instruction
stringlengths 53
4.17k
| response
stringlengths 1
3.48k
|
|---|---|
For a number of years, United Leasing has been in charge of leasing the luxury skyboxes at City Sports Stadium, home of the local professional basketball team. During this time, it annually sent to chief executives of area businesses personalized "invitations" to lease skyboxes for the season. The invitations, which were always sent out several months before each season began, contained detailed price terms and language stating that the deadline for responding was 10 weeks before the start of the season and that all leases were subject to the approval of the management of United Leasing. Executives at Multimedia Marketing had always responded to their invitation immediately by registered mail because they found it very worthwhile to lease a skybox to entertain their clients. During the five years that they had responded affirmatively to the invitation, they never received any additional communications from United Leasing regarding approval, but the tickets and an invoice would arrive about a week before the season began. Several months before the current season, Multimedia received and immediately responded to its invitation. Two weeks before the season began, a stunning trade brought the league's most popular star to the City basketball team, prompting a dramatic increase in the demand for tickets. A few days later, Multimedia, which had already scheduled in a number of clients to attend games in its skybox, received a notice from United Leasing stating that management had not approved Multimedia's lease of the skybox for this season. In a separate announcement to all area businesses, United Leasing announced that all available skyboxes would be leased for three- or five-year terms, and that an auction of the leases would be conducted if the demand exceeded the supply. Multimedia decided that it was not financially feasible to commit itself to anything longer than a one-year lease. It sent a letter to United Leasing, stating that a contract was created between the parties and that United Leasing will be in breach if it does not perform. Is Multimedia correct in its assertions?
Options:
A. Yes, because United Leasing's failure to reject Multimedia's offer within a reasonable time constituted an acceptance under the circumstances.
B. Yes, because United Leasing's "invitation" to Multimedia was an offer, which Multimedia accepted.
C. No, because United Leasing was entitled to reject Multimedia's offer when it did.
D. No, but Multimedia would be able to recover reliance damages from United Leasing under a quasi-contract theory. | A |
Bulky was six foot four and weighed 280 pounds. One afternoon Bulky was wandering rather aimlessly and became lost in an unfamiliar part of the city. He reached into his pocket and discovered he only had 35 cents. He wanted to take a bus back to the city center, but bus fare was $ 1$ per ride. Bulky was rather scruffily dressed and he had not had a haircut in several months. He approached Juan, a slightly built man who was standing alone at the bus stop. In a gruff voice, Bulky asked Juan, "Do you have any money?" When Juan replied, "Yes,"'Bulky said, "Give me five dollars!" Juan reached into his pocket and handed Bulky a five-dollar bill. Juan walked away from the bus and flagged down a passing patrol car. Juan told the police, "I've been robbed," and pointed out Bulky, who was still standing at the bus stop. Bulky was arrested and charged with robbery. At Bulky's trial, Bulky took the stand in his own defense. Bulky testified, "I wasn't trying to rob anybody. I was just trying to beg some money to get myself back home." If the jury believes Bulky's testimony, Bulky should be found:
Options:
A. Not guilty of robbery, because Bulky lacked the requisite criminal intent.
B. Guilty of robbery, because Bulky took Juan's money after intimidating him, and the effect of Bulky's size on Juan, rather than Bulky's intent, is controlling.
C. Not guilty of robbery, but guilty of assault, because Bulky placed Juan in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm.
D. Guilty of both robbery and assault, because assault is not a lesser included offense of robbery. | A |
Orville conveyed Redacre "to my best friend, Nelson, and upon Nelson's death to my daughter, Dora." Nelson took up possession of Redacre and lived there for two years. He then conveyed "my interest in Redacre" to his longtime, and much younger, mistress, Magnolia. Although Dora was fond of her father's friend, Nelson, she could not abide Magnolia, and the thought of Magnolia taking over Redacre made Dora sick. Dora tried to get Magnolia to leave Redacre, but Magnolia told Dora, "Redacre is mine until I die, and you'd better get used to that idea." Since Magnolia took up residence on Redacre, she has been sent two county property tax bills, which she has refused to pay. The county is now threatening to bring an action to force a judicial sale of Redacre to cover the tax deficiency. Dora files an appropriate suit asking the court to evict Magnolia from Redacre and to compel her to pay the taxes for her period of occupancy. The court will rule that:
Options:
A. Magnolia has a life estate in Redacre for the period of her own life, and Magnolia must pay the taxes on the property.
