Datasets:

wasifis

/

mmlu

like 0

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Furrow leased in writing a 100-acre farm from Quark for five years at $2,000 per year, with an option to purchase "five acres of the land for $10,000 cash" at the end of the lease term. Before the lease was executed, Quark orally promised to have a five-acre parcel surveyed before the end of the lease term. Furrow took possession of the farm and paid the rent for five years. During the fifth year, having decided that he would exercise the purchase option, Furrow planted several fruit trees and built a large grain silo on the property. At the end of the term, Furrow tendered Quark $10,000 and demanded a conveyance, but Quark repudiated the option agreement and retook possession of the farm. He had never had the five-acre parcel surveyed.Assume for this question only that Quark is not liable to Furrow for breach of a land-sale contract. In an action by Furrow against Quark for the reasonable value of the improvements that Furrow added to the farm, which of the following theories would best support Furrow's claim? A. Quasi-contract, for benefits unofficiously and nongratuitously conferred upon Quark by Furrow. B. Tort, for conversion by Quark in retaking possession of the improvements. C. Breach of trust by Quark as trustee of a resulting trust of the improvements. D. Breach by Quark of an implied-in-fact promise (manifested by his retaking possession of the farm and improvements) to compensate Furrow for the improvements Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Abco developed a new drug, ZB, for treatment of Wegener's disease. Abco extensively tested ZB for several years on animals and human volunteers and observed no undesirable side effects. The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) then approved ZB for sale as a prescription drug. Five other drug companies, each acting independently, developed drugs identical to ZB. Each of these drugs was also approved by the FDA for sale as a prescription drug. True Blue Drug, a wholesaler, bought identically shaped pills from all six of the manufacturers and sold the pills to drugstores as Wegener's X. This drug had a long-delayed side effect. Sons of male users of Wegener's X are sterile. One such son, Crane, brought an action against Abco for his damages. Abco, through True Blue Drug, supplied about 10 percent of the Wegener's X sold in the state where Crane lived. It is not possible to establish which of the six companies supplied the particular pills that Crane's father took. If Crane asserts a claim against Abco based on strict liability in tort, which of the following will be a decisive question in determining whether Crane will prevail? A. Does the res ipsa loquitur doctrine apply? B. Can liability be imposed on Abco without proof that Abco knew that the drug had an undesirable side effect? C. Is Abco relieved of liability by the FDA approval of the drug? D. Can liability be imposed on Abco without showing that its pills were used by Crane's father Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. A state statute provides that only citizens of the United States may be employed by that state. In an action brought in a federal court, a resident alien who was prevented from obtaining state employment as a garbage collector solely because of his alien status challenged the statute's constitutionality as applied to his circumstances. Which of the following statements concerning the burden of persuasion applicable to this suit is correct? A. The alien must demonstrate that there is no rational relationship between the citizenship requirement and any legitimate state interest. B. The alien must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is not necessary to advance an important state interest. C. The state must demonstrate that there is a rational relationship between the citizenship requirement and a legitimate state interest. D. The state must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is necessary to advance an important state interest Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. In litigation over the estate of Baggs, who died intestate, Payton, who is 18 years old, claimed to be Baggs's niece and entitled, therefore, to a share of his large estate. In support of her claim, Payton offered in evidence a Bible, properly identified as having belonged to Baggs's family, in the front of which was a list of family births, marriages, and deaths. The list recorded Payton's birth to Baggs's oldest sister. To prove that Payton is Baggs's niece, the Bible listing is A. admissible as an ancient document. B. admissible as a family record. C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception. D. inadmissible, because there was no showing of firsthand knowledge by the one who wrote it Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Smythe was charged with the murder of his wife. In his defense, he testified that at the time he killed her, he believed that his wife was planning to destroy the world by detonating a massive explosive device that she had developed and built in the basement of their home. He further testified that he had tried many times to dissuade his wife from her plan and had tried to destroy devices that she stored in the basement. She had, he testified, foiled his efforts by on two occasions signing papers for his hospitalization, which lasted for a brief period each time. He said that he had concluded that the only way to prevent her scheme was to kill her and that he had become so obsessed with the importance of doing so that he could think of nothing else. One day when he saw her open the door to the basement he lunged at her and pushed her down the steps to her death. The best defense raised by Smythe's testimony is A. lack of the requisite mental element. B. lack of the requisite act element. C. insanity. D. belief that the situation justified his actions Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. After being notified by Dr. Josephs that Nurse Norris's employment with his office was terminated, Norris applied for a position with Hospital. In her application, Norris listed her former employment with Josephs. Josephs, in response to a telephone inquiry from Hospital, stated that "Norris lacked professional competence." Although Josephs believed that to be a fair assessment of Norris, his adverse rating was based on one episode of malpractice for which he blamed Norris but which in fact was chargeable to another doctor. Because of the adverse comment on her qualifications provided by Josephs, Norris was not employed by Hospital. If Norris asserts a claim based on defamation against Josephs, will Norris prevail? A. Yes, because Josephs was mistaken in the facts on which he based his opinion of Norris's competence. B. Yes, because the statement of Josephs reflected adversely on Norris's professional competence. C. No, if Norris authorized Hospital to make inquiry of her former employer. D. No, if Josephs had reasonable grounds for his belief that Norris was not competent. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Pullen used aluminum brackets in her business. On the telephone listed as hers in the telephone book, Pullen received a call in which the caller said, "This is John Denison of Denison Hardware Company. We have a special on aluminum brackets this week at 30 percent off." Pullen ordered brackets from the caller. When the brackets were never delivered, Pullen sued Denison for breach of contract. At trial, Denison, who denies having made the telephone call, objects to Pullen's testimony concerning it. When asked, Pullen testifies that, aside from the telephone call, she had never heard Denison speak until she met him in the judge's chambers before the trial and that, in her opinion, the voice on the telephone was Denison's. The strongest argument for admission of Pullen's testimony concerning the telephone call is that A. the call related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone. B. the call was received at a number assigned to Pullen by the telephone company. C. after hearing Denison speak in chambers, Pullen recognized Denison's voice as that of the person on the telephone. D. self-identification is sufficient authentication of a telephone call Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. The High National Grasslands is owned by the United States and is located in the center of a large western state. Acting pursuant to a federal statute authorizing such action, the United States Bureau of Land Management leased the grazing rights in the High National Grasslands to ranchers located nearby. Grazingland Company owns a vast amount of rangeland adjacent to the High National Grasslands and leases its land for livestock-grazing purposes to the same ranchers, but at prices higher than those charged by the Bureau. Grazingland Company sued the Bureau in an appropriate federal district court to restrain the Bureau from competing with that company by leasing the High National Grasslands. Which of the following constitutional provisions may most easily and directly be used to justify the federal statute authorizing this leasing program of the Bureau of Land Management? A. The general welfare clause of Article I, § 8. B. The federal property clause of Article IV, § 3. C. The commerce clause of Article I, § 8. D. The supremacy clause of Article VI Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Ann leased commercial property to Brenda for a period of 10 years. The lease contained the following provision: "No subleasing or assignment will be permitted unless with the written consent of the lessor." One year later, Brenda assigned all interest in the lease to Carolyn, who assumed and agreed to perform the lessee's obligations under the terms of the lease. Ann learned of the assignment and wrote to Brenda that she had no objection to the assignment to Carolyn and agreed to accept rent from Carolyn instead of Brenda Thereafter, Carolyn paid rent to Ann for a period of five years. Carolyn then defaulted and went into bankruptcy. In an appropriate action, Ann sued Brenda for rent due. If Ann loses, it will be because there was A. laches. B. an accord and satisfaction. C. a novation. D. an attornment Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. On January 2, Hugh Homey and Sue Structo entered into a written contract in which Structo agreed to build on Homey's lot a new house for Homey, according to plans and specifications furnished by Homey's architect, Barbara Bilevel, at a contract price of $200,000. The contract provided for specified progress payments and a final payment of $40,000 upon Homey's acceptance of the house and issuance of a certificate of final approval by the architect. Further, under a "liquidated damages" clause in the agreement, Structo promised to pay Homey $500 for each day's delay in completing the house after the following October 1. Homey, however, told Structo on January 2, before the contract was signed, that he would be on an around-the-world vacation trip most of the summer and fall and would not return to occupy the house until November 1."For this question only, assume the following facts. Because she was overextended on other construction jobs, Structo did not complete the house until October 15. Homey returned on November 1 as planned and occupied the house. Ten days later, after making the $40,000 final payment to Structo, Homey learned for the first time that the house had not been completed until October 15. If Homey sues Structo for breach of contract on account of the 15-day delay in completion, which of the following will the court probably decide? A. Homey will recover damages as specified in the contract, i.e., $500 multiplied by 15. B. Homey will recover his actual damages, if any, caused by the delay in completion. C. Having waived the delay by occupying the house and making the final payment Homey will recover nothing. D. Homey will recover nothing because the contractual completion date was impliedly modified to November 1 when Homey on January 2 advised Structo about Homey's prospective trip and return date. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. On January 2, Hugh Homey and Sue Structo entered into a written contract in which Structo agreed to build on Homey's lot a new house for Homey, according to plans and specifications furnished by Homey's architect, Barbara Bilevel, at a contract price of $200,000. The contract provided for specified progress payments and a final payment of $40,000 upon Homey's acceptance of the house and issuance of a certificate of final approval by the architect. Further, under a "liquidated damages" clause in the agreement, Structo promised to pay Homey $500 for each day's delay in completing the house after the following October 1. Homey, however, told Structo on January 2, before the contract was signed, that he would be on an around-the-world vacation trip most of the summer and fall and would not return to occupy the house until November 1."For this question only, assume the following facts. Structo completed the house on October 14 and, when Homey returned on November 1, requested the final payment of $40,000 and issuance of a certificate of final approval by the architect, Bilevel. Homey, however, refused to pay any part of the final installment after Bilevel told him, "Structo did a great job and I find no defects worth mentioning; but Structo's contract price was at least $40,000 too high, especially in view of the big drop in housing values within the past 10 months. I will withhold the final certificate, and you just hold on to your money." If Structo sues Homey for the $40,000 final payment after Bilevel's refusal to issue a final certificate, which of the following will the court probably decide? A. Structo wins, because nonoccurrence of the condition requiring Bilevel's certificate of final approval was excused by Bilevel's bad-faith refusal to issue the certificate. B. Structo wins, but, because all contractual conditions have not occurred, her recovery is limited to restitution of the benefit conferred on Homey, minus progress payments already received. C. Homey wins, provided he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the fair market value of the completed house is $160,000 or less. D. Homey wins, provided he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that total payments to Structo of $160,000 will yield a fair net profit. