contained the same covenant relating to electrical power that Fernwood had included in the 12,500 conveyances it had made. Page bought a dwelling unit from Olm, who had purchased it from Fernwood. Subsequently, Page, whose lot was along the boundary of the Fernwood Development, ceased buying electrical power from Gaint and began purchasing power from General Power Company, which provided such service in the area surrounding the Fernwood Development. Both General Power and Gaint have governmental authorization to provide electrical services to the area. Gaint instituted an appropriate action against Page to enjoin her from obtaining electrical power from General Power. If judgment is for Page, it most likely will be because
A. the covenant does not touch and concern the land.
B. the mixture of types of residential units is viewed as preventing one common development scheme.
C. the covenant is a restraint on alienation.
D. there is no privity of estate between Page and Gaint
Answer: A
Congress passes an Energy Conservation Act. The act requires all users of energy in this country to reduce their consumption by a specified percentage, to be set by a presidential executive order. The act sets forth specific standards the President must use in setting the percentage and detailed procedures to be followed. The provision that allows the President to set the exact percentage is probably
A. constitutional, because it creates a limited administrative power to implement the statute. 
B. constitutional, because inherent executive powers permit such action even without statutory authorization. 
C. unconstitutional as an undue delegation of legislative power to the executive.
D. unconstitutional, because it violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Answer: A
Ortega owned Blackacre in fee simple and by his will specifically devised Blackacre as follows: "To my daughter, Eugenia, her heirs and assigns, but if Eugenia dies survived by a husband and a child or children, then to Eugenia's husband during his lifetime with remainder to Eugenia's children, their heirs and assigns. Specifically provided, however, that if Eugenia dies survived by a husband and no child, Blackacre is specifically devised to my nephew, Luis, his heirs and assigns." While Ortega's will was in probate, Luis quitclaimed all interest in Blackacre to Eugenia's husband, JosÃ©. Three years later, Eugenia died, survived by JosÃ© but no children. Eugenia left a will devising her interest in Blackacre to JosÃ©. The only applicable statute provides that any interest in land is freely alienable. Luis instituted an appropriate action against JosÃ© to establish title to Blackacre. Judgment should be for
A. Luis, because his quitclaim deed did not transfer his after-acquired title. 
B. Luis, because JosÃ© took nothing under Ortega's will. 
C. JosÃ©, because Luis had effectively conveyed his interest to JosÃ©. 
D. JosÃ©, because the doctrine of after-acquired title applies to a devise by will
Answer: C
Duncan was charged with aggravated assault. At trial Duncan did not testify; however, he sought to offer opinion evidence of his good character for truth and veracity. This testimony should be
A. admitted, because a criminal defendant is entitled to offer evidence of his good character. 
B. admitted, because a party's credibility is necessarily in issue. 
C. excluded, because character is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith. 
D. excluded, because it is evidence of a trait not pertinent to the case.
Answer: D