B. Magnolia has a life estate in Redacre for the period of Nelson's life, and Magnolia must pay the taxes on the property.
C. Magnolia has a life estate in Redacre for the period of Nelson's life, but Magnolia does not have to pay the taxes on the property, because taxes are the responsibility of the remainder grantee.
D. Dora owns Redacre, because Nelson could not convey his interest to Magnolia. | B |
In 2000, Rogan Josh, then age 15, emigrated with his family from Dopyaza, an Asian country. Although Josh maintained Dopyazan citizenship, he held resident alien status and complied with all federal laws and regulations regarding maintenance of resident alien status. Upon arrival in the United States, Josh, his parents, and his siblings took up residence in the state of New Jingo. In 2003, Rogan Josh began'a course of studies in petroleum engineering at New Jingo University, a state institution. Because he was a resident of New Jingo, Josh qualified for the "in-state" tuition rate. The "nonresident" tuition rate was 10 times the in-state rate, and it would be impossible for Josh to attend New Jingo University if he were required to pay the nonresident tuition. In 2005, the legislature of New Jingo passed a statute denying in-state tuition rates at any statesupported college or university for any resident aliens who were citizens of "any country which, during the previous five-year period, has held citizens of the United States as hostages." Due to an international dispute between the United States and the government of Dopyaza, the Dopyazan government had held six American citizens as hostages for a four-month period in 2002. The registrar of New Jingo University, where Josh has successfully completed two years of study, informed Josh that he would have to pay the nonresident tuition rate in order to begin his junior year. Josh cannot afford to pay the tuition. If Josh files an appropriate suit asking the federal courts to strike down the New Jingo statute, which of the following is his best argument?
Options:
A. Because higher education is now so important for earning a livelihood, it has become a fundamental right protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. Resident aliens cannot be blamed in retrospect for actions of their governments and, therefore, the New Jingo statute violates the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws.
C. Alienage is a suspect category under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and New Jingo has not met the appropriate standard to burden Josh.
D. Attending a state-supported university in a state where one is a legal resident is a property right that may not be taken away without due process of law. | C |
Bernaise, the sole proprietor of Bernaise Distributors, a food service and food brokerage concern, entered into oral negotiations with Hollandaise, president and chief executive officer of Holsauce, a corporation that manufactured gourmet food products for restaurants and select retail outlets. Bernaise wished to secure an exclusive distributorship for Holsauce products in the six New England states. After some discussion, Bernaise and Hollandaise agreed on all salient points and shook hands on the deal. They agreed further that Hobson, Holsauce's general counsel, would reduce the agreement to writing and that the agreement would become effective after it was drawn up and initialed by Hobson and by Barker, Bernaise's counsel. Hobson duly committed the agreement to writing and sent the writing to Barker, but without initialing it first. Barker looked over the agreement, made no changes, initialed it, and mailed the agreement to Hobson on May 1. On May 2, Hollandaise decided that Bechamel would be a better distributor than Bernaise. Therefore, also on May 2, Hollandaise had Hobson telephone Barker, telling him, "The deal's off." Barker responded, "The heck it is. We have an enforceable contract." Hobson received the written agreement with Barker's initials on it on May 3. According to Hollandaise's instructions, Holsauce began to distribute its products in New England through Bechamel. If Bernaise files suit against Hollandaise and Holsauce for breach, he is likely to:
Options:
A. Prevail, because the mailing of the written agreement to Barker constituted an irrevocable offer.
B. Prevail, because Bernaise and Hollandaise entered into a valid oral contract.
C. Not prevail, because Hobson never initialed the written agreement and there was, therefore, failure of an express condition.