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Chemco designed and built a large tank on its premises for the purpose of storing highly toxic gas. The tank developed a sudden leak and escaping toxic gas drifted onto the adjacent premises, where Nyman lived. Nyman inhaled the gas and died as a result. In a suit brought by Nyman's personal representative against Chemco, which of the following must be established if the claim is to prevail? I. The toxic gas that escaped from Chemco's premises was the cause of Nyman's death. II. The tank was built in a defective manner. III. Chemco was negligent in designing the tank. A. I only. B. I and II only. C. I and III only. D. I, II, and III Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Zall, a resident of the state of Paxico, brought suit in federal district court against Motors, Inc., a Paxico corporation. Zall seeks recovery of $12,000 actual and $12,000 punitive damages arising from Motors's sale to him of a defective automobile. Zall's suit is based only on a common law contract theory. From a constitutional standpoint, should the federal district court hear this suit on its merits? A. Yes, because Article III vests federal courts with jurisdiction over cases involving the obligation of contracts. B. Yes, because it is an action affecting interstate commerce. C. No, because this suit is not within the jurisdiction of an Article III court. D. No, because there is no case or controversy within the meaning of Article III Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Pack sued Donlon for slander, alleging that Donlon had publicly accused Pack of being a thief. In his answer, Donlon admitted making the accusation, but alleged that it was a true statement. At trial, Donlon offers evidence that Pack stole a ring worth $10,000 from a jewelry store. Evidence concerning this theft should be A. admitted, because specific instances of conduct may be proved when character is directly in issue. B. admitted, because Pack's action constituted a felony. C. excluded, because character must be shown by reputation or opinion. D. excluded, because its relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Rimm and Hill were fooling around with a pistol in Hill's den. Rimm aimed the pistol in Hill's direction and fired three shots slightly to Hill's right. One shot ricocheted off the wall and struck Hill in the back, killing him instantly. The most serious crime of which Rimm can be convicted is A. murder. B. voluntary manslaughter. C. involuntary manslaughter. D. assault with a dangerous weapon Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Oaks, the owner of Blackacre, conveyed a rightof-way to United Utility "for the underground transportation of gas by pipeline, the location of right-of-way to be mutually agreed upon by Oaks and United Utility." United Utility then installed a six-inch pipeline at a location selected by it and not objected to by Oaks. Two years later, United Utility advised Oaks of its intention to install an additional six-inch pipeline parallel to and three feet laterally from the original pipeline. In an appropriate action, Oaks sought a declaration that United Utility has no right to install the second pipeline. If Oaks prevails, it will be because A. any right implied to expand the original use of the right-of-way creates an interest that violates the Rule Against Perpetuities. B. the original installation by United Utility defined the scope of the easement. C. Oaks did not expressly agree to the location of the right-of-way. D. the assertion of the right to install an additional pipeline constitutes inverse condemnation. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. A statute authorizes a specified federal administrative agency to issue rules governing the distribution of federal grant funds for scientific research. The statute provides that, in issuing those rules, the agency must follow procedures and substantive standards contained in the statute. In a severable provision, the statute also provides that otherwise valid rules issued by the agency under authority delegated to it by this statute may be set aside by a majority vote of a designated standing joint committee of Congress. The provision of this statute relating to the power of the designated standing joint committee of Congress is A. constitutional, because it is a necessary and proper means of ensuring that the rules issued by this agency are actually consistent with the will of Congress. B. constitutional, because discretionary money grants authorized by statute are privileges, not rights, and therefore Congress has greater freedom to intervene in their administration than it has to intervene in the administration of regulatory laws. C. unconstitutional, because it denies equal protection of the laws to members of Congress who are not appointed to the joint legislative committee authorized to set aside rules of this agency. D. unconstitutional, because it authorizes a congressional change of legal rights and obligations by means other than those specified in the Constitution for the enactment of laws. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Perez sued Dawson for damages arising out of an automobile collision. At trial, Perez called Minter, an eyewitness to the collision. Perez expected Minter to testify that she had observed Dawson's automobile for five seconds prior to the collision and estimated Dawson's speed at the time of the collision to have been 50 miles per hour. Instead, Minter testified that she estimated Dawson's speed to have been 25 miles per hour. Without finally excusing Minter as a witness, Perez then called Wallingford, a police officer, to testify that Minter had told him during his investigation at the accident scene that Dawson "was doing at least 50." Wallingford's testimony is A. admissible as a present sense impression. B. admissible to impeach Minter. C. inadmissible, because Perez may not impeach his own witness. D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. On August 1, Geriatrics, Inc., operating a "lifetime care" home for the elderly, admitted Ohlster, who was 84 years old, for a trial period of two months. On September 25, Ohlster and Geriatrics entered into a written lifetime care contract with an effective commencement date of October 1. The full contract price was $20,000, which, as required by the terms of the contract, Ohlster prepaid to Geriatrics on September 25. Ohlster died of a heart attack on October 2. In a restitutionary action, can the administratrix of Ohlster's estate, a surviving sister, recover on behalf of the estate either all or part of the $20,000 paid to Geriatrics on September 25? A. Yes, because Geriatrics would otherwise be unjustly enriched at Ohlster's expense. B. Yes, under the doctrine of frustration of purpose. C. No, because Ohlster's life span and the duration of Geriatrics' commitment to him was a risk assumed by both parties. D. No, but only if Geriatrics can show that between September 25 and Ohlster's death it rejected, because of its commitment to Ohlster, an application for lifetime care from another elderly perso Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Frank owned two adjacent parcels, Blackacre and Whiteacre. Blackacre fronts on a poor unpaved public road, while Whiteacre fronts on Route 20, a paved major highway. Fifteen years ago, Frank conveyed to his son, Sam, Blackacre "together with a right-of-way 25 feet wide over the east side of Whiteacre to Route 20." At that time, Blackacre was improved with a 10-unit motel. Ten years ago, Frank died. His will devised Whiteacre "to my son, Sam, for life, remainder to my daughter, Doris." Five years ago, Sam executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed, purporting to convey Blackacre and Whiteacre to Joe in fee simple. Joe then enlarged the motel to 12 units. Six months ago, Sam died and Doris took possession of Whiteacre. She brought an appropriate action to enjoin Joe from using the right-of-way. In this action, who should prevail? A. Doris, because merger extinguished the easement. B. Doris, because Joe has overburdened the easement. C. Joe, because he has an easement by necessity. D. Joe, because he has the easement granted by Frank to Sam Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Able and Baker are students in an advanced high school Russian class. During an argument one day in the high school cafeteria, in the presence of other students, Able, in Russian, accused Baker of taking money from Able's locker. In a suit by Baker against Able based on defamation, Baker will A. prevail, because Able's accusation constituted slander per se. B. prevail, because the defamatory statement was made in the presence of third persons. C. not prevail, unless Able made the accusation with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. D. not prevail, unless one or more of the other students understood Russian Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Five years ago, Sally acquired Blackacre, improved with a 15-year-old dwelling. This year Sally listed Blackacre for sale with Bill, a licensed real estate broker. Sally informed Bill of several defects in the house that were not readily discoverable by a reasonable inspection, including a leaky basement, an inadequate water supply, and a roof that leaked. Paul responded to Bill's advertisement, was taken by Bill to view Blackacre, and decided to buy it. Bill saw to it that the contract specified the property to be "as is" but neither Bill nor Sally pointed out the defects to Paul, who did not ask about the condition of the dwelling. After closing and taking possession, Paul discovered the defects, had them repaired, and demanded that Sally reimburse him for the cost of the repairs. Sally refused, and Paul brought an appropriate action against Sally for damages. If Sally wins, it will be because A. Sally fulfilled the duty to disclose defects by disclosure to Bill. B. the contract's "as is" provision controls the rights of the parties. C. Bill became the agent of both Paul and Sally and thus knowledge of the defects was imputed to Paul. D. the seller of a used dwelling that has been viewed by the buyer has no responsibility toward the buyer Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Hydro-King, Inc., a high-volume pleasure boat retailer, entered into a written contract with Zuma, signed by both parties, to sell Zuma a power boat for $12,000. The manufacturer's price of the boat delivered to Hydro-King was $9,500. As the contract provided, Zuma paid Hydro-King $4,000 in advance and promised to pay the full balance upon delivery of the boat. The contract contained no provision for liquidated damages. Prior to the agreed delivery date, Zuma notified Hydro-King that he would be financially unable to conclude the purchase; and Hydro-King thereupon resold the same boat that Zuma had ordered to a third person for $12,000 cash. If Zuma sues Hydro-King for restitution of the $4,000 advance payment, which of the following should the court decide? A. Zuma's claim should be denied, because, as the party in default, he is deemed to have lost any right to restitution of a benefit conferred on Hydro-King. B. Zuma's claim should be denied, because, but for his repudiation, Hydro-King would have made a profit on two boat sales instead of one. C. Zuma's claim should be upheld in the amount of $4,000 minus the amount of Hydro-King's lost profit under its contract with Zuma. D. Zuma's claims should be upheld in the amount of $3,500 ($4,000 minus $500 as statutory damages under the UCC) Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. A federal statute prohibits the sale or resale, in any place in this country, of any product intended for human consumption or ingestion into the human body that contains designated chemicals known to cause cancer, unless the product is clearly labeled as dangerous. The constitutionality of this federal statute may most easily be justified on the basis of the power of Congress to A. regulate commerce among the states. B. enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. C. provide for the general welfare. D. promote science and the useful arts Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Shore decided to destroy his dilapidated building in order to collect the insurance money. He hired Parsons to burn down the building. Parsons broke into the building and carefully searched it to make sure no one was inside. He failed, however, to see a vagrant asleep in an office closet. He started a fire. The building was destroyed, and the vagrant died from burns a week later. Two days after the fire, Shore filed an insurance claim in which he stated that he had no information about the cause of the fire. If Shore is guilty of felony murder, it is because the vagrant's death occurred in connection with the felony of A. arson. B. fraud. C. conspiracy. D. burglary Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Dalton is on trial for burglary. During crossexamination of Dalton, the prosecutor wants to inquire about Dalton's earlier conviction for falsifying a credit application. Which of the following facts concerning the conviction would be the best reason for the trial court's refusing to allow such examination? A. Dalton was released from prison 12 years ago. B. Dalton was put on probation rather than imprisoned. C. It was for a misdemeanor rather than a felony. D. It is on appeal Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Dent operates a residential rehabilitation center for emotionally disturbed and ungovernable children who have been committed to his custody by their parents or by juvenile authorities. The center's purpose is to modify the behavior of the children through a teaching program carried out in a family-like environment. Though the children are not permitted to leave the center without Dent's permission, there are no bars or guards to prevent them from doing so. It has been held in the state where the center is located that persons having custody of children have the same duties and responsibilities that they would have if they were the parents of the children. Camden, aged 12, who had been in Dent's custody for six months, left the center without permission. Dent became aware of Camden's absence almost immediately, but made no attempt to locate him or secure his return, though reports reached him that Camden had been seen in the vicinity. Thirtysix hours after Camden left the center, Camden committed a brutal assault upon Pell, a fiveyear-old child, causing Pell to suffer extensive permanent injury. If an action is brought against Dent on behalf of Pell to recover damages for Pell's injuries, will Pell prevail? A. No, because parents are not personally liable for their child's intentional torts. B. Yes, if Camden was old enough to be liable for battery. C. Yes, because Camden was in Dent's custody. D. No, unless Dent knew or had reason to know that Camden had a propensity to attack younger children. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Orin owned in fee simple Blueacre, a farm of 300 acres. He died and by will duly admitted to probate devised Blueacre to his surviving widow, Wilma, for life with remainder in fee simple to his three children, Cindy, Clara, and Carter. All three children survived Orin. At the time of Orin's death, there existed a mortgage on Blueacre that Orin had given 10 years before to secure a loan for the purchase of the farm. At his death, there remained unpaid $40,000 in principal, payable in installments of $4,000 per year for the next 10 years. In addition, there was due interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum, payable annually with the installment of principal. Wilma took possession and out of a gross income of $50,000 per year realized $25,000 net after paying all expenses and charges except the installment of principal and interest due on the mortgage. Carter and Cindy wanted the three children, including Clara, to each contribute one-third of the amounts needed to pay the mortgage installments. Clara objected, contending that Wilma should pay all of these amounts out of the profits she had made in operation of the farm. When foreclosure of the mortgage seemed imminent, Clara sought legal advice. If Clara obtained sound advice relating to her rights, she was told that A. her only protection lies in instituting an action for partition to compel the sale of the life estate of Wilma and to obtain the value of her own one-third interest in remainder. B. she could obtain appropriate relief to compel Wilma personally to pay the sums due because the income is more than adequate to cover these amounts. C. she could be compelled personally to pay her share of the amounts due because discharge of the mortgage enhances the principal. D. she could not be held personally liable for any amount but that her share in remainder could be lost if the mortgage installments are not paid. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Ohner and Planner signed a detailed writing in which Planner, a landscape architect, agreed to landscape and replant Ohner's residential property in accordance with a design prepared by Planner and incorporated in the writing. Ohner agreed to pay $10,000 for the work upon its completion. Ohner's spouse was not a party to the agreement, and had no ownership interest in the premises.For this question only, assume the following facts. Shortly before the agreement was signed, Ohner and Planner orally agreed that the writing would not become binding on either party unless Ohner's spouse should approve the landscaping design. If Ohner's spouse disapproves the design and Ohner refuses to allow Planner to proceed with the work, is evidence of the oral agreement admissible in Planner's action against Ohner for breach of contract? A. Yes, because the oral agreement required approval by a third party. B. Yes, because the evidence shows that the writing was intended to take effect only if the approval occurred C. No, because the parol evidence rule bars evidence of a prior oral agreement even if the latter is consistent with the terms of a partial integration. D. No, because the prior oral agreement contradicted the writing by making the parties' duties conditional. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Ohner and Planner signed a detailed writing in which Planner, a landscape architect, agreed to landscape and replant Ohner's residential property in accordance with a design prepared by Planner and incorporated in the writing. Ohner agreed to pay $10,000 for the work upon its completion. Ohner's spouse was not a party to the agreement, and had no ownership interest in the premises.For this question only, assume the following facts. At Ohner's insistence, the written OhnerPlanner agreement contained a provision that neither party would be bound unless Ohner's law partner, an avid student of landscaping, should approve Planner's design. Before Planner commenced the work, Ohner's law partner, in the presence of both Ohner and Planner, expressly disapproved the landscaping design. Nevertheless, Ohner ordered Planner to proceed with the work, and Planner reluctantly did so. When Planner's performance was 40 percent complete, Ohner repudiated his duty, if any, to pay the contract price or any part thereof. If Planner now sues Ohner for damages for breach of contract, which of the following concepts best supports Planner's claim? A. Substantial performance. B. Promissory estoppel. C. Irrevocable waiver of condition. D. Unjust enrichment. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. A federal statute enacted pursuant to the powers of Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and to regulate commerce among the states prohibits any state from requiring any of its employees to retire from state employment solely because of their age. The statute expressly authorizes employees required by a state to retire from state employment solely because of their age to sue the state government in federal district court for any damages resulting from that state action. On the basis of this federal statute, Retiree sues State X in federal district court. State X moves to dismiss the suit on the ground that Congress lacks authority to authorize such suits against a state. Which of the following is the strongest argument that Retiree can offer in opposition to the state's motion to dismiss this suit? A. When Congress exercises power vested in it by the Fourteenth Amendment and/or the commerce clause, Congress may enact appropriate remedial legislation expressly subjecting the states to private suits for damages in federal court. B. When Congress exercises power vested in it by any provision of the Constitution, Congress has unlimited authority to authorize private actions for damages against a state. C. While the Eleventh Amendment restrains the federal judiciary, that amendment does not limit the power of Congress to modify the sovereign immunity of the states. D. While the Eleventh Amendment applies to suits in federal court by citizens of one state against another state, it does not apply to such suits by citizens against their own state. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Suspecting that Scott had slain his wife, police detectives persuaded one of Scott's employees to remove a drinking glass from Scott's office so that it could be used for fingerprint comparisons with a knife found near the body. The fingerprints matched. The prosecutor announced that he would present comparisons and evidence to the grand jury. Scott's lawyer immediately filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the fingerprint comparisons to bar its consideration by the grand jury, contending that the evidence was illegally acquired. The motion should be A. granted, because, if there was no probable cause, the grand jury should not consider the evidence. B. granted, because the employee was acting as a police agent and his seizure of the glass without a warrant was unconstitutional. C. denied, because motions based on the exclusionary rule are premature in grand jury proceedings. D. denied, because the glass was removed from Scott's possession by a private citizen and not a police officer Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Deetz was prosecuted for homicide. He testified that he shot in self-defense. In rebuttal, Officer Watts testified that he came to the scene in response to a telephone call from Deetz. Watts offers to testify that he asked, "What is the problem here, sir?" and Deetz replied, "I was cleaning my gun and it went off accidentally." The offered testimony is A. admissible as an excited utterance. B. admissible to impeach Deetz and as evidence that he did not act in self-defense. C. inadmissible, because of Deetz's privilege against self-incrimination. D. inadmissible, because it tends to exculpate without corroboration Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Landco owns and operates a 12-story apartment building containing 72 apartments, 70 of which are rented. Walker has brought an action against Landco alleging that while he was walking along a public sidewalk adjacent to Landco's apartment building a flowerpot fell from above and struck him on the shoulder, causing extensive injuries. The action is to recover damages for those injuries. If Walker proves the foregoing facts and offers no other evidence explaining the accident, will his claim survive a motion for directed verdict offered by the defense? A. Yes, because Walker was injured by an artificial condition of the premises while using an adjacent public way. B. Yes, because such an accident does not ordinarily happen in the absence of negligence. C. No, if Landco is in no better position than Walker to explain the accident. D. No, because there is no basis for a reasonable inference that Landco was negligent Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Rohan executed and delivered a promissory note and a mortgage securing the note to Acme Mortgage Company, which was named as payee in the note and as mortgagee in the mortgage. The note included a statement that the indebtedness evidenced by the note was "subject to the terms of a contract between the maker and the payee of the note executed on the same day" and that the note was "secured by a mortgage of even date." The mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. Subsequently, Acme sold the Rohan note and mortgage to XYZ Bank and delivered to XYZ Bank a written assignment of the Rohan note and mortgage. The assignment was promptly and properly recorded. Acme retained possession of both the note and the mortgage in order to act as collecting agent. Later, being short of funds, Acme sold the note and mortgage to Peterson at a substantial discount. Acme executed a written assignment of the note and mortgage to Peterson and delivered to him the note, the mortgage, and the assignment. Peterson paid value for the assignment without actual knowledge of the prior assignment to XYZ Bank and promptly and properly recorded his assignment. The principal of the note was not then due, and there had been no default in payment of either interest or principal. If the issue of ownership of the Rohan note and mortgage is subsequently raised in an appropriate action by XYZ Bank to foreclose, the court should hold that A. Peterson owns both the note and the mortgage. B. XYZ Bank owns both the note and the mortgage. C. Peterson owns the note and XYZ Bank owns the mortgage. D. XYZ Bank owns the note and Peterson owns the mortgag Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Fruitko, Inc., ordered from Orchard, Inc., 500 bushels of No. 1 Royal Fuzz peaches, at a specified price, "for prompt shipment." Orchard promptly shipped 500 bushels, but by mistake shipped No. 2 Royal Fuzz peaches instead of No. 1. The error in shipment was caused by the negligence of Orchard's shipping clerk. Which of the following best states Fruitko's rights and duties upon delivery of the peaches? A. Orchard's shipment of the peaches was a counteroffer and Fruitko can refuse to accept them. B. Orchard's shipment of the peaches was a counteroffer but, since peaches are perishable, Fruitko, if it does not want to accept them, must reship the peaches to Orchard in order to mitigate Orchard's losses. C. Fruitko must accept the peaches because a contract was formed when Orchard shipped them. D. Although a contract was formed when Orchard shipped the peaches, Fruitko does not have to accept them Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. A federal law provides that all motor vehicle tires discarded in this country must be disposed of in facilities licensed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Pursuant to this federal law and all proper federal procedural requirements, that agency has adopted very strict standards for the licensing of such facilities. As a result, the cost of disposing of tires in licensed facilities is substantial. The state of East Dakota has a very large fleet of motor vehicles, including police cars and trucks used to support state-owned commercial activities. East Dakota disposes of used tires from both kinds of state motor vehicles in a state-owned and stateoperated facility. This state facility is unlicensed, but its operation in actual practice meets most of the standards imposed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency on facilities it licenses to dispose of tires. Consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent, may the state of East Dakota continue to dispose of its used tires in this manner? A. No, because a state must comply with valid federal laws that regulate matters affecting interstate commerce. B. No, because some of the tires come from vehicles that are used by the state solely in its commercial activities. C. Yes, because some of the tires come from vehicles that are used by the state in the performance of core state governmental functions such as law enforcement. D. Yes, because the legitimate needs of the) Yes, because the legitimate needs of the federal government are satisfied by the fact that the unlicensed state disposal scheme meets, in actual practice, most of the federal standards for the licensing of such facilities. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Kathy, a two-year-old, became ill with meningitis. Jim and Joan, her parents, were members of a group who believed fervently that if they prayed enough, God would not permit their child to die. Accordingly, they did not seek medical aid for Kathy and refused all offers of such aid. They prayed continuously. Kathy died of the illness within a week. Jim and Joan are charged with murder in a common law jurisdiction. Their best defense to the charge is that A. they did not intend to kill or to harm Kathy. B. they were pursuing a constitutionally protected religious belief. C. Kathy's death was not proximately caused by their conduct. D. they neither premeditated nor deliberated Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Decker, charged with armed robbery of a store, denied that he was the person who had robbed the store. In presenting the state's case, the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that Decker had robbed two other stores in the past year. This evidence is A. admissible to prove a pertinent trait of Decker's character and Decker's action in conformity therewith. B. admissible to prove Decker's intent and identity. C. inadmissible, because character must be proved by reputation or opinion and may not be proved by specific acts. D. inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudic Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Palmco owns and operates a beachfront hotel. Under a contract with City to restore a public beach, Dredgeco placed a large and unavoidably dangerous stone-crushing machine on City land near Palmco's hotel. The machine creates a continuous and intense noise that is so disturbing to the hotel guests that they have canceled their hotel reservations in large numbers, resulting in a substantial loss to Palmco. Palmco's best chance to recover damages for its financial losses from Dredgeco is under the theory that the operation of the stone-crushing machine constitutes A. an abnormally dangerous activity. B. a private nuisance. C. negligence. D. a trespass Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Owen owned Greenacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. By warranty deed he conveyed Greenacre to Lafe for life "and from and after the death of Lafe to Rem, her heirs and assigns." Subsequently Rem died, devising all of her estate to Dan. Rem was survived by Hannah, her sole heir at law. Shortly thereafter Lafe died, survived by Owen, Dan, and Hannah. Title to Greenacre now is in A. Owen, because the contingent remainder never vested and Owen's reversion was entitled to possession immediately upon Lafe's death. B. Dan, because the vested remainder in Rem was transmitted by her will. C. Hannah, because she is Rem's heir. D. either Owen or Hannah, depending upon whether the destructibility of contingent remainders is recognized in the applicable jurisdiction. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Pater and his adult daughter, Carmen, encountered Tertius, an old family friend, on the street. Carmen said to Tertius, "How about lending me $1,000 to buy a used car? I'll pay you back with interest one year from today." Pater added, "And if she doesn't pay it back as promised, I will." Tertius thereupon wrote out and handed to Carmen his personal check, payable to her, for $1,000, and Carmen subsequently used the funds to buy a used car. When the debt became due, both Carmen and Pater refused to repay it, or any part of it. In an action by Tertius against Pater to recover $1,000 plus interest, which of the following statements would summarize Pater's best defense? A. He received no consideration for his conditional promise to Tertius. B. His conditional promise to Tertius was not to be performed in less than a year from the time it was made. C. His conditional promise to Tertius was not made for the primary purpose of benefiting himself (Pater). D. The loan by Tertius was made without any agreement concerning the applicable interest rate. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. After several well-publicized deaths caused by fires in products made from highly flammable fabrics, the state of Orange enacted a statute prohibiting "the manufacture or assembly of any product in this state which contains any fabric that has not been tested and approved for flame retardancy by the Zetest Testing Company." The Zetest Testing Company is a privately owned and operated business located in Orange. For many years, Fabric Mill, located in the state of Orange, has had its fabric tested for flame retardancy by the Alpha Testing Company, located in the state of Green. Alpha Testing Company is a reliable organization that uses a process for testing and approving fabrics for flame retardancy identical in all respects to that used by the Zetest Testing Company. Because Fabric Mill wishes to continue to have its fabric tested solely by Alpha Testing Company, Fabric Mill files an action in Orange state court challenging the constitutionality of the Orange statute as applied to its circumstances. In this suit, the court should hold the statute to be A. constitutional, because it is reasonably related to the protection of the reputation of the fabric industry located in the state of Orange. B. constitutional, because it is a legitimate means of protecting the safety of the public. C. unconstitutional, because it denies to Fabric Mill the equal protection of the laws. D. unconstitutional, because it imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Miller was indicted in a state court in January 1985 for a robbery and murder that occurred in December 1982. He retained counsel, who filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Miller had been prejudiced by a 25-month delay in obtaining the indictment. Thereafter, Miller, with his counsel, appeared in court for arraignment and stated that he wished to plead guilty. The presiding judge asked Miller whether he understood the nature of the charges, possible defenses, and maximum allowable sentences. Miller replied that he did, and the judge reviewed all of those matters with him. He then asked Miller whether he understood that he did not have to plead guilty. When Miller responded that he knew that, the judge accepted the plea and sentenced Miller to 25 years. Six months later, Miller filed a motion to set aside his guilty plea on each of the following grounds. Which of these grounds provides a constitutional basis for relief? A. The judge did not rule on his motion to dismiss before accepting the guilty plea. B. The judge did not determine that Miller had robbed and killed the victim. C. The judge did not determine whether Miller understood that he had a right to jury trial. D. The judge did not determine whether the prosecutor's file contained any undisclosed exculpatory material. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Paul sued Dyer for personal injuries sustained when Dyer's car hit Paul, a pedestrian. Immediately after the accident, Dyer got out of his car, raced over to Paul, and said, "Don't worry €”I'll pay your hospital bill." Paul's testimony concerning Dyer's statement is A. admissible, because it is an admission of liability by a party opponent. B. admissible, because it is within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. C. inadmissible to prove liability, because it is an offer to pay medical expenses. D. inadmissible, provided that Dyer kept his promise to pay Paul's medical expenses Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. As a result of an accident at the NPP nuclear power plant, a quantity of radioactive vapor escaped from the facility, and two members of the public were exposed to excessive doses of radiation. According to qualified medical opinion, that exposure will double the chance that these two persons will ultimately develop cancer. However, any cancer that might be caused by this exposure will not be detectable for at least 10 years. If the two exposed persons do develop cancer, it will not be possible to determine whether it was caused by this exposure or would have developed in any event. If the exposed persons assert a claim for damages against NPP shortly after the escape of the radiation, which of the following questions will NOT present a substantial issue? A. Will the court recognize that the plaintiffs have suffered a present legal injury? B. Can the plaintiffs prove the amount of their damages? C. Can the plaintiffs prove that any harm they may suffer was caused by this exposure? D. Can the plaintiffs prevail without presenting evidence of specific negligence on the part of NPP Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Pam and Dora own adjoining lots in the central portion of a city. Each of their lots had an office building. Dora decided to raze the existing building on her lot and to erect a building of greater height, and she received all governmental approvals required to pursue her project. There is no applicable statute or ordinance (other than those dealing with various approvals for zoning, building, etc.)"After Dora had torn down the existing building, she proceeded to excavate deeper. Dora used shoring that met all local, state, and federal safety regulations, and the shoring was placed in accordance with those standards. Pam notified Dora that cracks were developing in the building situated on Pam's lot. Dora took the view that any subsidence suffered by Pam was due to the weight of Pam's building, and correctly asserted that none would have occurred had Pam's soil been in its natural state. Dora continued to excavate. The building on Pam's lot suffered extensive damage, requiring the expenditure of $750,000 to remedy the defects. Which of the following is the best comment concerning Pam's action to recover damages from Dora? A. Dora is liable, because she removed necessary support for Pam's lot. B. Dora cannot be held liable simply upon proof that support was removed, but may be held liable if negligence is proved. C. Once land is improved with a building, the owner cannot invoke the common law right of lateral support. D. Dora's only obligation was to satisfy all local, state, and federal safety regulation Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Pam and Dora own adjoining lots in the central portion of a city. Each of their lots had an office building. Dora decided to raze the existing building on her lot and to erect a building of greater height, and she received all governmental approvals required to pursue her project. There is no applicable statute or ordinance (other than those dealing with various approvals for zoning, building, etc.)"Assume that no problems with subsidence or other misadventures occurred during construction of Dora's new building. However, when it was completed, Pam discovered that the shadow created by the new higher building placed her building in such deep shade that her ability to lease space was diminished and that the rent she could charge and the occupancy rate were substantially lower. Assume that these facts are proved in an appropriate action Pam instituted against Dora for all and any relief available. Which of the following is the most appropriate comment concerning this lawsuit? A. Pam is entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring Dora to restore conditions to those existing with the prior building insofar as the shadow is concerned. B. The court should award permanent damages, in lieu of an injunction, equal to the present value of all rents lost and loss on rents for the reasonable life of the building. C. The court should award damages for losses suffered to the date of trial and leave open recovery of future damages. D. Judgment should be for Dora, because Pam has no cause of action. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. A city ordinance makes the city building inspector responsible for ensuring that all buildings in that city are kept up to building code standards and requires the inspector to refer for prosecution all known building code violations. Another ordinance provides that the city building inspector may be discharged for "good cause." The building inspector took a newspaper reporter through a number of run-down buildings in a slum neighborhood. After using various epithets and slurs to describe the occupants of these buildings, the building inspector stated to the reporter: "I do not even try to get these buildings up to code or to have their owners prosecuted for code violations because if these buildings are repaired, the people who live in them will just wreck them again." The reporter published these statements in a story in the local newspaper. The building inspector admitted he made the statements. On the basis of these statements, the city council discharged the building inspector. Is the action of the city council constitutional? A. Yes, because the statements demonstrate that the building inspector has an attitude toward a certain class of persons that interferes with the proper performance of the obligations of his job. B. Yes, because the building inspector is a government employee and a person holding such a position may not make public comments inconsistent with current governmental policy. C. No, because the statements were lawful comments on a matter of public concern. D. No, because the statements were published in a newspaper that is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. John asked Doris to spend a weekend with him at his apartment and promised her that they would get married on the following Monday. Doris agreed and also promised John that she would not tell anyone of their plans. Unknown to Doris, John had no intention of marrying her. After Doris came to his apartment, John told Doris he was going for cigarettes. He called Doris's father and told him that he had his daughter and would kill her if he did not receive $100,000. John was arrested on Sunday afternoon when he went to pick up the $100,000. Doris was still at the apartment and knew nothing of John's attempt to get the money. John is guilty of A. kidnapping. B. attempted kidnapping. C. kidnapping or attempted kidnapping but not both. D. neither kidnapping nor attempted kidnapping Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. In a civil action for personal injury, Payne alleges that he was beaten up by Dabney during an altercation in a crowded bar. Dabney's defense is that he was not the person who hit Payne. To corroborate his testimony about the cause of his injuries, Payne seeks to introduce, through the hospital records custodian, a notation in a regular medical record made by an emergency room doctor at the hospital where Payne was treated for his injuries. The notation is: "Patient says he was attacked by Dabney." The notation is A. inadmissible, unless the doctor who made the record is present at trial and available for cross-examination. B. inadmissible as hearsay, not within any exception. C. admissible as hearsay, within the exception for records of regularly conducted activity. D. admissible as a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. After extensive negotiations, Tune Corporation, a radio manufacturer, and Bill's Comex, Inc., a retailer, entered into a final written agreement in which Tune agreed to sell and Bill's agreed to buy all of its requirements of radios, estimated at 20 units per month, during the period January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1990, at a price of $50 per unit. A dispute arose in late December 1990, when Bill's returned 25 undefective radios to Tune for full credit after Tune had refused to extend the contract for a second three-year period. In an action by Tune against Bill's for damages due to return of the 25 radios, Tune introduces the written agreement, which expressly permitted the buyer to return defective radios for credit but was silent as to return of undefective radios for credit. Bill's seeks to introduce evidence that during the three years of the agreement it had returned, for various reasons, 125 undefective radios, for which Tune had granted full credit. Tune objects to the admissibility of this evidence. "The trial court will probably rule that the evidence proffered by Bill's is A. inadmissible, because the evidence is barred by the parol evidence rule. B. inadmissible, because the express terms of the agreement control when those terms are inconsistent with the course of performance. C. admissible, because the evidence supports an agreement that is not within the relevant statute of frauds D. admissible, because course-of-performance evidence, when available, is considered the best indication of what the parties intended the writing to mean. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. After extensive negotiations, Tune Corporation, a radio manufacturer, and Bill's Comex, Inc., a retailer, entered into a final written agreement in which Tune agreed to sell and Bill's agreed to buy all of its requirements of radios, estimated at 20 units per month, during the period January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1990, at a price of $50 per unit. A dispute arose in late December 1990, when Bill's returned 25 undefective radios to Tune for full credit after Tune had refused to extend the contract for a second three-year period. In an action by Tune against Bill's for damages due to return of the 25 radios, Tune introduces the written agreement, which expressly permitted the buyer to return defective radios for credit but was silent as to return of undefective radios for credit. Bill's seeks to introduce evidence that during the three years of the agreement it had returned, for various reasons, 125 undefective radios, for which Tune had granted full credit. Tune objects to the admissibility of this evidence. "For this question only, assume the following facts. When Bill's returned the 25 radios in question, it included with the shipment a check payable to Tune for the balance admittedly due on all other merchandise sold and delivered to Bill's. The check was conspicuously marked, "Payment in full for all goods sold to Bill's to date." Tune's credit manager, reading this check notation and knowing that Bill's had also returned the 25 radios for full credit, deposited the check without protest in Tune's local bank account. The canceled check was returned to Bill's a week later. Which of the following defenses would best serve Bill's? A. Tune's deposit of the check and its return to Bill's after payment estopped Tune thereafter to assert that Bill's owed any additional amount. B. By depositing the check without protest and with knowledge of its wording, Tune discharged any remaining duty to pay on the part of Bill's. C. By depositing the check without protest and with knowledge of its wording, Tune entered into a novation discharging any remaining duty to pay on the part of Bill's. D. The parties' good-faith dispute over return of the radios suspended the duty of Bill's, if any, to pay any balance due. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. While driving at a speed in excess of the statutory limit, Dant negligently collided with another car, and the disabled vehicles blocked two of the highway's three northbound lanes. When Page approached the scene two minutes later, he slowed his car to see if he could help those involved in the collision. As he slowed, he was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Thomas. Page, who sustained damage to his car and was seriously injured, brought an action against Dant to recover damages. The jurisdiction adheres to the traditional common law rules pertaining to contributory negligence. If Dant moves to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, should the motion be granted? A. Yes, because it was Thomas, not Dant who collided with Page's car and caused Page's injuries. B. Yes, if Page could have safely passed the disabled vehicles in the traffic lane that remained open. C. No, because a jury could find that Page's injury arose from a risk that was a continuing consequence of Dant's negligence. D. No, because Dant was driving in excess of the statutory limit when he negligently caused the first accident. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Owen owned Greenacre in fee simple. The small house on Greenacre was occupied, with Owen's oral permission, rent-free, by Able, Owen's son, and Baker, a college classmate of Able. Able was then 21 years old. Owen, by properly executed instrument, conveyed Greenacre to "my beloved son, Able, his heirs and assigns, upon the condition precedent that he earn a college degree by the time he reaches the age of 30. If, for any reason, he does not meet this condition, then Greenacre shall become the sole property of my beloved daughter, Anna, her heirs and assigns." At the time of the conveyance, Able and Baker attended a college located several blocks from Greenacre. Neither had earned a college degree. One week after the delivery of the deed to Able, Able recorded the deed and immediately told Baker that he, Able, was going to begin charging Baker rent since "I am now your landlord." There is no applicable statute. Able and Baker did not reach agreement, and Able served the appropriate notice to terminate whatever tenancy Baker had. Able then sought, in an appropriate action, to oust Baker. Who should prevail? A. Able, because the conveyance created a fee simple subject to divestment in Able. B. Able, because Owen's conveyance terminated Baker's tenancy. C. Baker, because Owen's permission to occupy preceded Owen's conveyance to Able. D. Baker, because Baker is a tenant of Owen, not of Able Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Testator, whose nephew Bypast was his only heir, died leaving a will that gave his entire estate to charity. Bypast, knowing full well that Testator was of sound mind all of his life, and having no evidence to the contrary, nevertheless filed a suit contesting Testator's will on the ground that Testator was incompetent when the will was signed. Craven, Testator's executor, offered Bypast $5,000 to settle the suit, and Bypast agreed. If Craven then repudiates the agreement and the foregoing facts are proved or admitted in Bypast's suit against Craven for breach of contract, is Bypast entitled to recover under the prevailing view? A. Yes, because the Bypast-Craven agreement was a bargained-for exchange. B. Yes, because the law encourages the settlement of disputed claims. C. No, because Bypast did not bring the will contest in good faith. D. No, because an agreement to oust the court of its jurisdiction to decide a will contest is contrary to public policy Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. The National AIDS Prevention and Control Act is a new comprehensive federal statute that was enacted to deal with the public health crisis caused by the AIDS virus. Congress and the President were concerned that inconsistent lower court rulings with respect to the constitutionality, interpretation, and application of the statute might adversely affect or delay its enforcement and, thereby, jeopardize the public health. As a result, they included a provision in the statute providing that all legal challenges concerning those matters were to be initiated only by filing suit directly in the United States Supreme Court. The provision authorizing direct review of the constitutionality, interpretation, or application of this statute only in the United States Supreme Court is A. constitutional, because it is authorized by the Article I power of Congress to enact all laws that are "necessary and proper" to implement the general welfare. B. constitutional, because Article III provides that the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is subject to such exceptions and such regulations as Congress shall make. C. unconstitutional, because it denies persons who wish to challenge this statute the equal protection of the laws by requiring them to file suit in a court different from that in which persons who wish to challenge other statutes may file suit. D. unconstitutional, because it is inconsistent with the specification in Article III of the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Morten was the general manager and chief executive officer of the Woolen Company, a knitting mill. Morten delegated all operational decision making to Grouse, the supervising manager of the mill. The child labor laws in the jurisdiction provide, "It is a violation of the law for one to employ a person under the age of 17 years for full-time labor." Without Morten's knowledge, Grouse hired a number of 15- and 16- year-olds to work at the mill full time. He did not ask their ages and they did not disclose them. Grouse could have discovered their ages easily by asking for identification, but he did not do so because he was not aware of the law and believed that company policy was to hire young people.If the statute is interpreted to create strict liability and Grouse is charged with violating it, Grouse is A. guilty, because he should have inquired as to the ages of the children. B. guilty, because he hired the children. C. not guilty, because in law the Woolen Company, not Grouse, is the employer of the children. D. not guilty, because he believed he was following company policy and was not aware of the violation Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Morten was the general manager and chief executive officer of the Woolen Company, a knitting mill. Morten delegated all operational decision making to Grouse, the supervising manager of the mill. The child labor laws in the jurisdiction provide, "It is a violation of the law for one to employ a person under the age of 17 years for full-time labor." Without Morten's knowledge, Grouse hired a number of 15- and 16- year-olds to work at the mill full time. He did not ask their ages and they did not disclose them. Grouse could have discovered their ages easily by asking for identification, but he did not do so because he was not aware of the law and believed that company policy was to hire young people.If the statute is interpreted to create strict liability and Morten is convicted of violating it, his contention that his conviction would violate the federal Constitution is A. correct, because it is a violation of due process to punish without a voluntary act. B. correct, because criminal liability is personal and the Woolen Company is the employer of the children, not Morten. C. incorrect, because regulatory offenses are not subject to due process limitations. D. incorrect, because he was in a position to exercise control over the hiring of employees for the Woolen Company Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Dexter is being tried for the homicide of a girl whose strangled body was found beside a remote logging road with her hands taped together. After Dexter has offered evidence of alibi, the state calls Wilma to testify that Dexter had taped her hands and tried to strangle her in the same location two days before the homicide but that she escaped. The evidence is A. admissible as tending to show that Dexter is the killer. B. admissible as tending to show Dexter's violent nature. C. inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence. D. inadmissible, because it is unfairly prejudicial Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Dooley was a pitcher for the City Robins, a professional baseball team. While Dooley was throwing warm-up pitches on the sidelines during a game, he was continuously heckled by some spectators seated in the stands above the dugout behind a wire mesh fence. On several occasions, Dooley turned and looked directly at the hecklers with a scowl on his face, but the heckling continued. Dooley wound up as though he was preparing to pitch in the direction of his catcher; however, the ball traveled from his hand, at high speed, at a 90-degree angle from the line to the catcher and directly toward the hecklers in the stands. The ball passed through the wire mesh fence and struck Patricia, one of the hecklers. Patricia brought an action for damages against Dooley and the City Robins, based upon negligence and battery. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the battery count. The jury found for the defendants on the negligence count because the jury determined that Dooley could not foresee that the ball would pass through the wire mesh fence. Patricia has appealed the judgments on the battery counts, contending that the trial court erred in directing verdicts for Dooley and the City Robins.""On appeal, the judgment entered on the directed verdict in Dooley's favor on the battery claim should be A. affirmed, because the jury found on the evidence that Dooley could not foresee that the ball would pass through the fence. B. affirmed, if there was evidence that Dooley was mentally ill and that his act was the product of his mental illness. C. reversed and the case remanded, if a jury could find on the evidence that Dooley intended to cause the hecklers to fear being hit. D. reversed and the case remanded, because a jury could find that Dooley's conduct was extreme and outrageous, and the cause of physical harm to Patricia. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Dooley was a pitcher for the City Robins, a professional baseball team. While Dooley was throwing warm-up pitches on the sidelines during a game, he was continuously heckled by some spectators seated in the stands above the dugout behind a wire mesh fence. On several occasions, Dooley turned and looked directly at the hecklers with a scowl on his face, but the heckling continued. Dooley wound up as though he was preparing to pitch in the direction of his catcher; however, the ball traveled from his hand, at high speed, at a 90-degree angle from the line to the catcher and directly toward the hecklers in the stands. The ball passed through the wire mesh fence and struck Patricia, one of the hecklers. Patricia brought an action for damages against Dooley and the City Robins, based upon negligence and battery. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the battery count. The jury found for the defendants on the negligence count because the jury determined that Dooley could not foresee that the ball would pass through the wire mesh fence. Patricia has appealed the judgments on the battery counts, contending that the trial court erred in directing verdicts for Dooley and the City Robins."For this question only, assume that, on appeal, the court holds that the question of whether Dooley committed a battery is a jury issue. The judgment entered on the directed verdict in favor of the City Robins should then be A. reversed and the case remanded, because a jury could find the City Robins vicariously liable for a battery committed by Dooley in the course of his employment. B. reversed and the case remanded, only if a jury could find negligence on the part of the Robins team management. C. affirmed, because an employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's battery. D. affirmed, if Dooley's act was a knowing violation of team rules. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Small retailers located in the state of Yellow are concerned about the loss of business to certain large retailers located nearby in bordering states. In an effort to deal with this concern, the legislature of Yellow enacted a statute requiring all manufacturers and wholesalers who sell goods to retailers in Yellow to do so at prices that are no higher than the lowest prices at which they sell them to retailers in any of the states that border Yellow. Several manufacturers and wholesalers who are located in states bordering Yellow and who sell their goods to retailers in those states and in Yellow bring an action in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of this statute. Which of the following arguments offered by these plaintiffs is likely to be most persuasive in light of applicable precedent? The state statute A. deprives them of their property or liberty without due process of law. B. imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce C. deprives them of a privilege or immunity of national citizenship. D. denies them the equal protection of the laws Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Smith is a new lawyer who has three clients, all of whom are indigent. To improve the appearance of his office, he decided to purchase some new furniture and to pay for it out of future earnings. Wearing an expensive suit borrowed from a friend, Smith went to a furniture store and asked to purchase on credit a desk and various other items of furniture. Smith told the store owner that he was a very able lawyer with a growing practice and that he expected to do very well in the future. The store owner agreed to sell him the items on credit, and Smith promised to make monthly payments of $800. Smith has never had an income from his practice of more than $150 a month. Smith's business did not improve, and he did not make any payments to the furniture store. After three months, the store owner repossessed the items. If Smith is charged with obtaining property by false pretenses, his best argument for being found NOT guilty would be that A. even if he misled the store owner, he intended to pay for the items. B. he did not misrepresent any material fact. C. the store owner got his property back and so suffered no harm. D. the store owner could have asked for payment in full at the time of the purchase. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Which of the following items of evidence is LEAST likely to be admitted without a supporting witness? A. In a libel action, a copy of a newspaper purporting to be published by Defendant Newspaper Publishing Company. B. In a case involving contaminated food, a can label purporting to identify the canner as Defendant Company. C. In a defamation case, a document purporting to be a memorandum from the Defendant Company president to "All Personnel," printed on Defendant Company's letterhead. D. In a case involving injury to a pedestrian, a pamphlet on stopping distances issued by the State Highway Departmen Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. A federally owned and operated office building in the state of West Dakota is heated with a new pollution-free heating system. However, in the coldest season of the year, this new system is sometimes insufficient to supply adequate heat to the building. The appropriation statute providing the money for construction of the new heating system permitted use of the old pollution-generating system when necessary to supply additional heat. When the old heating system operates (only about two days in any year), the smokestack of the building emits smoke that exceeds the state of West Dakota's pollution-control standards. May the operators of the federal office building be prosecuted successfully by West Dakota authorities for violating that state's pollutioncontrol standards? A. Yes, because the regulation of pollution is a legitimate state police power concern. B. Yes, because the regulation of pollution is a joint concern of the federal government and the state and, therefore, both of them may regulate conduct causing pollution. C. No, because the operations of the federal government are immune from state regulation in the absence of federal consent. D. No, because the violations of the state pollution-control standards involved here are so deminimized that they are beyond the legitimate reach of state law. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Dieter parked her car in violation of a city ordinance that prohibits parking within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. Because Grove was driving negligently, his car sideswiped Dieter's parked car. Plaintiff, a passenger in Grove's car, was injured in the collision. If Plaintiff asserts a claim against Dieter to recover damages for his injuries, basing his claim on Dieter's violation of the parking ordinance, will Plaintiff prevail? A. Yes, because Dieter was guilty of negligence per se. B. Yes, if Plaintiff would not have been injured had Dieter's car not been parked where it was. C. No, because Dieter's parked car was not an active or efficient cause of Plaintiff's injury. D. No, if prevention of traffic accidents was not a purpose of the ordinance. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. On July 15, in a writing signed by both parties, Fixtures, Inc., agreed to deliver to Druggist on August 15 five storage cabinets from inventory for a total price of $5,000 to be paid on delivery. On August 1, the two parties orally agreed to postpone the delivery date to August 20. On August 20, Fixtures tendered the cabinets to Druggist, who refused to accept or pay for them on the ground that they were not tendered on August 15, even though they otherwise met the contract specifications. Assuming that all appropriate defenses are seasonably raised, will Fixtures succeed in an action against Druggist for breach of contract? A. Yes, because neither the July 15 agreement nor the August 1 agreement was required to be in writing. B. Yes, because the August 1 agreement operated as a waiver of the August 15 delivery term. C. No, because there was no consideration to support the August 1 agreement. D. No, because the parol evidence rule will prevent proof of the August 1 agreement. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Beth wanted to make some money, so she decided to sell cocaine. She asked Albert, who was reputed to have access to illegal drugs, to supply her with cocaine so she could resell it. Albert agreed and sold Beth a bag of white powder. Beth then repackaged the white powder into smaller containers and sold one to Carol, an undercover police officer, who promptly arrested Beth. Beth immediately confessed and said that Albert was her supplier. Upon examination, the white powder was found not to be cocaine or any type of illegal substance. If Albert knew the white powder was not cocaine but Beth believed it was, which of the following is correct? A. Both Albert and Beth are guilty of attempting to sell cocaine. B. Neither Albert nor Beth is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine. C. Albert is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is not. D. Albert is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Neighbor, who lived next door to Homeowner, went into Homeowner's garage without permission and borrowed Homeowner's chain saw. Neighbor used the saw to clear broken branches from the trees on Neighbor's own property. After he had finished, Neighbor noticed several broken branches on Homeowner's trees that were in danger of falling on Homeowner's roof. While Neighbor was cutting Homeowner's branches, the saw broke. In a suit for conversion by Homeowner against Neighbor, will Homeowner recover? A. Yes, for the actual damage to the saw. B. Yes, for the value of the saw before Neighbor borrowed it. C. No, because when the saw broke Neighbor was using it to benefit Homeowner. D. No, because Neighbor did not intend to keep the saw. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Homeowner hired Arsonist to set fire to Homeowner's house so that Homeowner could collect the insurance proceeds from the fire. After pouring gasoline around the house, Arsonist lit the fire with his cigarette lighter and then put the lighter in his pocket. As Arsonist was standing back admiring his work, the lighter exploded in his pocket. Arsonist suffered severe burns to his leg. Arsonist brought an action against the manufacturer of the lighter based on strict product liability. Under applicable law, the rules of pure comparative fault apply in such actions. Will Arsonist prevail? A. Yes, if the lighter exploded because of a defect caused by a manufacturing error. B. Yes, if Arsonist can establish that the lighter was the proximate cause of his injury. C. No, because the lighter was not being used for an intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose. D. No, because Arsonist was injured in the course of committing a felony by the device used to perpetrate the felony. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Susan owned Goldacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. By warranty deed, she conveyed Goldacre in fee simple to Ted for a recited consideration of "$10 and other valuable consideration." The deed was promptly and properly recorded. One week later, Susan and Ted executed a written document that stated that the conveyance of Goldacre was for the purpose of establishing a trust for the benefit of Benton, a child of Susan's. Ted expressly accepted the trust and signed the document with Susan. This written agreement was not authenticated to be eligible for recordation and there never was an attempt to record it. Ted entered into possession of Goldacre and distributed the net income from Goldacre to Benton at appropriate intervals. Five years later, Ted conveyed Goldacre in fee simple to Patricia by warranty deed. Patricia paid the fair market value of Goldacre, had no knowledge of the written agreement between Susan and Ted, and entered into possession of Goldacre. Benton made demand upon Patricia for distribution of income at the next usual time Ted would have distributed. Patricia refused. Benton brought an appropriate action against Patricia for a decree requiring her to perform the trust Ted had theretofore recognized. In such action, judgment should be for A. Benton, because a successor in title to the trustee takes title subject to the grantor's trust. B. Benton, because equitable interests are not subject to the recording act. C. Patricia, because, as a bona fide purchaser, she took free of the trust encumbering Ted's title. D. Patricia, because no trust was ever created since Susan had no title at the time of the purported creation. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. In a federal investigation of Defendant for tax fraud, the grand jury seeks to obtain a letter written January 15 by Defendant to her attorney in which she stated: "Please prepare a deed giving my ranch to University but, in order to get around the tax law, I want it back-dated to December 15." The attorney refuses to produce the letter on the ground of privilege. Production of the letter should be A. prohibited, because the statement is protected by the attorney-client privilege. B. prohibited, because the statement is protected by the client's privilege against self-incrimination. C. required, because the statement was in furtherance of crime or fraud. D. required, because the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client and can be claimed only by her. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. After being fired from his job, Mel drank almost a quart of vodka and decided to ride the bus home. While on the bus, he saw a briefcase he mistakenly thought was his own, and began struggling with the passenger carrying the briefcase. Mel knocked the passenger to the floor, took the briefcase, and fled. Mel was arrested and charged with robbery. Mel should be A. acquitted, because he used no threats and was intoxicated. B. acquitted, because his mistake negated the required specific intent. C. convicted, because his intoxication was voluntary. D. convicted, because mistake is no defense to robbery. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. A generally applicable state statute requires an autopsy by the county coroner in all cases of death that are not obviously of natural causes. The purpose of this law is to ensure the discovery and prosecution of all illegal activity resulting in death. In the 50 years since its enactment, the statute has been consistently enforced. Mr. and Mrs. Long are sincere practicing members of a religion that maintains it is essential for a deceased person's body to be buried promptly and without any invasive procedures, including an autopsy. When the Longs' son died of mysterious causes and an autopsy was scheduled, the Longs filed an action in state court challenging the constitutionality of the state statute, and seeking an injunction prohibiting the county coroner from performing an autopsy on their son's body. In this action, the Longs claimed only that the application of this statute in the circumstances of their son's death would violate their right to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Assume that no federal statutes are applicable. As applied to the Longs' case, the court should rule that the state's autopsy statute is A. constitutional, because a dead individual is not a person protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. B. constitutional, because it is a generally applicable statute and is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. C. unconstitutional, because it is not necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest. D. unconstitutional, because it is not substantially related to an important state interest. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. By the terms of a written contract signed by both parties on January 15, M.B. Ram, Inc., agreed to sell a specific ICB personal computer to Marilyn Materboard for $3,000, and Materboard agreed to pick up and pay for the computer at Ram's store on February 1. Materboard unjustifiably repudiated on February 1. Without notifying Materboard, Ram subsequently sold at private sale the same specific computer to Byte, who paid the same price ($3,000) in cash. The ICB is a popular product. Ram can buy from the manufacturer more units than it can sell at retail. If Ram sues Materboard for breach of contract, Ram will probably recover A. nothing, because it received a price on resale equal to the contract price that Materboard had agreed to pay. B. nothing, because Ram failed to give Materboard proper notice of Ram's intention to resell. C. Ram's anticipated profit on the sale to Materboard plus incidental damages, if any, because Ram lost that sale. D. $3,000 (the contract price), because Materboard intentionally breached the contract by repudiation. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Anna owned Blackacre, which was improved with a dwelling. Beth owned Whiteacre, an adjoining unimproved lot suitable for constructing a dwelling. Beth executed and delivered a deed granting to Anna an easement over the westerly 15 feet of Whiteacre for convenient ingress and egress to a public street, although Anna's lot did abut another public street. Anna did not then record Beth's deed. After Anna constructed and started using a driveway within the described 15-foot strip in a clearly visible manner, Beth borrowed $10,000 cash from Bank and gave Bank a mortgage on Whiteacre. The mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. Anna then recorded Beth's deed granting the easement. Beth subsequently defaulted on her loan payments to Bank. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." In an appropriate foreclosure action as to Whiteacre, brought against Anna and Beth, Bank seeks, among other things, to have Anna's easement declared subordinate to Bank's mortgage, so that the easement will be terminated by completion of the foreclosure. If Anna's easement is NOT terminated, it will be because A. the recording of the deed granting the easement prior to the foreclosure action protects Anna's rights. B. the easement provides access from Blackacre to a public street. C. Anna's easement is appurtenant to Blackacre and thus cannot be separated from Blackacre. D. visible use of the easement by Anna put Bank on notice of the easement. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. A little more than five years ago, Len completed construction of a single-family home located on Homeacre, a lot that Len owned. Five years ago, Len and Tina entered into a valid five-year written lease of Homeacre that included the following language: "This house is rented as is, without certain necessary or useful items. The parties agree that Tina may acquire and install such items as she wishes at her expense, and that she may remove them if she wishes at the termination of this lease." Tina decided that the house needed, and she paid cash to have installed, standardsized combination screen/storm windows, a freestanding refrigerator to fit a kitchen alcove built for that purpose, a built-in electric stove and oven to fit a kitchen counter opening left for that purpose, and carpeting to cover the plywood living room floor. Last month, by legal description of the land, Len conveyed Homeacre to Pete for $100,000. Pete knew of Tina's soon-expiring tenancy, but did not examine the written lease. As the lease expiration date approached, Pete learned that Tina planned to vacate on schedule, and learned for the first time that Tina claimed and planned to remove all of the above-listed items that she had installed. Pete promptly brought an appropriate action to enjoin Tina from removing those items. The court should decide that Tina may remove A. none of the items. B. only the refrigerator. C. all items except the carpet. D. all of the items. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. The mineral alpha is added to bodies of fresh water to prevent the spread of certain freshwater parasites. The presence of those parasites threatens the health of the organisms living in rivers and streams throughout the country and imperils the freshwater commercial fishing industry. Alpha is currently mined only in the state of Blue. In order to raise needed revenue, Congress recently enacted a statute providing for the imposition of a $100 tax on each ton of alpha mined in the United States. Because it will raise the cost of alpha, this tax is likely to reduce the amount of alpha added to freshwater rivers and streams and, therefore, is likely to have an adverse effect on the interstate freshwater commercial fishing industry. The alpha producers in Blue have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging this tax solely on constitutional grounds. Is this tax constitutional? A. No, because only producers in Blue will pay the tax and, therefore, it is not uniform among the states and denies alpha producers the equal protection of the laws. B. No, because it is likely to have an adverse effect on the freshwater commercial fishing industry and Congress has a responsibility under the clause to protect, foster, and advance such interstate industries. C. Yes, because the tax is a necessary and proper means of exercising federal authority over the navigable waters of the United States. D. Yes, because the power of Congress to impose taxes is plenary, this tax does not contain any provisions extraneous to tax needs or purposes, and it is not barred by any prohibitory language in the Constitution. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of a commercial contract in which Defendant had agreed to sell Plaintiff all of Plaintiff's requirements for widgets. Plaintiff called Expert Witness to testify as to damages. Defendant seeks to show that Expert Witness had provided false testimony as a witness in his own divorce proceedings. This evidence should be A. admitted only if elicited from Expert Witness on cross-examination. B. admitted only if the false testimony is established by clear and convincing extrinsic evidence. C. excluded, because it is impeachment on a collateral issue. D. excluded, because it is improper character evidence. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Karen was crossing Main Street at a crosswalk. John, who was on the sidewalk nearby, saw a speeding automobile heading in Karen's direction. John ran into the street and pushed Karen out of the path of the car. Karen fell to the ground and broke her leg. In an action for battery brought by Karen against John, will Karen prevail? A. Yes, because John could have shouted a warning instead of pushing Karen out of the way. B. Yes, if Karen was not actually in danger and John should have realized it. C. No, because the driver of the car was responsible for Karen's injury. D. No, if John's intent was to save Karen, not to harm her. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Joe and Marty were coworkers. Joe admired Marty's wristwatch and frequently said how much he wished he had one like it. Marty decided to give Joe the watch for his birthday the following week. On the weekend before Joe's birthday, Joe and Marty attended a company picnic. Marty took his watch off and left it on a blanket when he went off to join in a touch football game. Joe strolled by, saw the watch on the blanket, and decided to steal it. He bent over and picked up the watch. Before he could pocket it, however, Marty returned. When he saw Joe holding the watch, he said, "Joe, I know how much you like that watch. I was planning to give it to you for your birthday. Go ahead and take it now." Joe kept the watch. Joe has committed A. larceny. B. attempted larceny. C. embezzlement. D. no crime. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Olivia, owner in fee simple of Richacre, a large parcel of vacant land, executed a deed purporting to convey Richacre to her nephew, Grant. She told Grant, who was then 19, about the deed and said that she would give it to him when he reached 21 and had received his undergraduate college degree. Shortly afterward Grant searched Olivia's desk, found and removed the deed, and recorded it. A month later, Grant executed an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed purporting to convey Richacre to his fiancée, Bonnie. He delivered the deed to Bonnie, pointing out that the deed recited that it was given in exchange for "$1 and other good and valuable consideration," and that to make it valid Bonnie must pay him $1. Bonnie, impressed and grateful, did so. Together, they went to the recording office and recorded the deed. Bonnie assumed Grant had owned Richacre, and knew nothing about Grant's dealing with Olivia. Neither Olivia's deed to Grant nor Grant's deed to Bonnie said anything about any conditions. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." Two years passed. Grant turned 21, then graduated from college. At the graduation party, Olivia was chatting with Bonnie and for the first time learned the foregoing facts. The age of majority in the jurisdiction is 18 years. Olivia brought an appropriate action against Bonnie to quiet title to Richacre. The court will decide for A. Olivia, because Grant's deed to Bonnie before Grant satisfied Olivia's conditions was void, as Bonnie had paid only nominal consideration. B. Olivia, because her deed to Grant was not delivered. C. Bonnie, because Grant has satisfied Olivia's oral conditions. D. Bonnie, because the deed to her was recorded. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Perry suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game at a public park. The injury occurred when Perry and Dever, on opposing teams, each tried to obtain possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard after a missed shot at the basket. During that encounter, Perry was struck and injured by Dever's elbow. Perry now seeks compensation from Dever. At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by opposing players, and that Perry had been one of those making liberal use of such tactics. In this action, will Perry prevail? A. Yes, if Dever intended to strike Perry with his elbow. B. Yes, if Dever intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Perry. C. No, because Perry impliedly consented to rough play. D. No, unless Dever intentionally used force that exceeded the players' consent. Answer: D

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Water District is an independent municipal water-supply district incorporated under the applicable laws of the state of Green. The district was created solely to supply water to an entirely new community in a recently developed area of Green. That new community is racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse, and the community has never engaged in any discrimination against members of minority groups. The five-member, elected governing board of the newly created Water District contains two persons who are members of racial minority groups. At its first meeting, the governing board of Water District adopted a rule unqualifiedly setting aside 25% of all positions on the staff of the District and 25% of all contracts to be awarded by the District to members of racial minority groups. The purpose of the rule was "to help redress the historical discrimination against these groups in this country and to help them achieve economic parity with other groups in our society." Assume that no federal statute applies. A suit by appropriate parties challenges the constitutionality of these set-asides. In this suit, the most appropriate ruling on the basis of applicable United States Supreme Court precedent would be that the set-asides are A. unconstitutional, because they would deny other potential employees or potential contractors the equal protection of the laws. B. unconstitutional, because they would impermissibly impair the right to contract of other potential employees or potential contractors. C. constitutional, because they would assure members of racial minority groups the equal protection of the laws. D. constitutional, because the function and activities of Water District are of a proprietary nature rather than a governmental nature and, therefore, are not subject to the usual requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. In a single writing, Painter contracted with Farmer to paint three identical barns on her rural estate for $2,000 each. The contract provided for Farmer's payment of $6,000 upon Painter's completion of the work on all three barns. Painter did not ask for any payment when the first barn was completely painted, but she demanded $4,000 after painting the second barn. Is Farmer obligated to make the $4,000 payment? A. No, because Farmer has no duty under the contract to pay anything to Painter until all three barns have been painted. B. No, because Painter waived her right, if any, to payment on a per-barn basis by failing to demand $2,000 upon completion of the first barn. C. Yes, because the contract is divisible. D. Yes, because Painter has substantially performed the entire contract. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. In a single writing, Painter contracted with Farmer to paint three identical barns on her rural estate for $2,000 each. The contract provided for Farmer's payment of $6,000 upon Painter's completion of the work on all three barns. Painter did not ask for any payment when the first barn was completely painted, but she demanded $4,000 after painting the second barn. Assume that Farmer rightfully refused Painter's demand for payment. If Painter immediately terminates the contract without painting the third barn, what is Painter entitled to recover from Farmer? A. Nothing, because payment was expressly conditioned on completion of all three barns. B. Painter's expenditures plus anticipated "profit" in painting the first two barns, up to a maximum recovery of $4,000. C. The reasonable value of Painter's services in painting the two barns, less Farmer's damages, if any, for Painter's failure to paint the third barn. D. The amount that the combined value of the two painted barns has been increased by Painter's work. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. The police in City notified local gas station attendants that a woman, known as Robber, recently had committed armed robberies at five City gas stations. The police said that Robber was approximately 75 years old, had white hair, and drove a vintage, cream-colored Ford Thunderbird. Attendants were advised to call police if they saw her, but not to attempt to apprehend her. Armed robbery is a felony under state law. Traveler was passing through City on a crosscountry journey. Traveler was a 75-yearold woman who had white hair and drove a vintage, cream-colored Ford Thunderbird. When Traveler drove into Owner's gas station, Owner thought Traveler must be the robber wanted by the police. After checking the oil at Traveler's request, Owner falsely informed Traveler that she had a broken fan belt, that her car could not be driven without a new belt, that it would take him about an hour to replace it, and that she should stay in his office for consultation about the repair. Traveler was greatly annoyed that her journey was delayed, but she stayed in Owner's office while she waited for her car. Owner telephoned the police and, within the hour, the police came and questioned Traveler. The police immediately determined that Traveler was not Robber, and Traveler resumed her journey without further delay. In Traveler's action for false imprisonment against Owner, Traveler will A. not prevail, if Owner reasonably believed that Traveler was Robber. B. not prevail, because Traveler suffered no physical or mental harm. C. prevail, if Traveler reasonably believed she could not leave Owner's premises. D. prevail, because Owner lied to Traveler about the condition of her car. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. In which of the following situations would Defendant's mistake most likely constitute a defense to the crime charged? A. A local ordinance forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 18 years of age. Relying on false identification, Defendant sells champagne to a 16-year-old high school student. Defendant is charged with illegal sale of alcoholic beverages. B. Mistaking Defendant for a narcotics suspect, an undercover police officer attempts to arrest him. Defendant, unaware that the person who has grabbed him is an officer, hits him and knocks him unconscious. Defendant is charged with assault. C. Defendant, aged 23, has sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old prostitute who tells Defendant that she is 18. Defendant is charged with the felony of statutory rape under a statute that makes sexual relations with a child under 16 a felony. D. Relying on erroneous advice from his attorney that, if his wife has abandoned him for more than a year, he is free to marry, Defendant remarries and is subsequently charged with bigamy. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Powell, who was an asbestos insulation installer from 1955 to 1965, contracted asbestosis, a serious lung disorder, as a result of inhaling airborne asbestos particles on the job. The asbestos was manufactured and sold to Powell's employer by the Acme Asbestos Company. Because neither Acme nor anyone else discovered the risk to asbestos installers until 1966, Acme did not provide any warnings of the risks to installers until after that date. Powell brought an action against Acme based on strict liability in tort for failure to warn. The case is to be tried before a jury. The jurisdiction has not adopted a comparative fault rule in strict liability cases. In this action, an issue that is relevant to the case and is a question for the court to decide as a matter of law, rather than for the jury to decide as a question of fact, is whether A. a satisfactory, safer, alternative insulation material exists under today's technology. B. the defendant should be held to the standard of a prudent manufacturer who knew of the risks, regardless of whether the risks were reasonably discoverable before 1966. C. the defendant should reasonably have known of the risks of asbestos insulation materials before 1966, even though no one else had discovered the risks. D. the asbestos insulation materials to which the plaintiff was exposed were inherently dangerous. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. PullCo sued Davidson, its former vice president, for return of $230,000 that had been embezzled during the previous two years. Called by PullCo as an adverse witness, Davidson testified that his annual salary had been $75,000, and he denied the embezzlement. PullCo calls banker Witt to show that, during the two-year period, Davidson had deposited $250,000 in his bank account. Witt's testimony is A. admissible as circumstantial evidence of Davidson's guilt. B. admissible to impeach Davidson. C. inadmissible, because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. D. inadmissible, because the deposits could have come from legitimate sources. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Alex and Betty, who were cousins, acquired title in fee simple to Blackacre, as equal tenants in common, by inheritance from Angela, their aunt. During the last 15 years of her lifetime, Angela allowed Alex to occupy an apartment in the house on Blackacre, to rent the other apartment in the house to various tenants, and to retain the rent. Alex made no payments to Angela; and since Angela's death 7 years ago, he has made no payments to Betty. For those 22 years, Alex has paid the real estate taxes on Blackacre, kept the building on Blackacre insured, and maintained the building. At all times, Betty has lived in a distant city and has never had anything to do with Angela, Alex, or Blackacre. Recently, Betty needed money for the operation of her business and demanded that Alex join her in selling Blackacre. Alex refused. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. There is no other applicable statute. Betty brought an appropriate action against Alex for partition. Alex asserted all available defenses and counterclaims. In that action, the court should A. deny partition and find that title has vested in Alex by adverse possession. B. deny partition, confirm the tenancy in common, but require an accounting to determine if either Betty or Alex is indebted to the other on account of the rental payment, taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs. C. grant partition and require, as an adjustment, an accounting to determine if either Betty or Alex is indebted to the other on account of the rental payments, taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs. D. grant partition to Betty and Alex as equal owners, but without an accounting. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Plaintiff sued Defendant for illegal discrimination, claiming that Defendant fired him because of his race. At trial, Plaintiff called Witness, expecting him to testify that Defendant had admitted the racial motivation. Instead, Witness testified that Defendant said that he had fired Plaintiff because of his frequent absenteeism. While Witness is still on the stand, Plaintiff offers a properly authenticated secret tape recording he had made at a meeting with Witness in which Witness related Defendant's admissions of racial motivation. The tape recording is A. admissible as evidence of Defendant's racial motivation and to impeach Witness's testimony. B. admissible only to impeach Witness's testimony. C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. D. inadmissible, because a secret recording is an invasion of Witness's right of privacy under the U.S. Constitution. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. On December 15, Lawyer received from Stationer, Inc., a retailer of office supplies, an offer consisting of its catalog and a signed letter stating, "We will supply you with as many of the items in the enclosed catalog as you order during the next calendar year. We assure you that this offer and the prices in the catalog will remain firm throughout the coming year." Assume that no other correspondence passed between Stationer and Lawyer until the following April 15 (four months later), when Stationer received from Lawyer a faxed order for "100 reams of your paper, catalog item #101." Did Lawyer's April 15 fax constitute an effective acceptance of Stationer's offer at the prices specified in the catalog? A. Yes, because Stationer had not revoked its offer before April 15. B. Yes, because a one-year option contract had been created by Stationer's offer. C. No, because under applicable law the irrevocability of Stationer's offer was limited to a period of three months. D. No, because Lawyer did not accept Stationer's offer within a reasonable time. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. On December 15, Lawyer received from Stationer, Inc., a retailer of office supplies, an offer consisting of its catalog and a signed letter stating, "We will supply you with as many of the items in the enclosed catalog as you order during the next calendar year. We assure you that this offer and the prices in the catalog will remain firm throughout the coming year." Assume that on January 15, having at that time received no reply from Lawyer, Stationer notified Lawyer that effective February 1, it was increasing the prices of certain specified items in its catalog. Is the price increase effective with respect to catalog orders Stationer receives from Lawyer during the month of February? A. No, because Stationer's original offer, including the price term, became irrevocable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. B. No, because Stationer is a merchant with respect to office supplies; and its original offer, including the price term, was irrevocable throughout the month of February. C. Yes, because Stationer received no consideration to support its assurance that it would not increase prices. D. Yes, because the period for which Stationer gave assurance that it would not raise prices was longer than three months. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. State X enacted a statute "to regulate administratively the conduct of motor vehicle junkyard businesses in order to deter motor vehicle theft and trafficking in stolen motor vehicles or parts thereof." The statute requires a junkyard owner or operator "to permit representatives of the Department of Motor Vehicles or of any law enforcement agency upon request during normal business hours to take physical inventory of motor vehicles and parts thereof on the premises." The statute also states that a failure to comply with any of its requirements constitutes a felony. Police officers assigned to Magnolia City's Automobile Crimes Unit periodically visited all motor vehicle junkyards in town to make the inspections permitted by the statute. Janet owned such a business in Magnolia City. One summer day, the officers asked to inspect the vehicles on her lot. Janet said, "Do I have a choice?" The officers told her she did not. The officers conducted their inspection and discovered three stolen automobiles. Janet is charged with receiving stolen property. Janet moves pretrial to suppress the evidence relating to the three automobiles on the ground that the inspection was unconstitutional. Her motion should be A. sustained, because the statute grants unbridled discretion to law enforcement officers to make warrantless searches. B. sustained, because the stated regulatory purpose of the statute is a pretext to circumvent the warrant requirement in conducting criminal investigations. C. denied, because the statute deals reasonably with a highly regulated industry. D. denied, because administrative searches of commercial establishments do not require warrants. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Current national statistics show a dramatic increase in the number of elementary and secondary school students bringing controlled substances (drugs) to school for personal use or distribution to others. In response, Congress enacted a statute requiring each state legislature to enact a state law that makes it a state crime for any person to possess, use, or distribute, within 1,000 feet of any elementary or secondary school, any controlled substance that has previously been transported in interstate commerce and that is not possessed, used, or distributed pursuant to a proper physician's prescription. This federal statute is A. unconstitutional, because Congress has no authority to require a state legislature to enact any specified legislation. B. unconstitutional, because the possession, use, or distribution, in close proximity to a school, of a controlled substance that has previously been transported in interstate commerce does not have a sufficiently close nexus to such commerce to justify its regulation by Congress. C. constitutional, because it contains a jurisdictional provision that will ensure, on a case-by-case basis, that any particular controlled substance subject to the terms of this statute will, in fact, affect interstate commerce. D. constitutional, because Congress possesses broad authority under both the general welfare clause and the commerce clause to regulate any activities affecting education that also have, in inseverable aggregates, a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Answer: A

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Janet had a season ticket for the Scorpions' hockey games at Central Arena (Section B, Row 12, Seat 16). During the intermission between the first and second periods of a game between the Scorpions and the visiting Hornets, Janet solicited signatures for a petition urging that the coach of the Scorpions be fired. Central Arena and the Scorpions are owned by ABC, Inc., a privately owned entity. As evidenced by many prominently displayed signs, ABC prohibits all solicitations anywhere within Central Arena at any time and in any manner. ABC notified Janet to cease her solicitation of signatures. Janet continued to seek signatures on her petition during the Scorpions' next three home games at Central Arena. Each time, ABC notified Janet to cease such solicitation. Janet announced her intention to seek signatures on her petition again during the Scorpions' next home game at Central Arena. ABC wrote a letter informing Janet that her season ticket was canceled and tendering a refund for the unused portion. Janet refused the tender and brought an appropriate action to establish the right to attend all home games. In this action, the court will decide for A. ABC, because it has a right and obligation to control activities on realty it owns and has invited the public to visit. B. ABC, because Janet's ticket to hockey games created only a license. C. Janet, because, having paid value for the ticket, her right to be present cannot be revoked. D. Janet, because she was not committing a nuisance by her activities. Answer: B

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Company designed and built a processing plant for the manufacture of an explosive chemical. Engineer was retained by Company to design a filter system for the processing plant. She prepared an application for a permit to build the plant's filter system and submitted it to the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). As required by DEP regulations, Engineer submitted a blueprint to the DEP with the application for permit. The blueprint showed the entire facility and was signed and sealed by her as a licensed professional engineer. After the project was completed, a portion of the processing plant exploded, injuring Plaintiff. During discovery in an action by Plaintiff against Engineer, it was established that the explosion was caused by a design defect in the processing plant that was unrelated to the filter system designed by Engineer. In that action, will Plaintiff prevail? A. Yes, if Engineer signed, sealed, and submitted a blueprint that showed the design defect. B. Yes, because all of the plant's designers are jointly and severally liable for the defect. C. No, because Engineer owed no duty to Plaintiff to prevent the particular risk of harm. D. No, if Engineer was an independent contractor. Answer: C

Given the following question, what is your answer? Please respond with A, B, C, or D. Several years ago, Bart purchased Goldacre, financing a large part of the purchase price by a loan from Mort that was secured by a mortgage. Bart made the installment payments on the mortgage regularly until last year. Then Bart persuaded Pam to buy Goldacre, subject to the mortgage to Mort. They expressly agreed that Pam would not assume and agree to pay Bart's debt to Mort. Bart's mortgage to Mort contained a due-on-sale clause stating, "If Mortgagor transfers his/her interest without the written consent of Mortgagee first obtained, then at Mortgagee's option the entire principal balance of the debt secured by this Mortgage shall become immediately due and payable." However, without seeking Mort's consent, Bart conveyed Goldacre to Pam, the deed stating in pertinent part " . . . , subject to a mortgage to Mort [giving details and recording data]." Pam took possession of Goldacre and made several mortgage payments, which Mort accepted. Now, however, neither Pam nor Bart has made the last three mortgage payments. Mort has brought an appropriate action against Pam for the amount of the delinquent payments. In this action, judgment should be for A. Pam, because she did not assume and agree to pay Bart's mortgage debt. B. Pam, because she is not in privity of estate with Mort. C. Mort, because Bart's deed to Pam violated the due-on-sale clause. D. Mort, because Pam is in privity of estate with Mort. Answer: A