D. Not prevail, because Hobson's phone call to Barker constituted a valid revocation before acceptance. | B |
Babe was a professional baseball player who was known both for his prowess at the plate and his perceived "heart of gold." One day, Babe was visiting a sick boy named Jimmy in the hospital. Babe was touched by Jimmy's will to live despite a very poor prognosis. In a moment of weakness, Babe told Jimmy that in consideration of Jimmy's courage, he would do anything that Jimmy asked. Jimmy's eyes momentarily gleamed as he asked Babe to "hit a homer for me in your next game." Babe replied, "Sure kid." As Babe was leaving Jimmy's hospital room, Jimmy's father, Joe, pulled Babe aside and told Babe, "It would mean a lot to Jimmy if you would hit a home run for him in your next game. The medicinal value of raising Jimmy's spirits would be priceless." Babe replied, "Hey man, we all have problems. I don't work for the Make a Wish Foundation." Undaunted, Joe repeated that it would really raise Jimmy's spirits if Babe would hit a homer, and as incentive, Joe told Babe that he would pay Babe $ 5,000$ if Babe did hit a home run in his next game. Babe replied, "You've got a deal." To raise his chances of collecting the $ 5,000$ from Joe, Babe took extra batting practice before his next game, and the practice paid off because in his next game, Babe hit two home runs. During a post-game interview, Babe explained, "I did it for little Jimmy, who is in the hospital." After showering, Babe went directly to Joe's house and asked Joe for $ 5,000$. Babe's contract with his ball club does not forbid him from accepting money from fans for good performance. If Joe refuses to pay and Babe brings an action against Joe for damages, which of the following is correct under the modern trend in contract law?
Options:
A. Babe can recover the $ 5,000$ because the preexisting duty rule does not apply where the duty is owed to a third person.
B. Babe can recover the $ 5,000$ if he can prove that the value of the home run to Jimmy is at least $ 5,000$.
C. Babe cannot recover from Joe because Babe had a preexisting duty to use his best efforts to hit home runs.
D. Babe cannot recover from Joe because, even under the modern trend, moral consideration is not valid. | A |
Dassent was on trial on a hit and run charge, whereby the prosecution asserts that, while driving his vehicle, Dassent struck and injured Proctor, an elderly pedestrian, and then sped away from the scene of the accident without stopping to assess Proctor's injuries or to render assistance. During the prosecution's presentation of its case, three eyewitnesses testified that the car that struck Proctor had the license plate number DASS 53. A witness from the State Department of Motor Vehicles produced records showing that a vehicle with license number DASS 53 was registered in Dassent's name and that Dassent claimed on his driver's license application that he was born in 1953. Dassent took the stand in his own defense. He admitted that a car meeting the description of the vehicle given by the eyewitnesses and bearing a license plate with the number DASS 53 belonged to him, but Dassent denied having driven the vehicle on the day that Proctor was injured. Without releasing Dassent as a witness, his lawyer called Father White, an Episcopal priest, to the stand. White is ready to testify that he has known Dassent for 12 years, that Dassent has performed many charitable acts, and that Dassent is a highly responsible person "who would not run away from his obligations by leaving the scene of an accident." If the prosecution objects to White's proposed testimony, should the court bar White from testifying?
Options:
A. No, because the testimony shows that Dassent is a person of good character.
B. No, because the testimony is habit evidence tending to show that it was unlikely that Dassent was the perpetrator.
C. Yes, because one may not use character evidence to bolster one's own testimony.
D. Yes, because the prosecution has not made an issue of Dassent's character. | A |
In response to growing concern over public health issues, Congress passed legislation permitting states to completely ban the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The legislation was subsequently upheld by the United States Supreme Court. The state of Jefferson, like most states, did not enact a complete ban on tobacco products. However, it passed a compromise measure that banned all ads for cigarettes and tobacco products by any print or broadcast media located in the state. A state tobacco distributor that wished to advertise in local newspapers brings an action in federal court to challenge the state statute. The court will probably find the statute:
Options:
A. Unconstitutional, because by choosing not to exercise its right to impose a complete ban on the sale of tobacco products, the state can no longer claim that the regulation of advertising serves a substantial government interest.
B. Unconstitutional, because the right to ban all truthful advertising for a product is not automatically justified by the right to ban the sale of a product entirely.
C. Constitutional, because the state's power to ban advertising for a product is implicit in its power to ban the product altogether.
D. Constitutional, because the ban on advertising constitutes a restriction on commercial speech that is rationally related to the legitimate state interest in reducing the use of tobacco products. | B |
Mommy's young son, Boy, accidentally swallowed a coin while playing. Boy had to be rushed to the hospital, and although Boy recovered, Mommy has suffered feelings of anxiety, worrying that her child might be injured again. Mommy's husband, Hal, talked Mommy into going to a movie to have a relaxing evening out. She agreed after her mother agreed to watch Boy for the evening. Mommy was enjoying the movie when Hal left his seat to get some popcorn from the concession stand. Hal ordered a large popcorn with extra butter. While handling change, Dizzie, the concession stand attendant, carelessly dropped a quarter into Hal's popcorn. After taking a couple of handfuls for himself, Hal returned to his seat and gave the popcorn box to Mommy. Mommy began to eat the popcorn. However, as she began to munch her third handful of popcorn, she bit the quarter that Dizzie had dropped into the box. Mommy did not swallow the quarter, nor did she bite on it hard enough to injure her teeth or gums, but the feel of the coin brought back all her anxieties about Boy's injury. That night Mommy could not sleep, and the few times that she did nod off for a second, a horrible nightmare recalling her son's injury because of the coin would occur. If Mommy sues the movie theater for her emotional distress, she will:
Options:
A. Win, because Dizzie was negligent.
B. Win, because Mommy suffered emotional distress.
C. Lose, unless a reasonable person would have suffered similar distress after finding a coin in the popcorn and biting on it.
D. Lose, because Mommy suffered no actionable harm. | D |
Penquist was exiting from a parking garage owned and operated by the city of Durham when he discovered that the exit ramp was blocked by construction barricades and a pile of broken-up concrete. No workers or detour signs were around and Penquist was in a hurry, so he backed up and drove down an entrance ramp that was clearly marked as such. As he came around a corner, his car was broadsided by a pickup truck driven by Totten. Penquist was seriously injured in the collision. A statute in the jurisdiction requires drivers to obey all traffic directional markings in both public and private parking lots and garages. The jurisdiction retains traditional contributory negligence rules and retains governmental immunity for municipalities. If Penquist brings a lawsuit against the city to recover for his injuries, which of the following facts will be least helpful in the city's defense?
Options:
A. Penquist was aware that another exit on the other side of the garage was open.
B. The construction workers responsible for blocking off the exit ramp were employees of an independent contractor rather than the city.
C. The city does not collect fees or make a profit in the operation of the garage.
D. Totten could have avoided Penquist but recognized him as an old enemy and deliberately ran into him. | B |
Patrice sued David on a breach of contract theory. Winston testified for Patrice. On crossexamination, which of the following questions is the trial judge most likely to rule improper?
Options:
A. "Weren't you convicted last year of forgery?"
B. "Isn't it true that you and Patrice have been best friends for many years?"
C. "Isn't it true that you are known in the community as an alcoholic?"'
D. "Didn't you cheat your business partner out of a large amount of money last month?' | C |
Fred, a licensed real estate broker, and Tom, a homeowner, entered into a written listing agreement in which, among other things, Tom promised to pay Fred a commission of $6 \%$ of the selling price of Tom's home if Fred obtained a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase it. Tom's home was listed in a service made available to real estate professionals, with an asking price of $ 80,000$. Murray, looking for a home to buy, went to Fred's real estate office and was shown Tom's home. He submitted a written offer to purchase the home for $ 80,000$, but Tom rejected this offer by, according to its terms, not accepting it within a stated period. Tom did not want to sell to Murray because, given the amount Murray had intended to borrow, Tom would have had to take back a second mortgage for a portion of his equity, and he did not consider Murray a good credit risk. Murray brings an action against Tom for specific performance, seeking to compel him to sell the home. What is the probable outcome of this litigation?
Options:
A. Tom will win, because no writing or writings constitute a memorandum sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.
B. Tom will win, because Murray's remedy at law is adequate.
C. Murray will win, because he is a thirdparty beneficiary of the agreement between Tom and Fred.
D. Murray will win, because there is a memorandum that satisfies the Statute of Frauds. | A |
Both Kenton and Evan owned their own homes on large tracts of land next to each other in the country. Evan, a physics teacher at the local college, was also a model rocket enthusiast. On many occasions he would launch one of his rockets from the back area of his property, and although none of Evan's rockets ever came near Kenton's property, Kenton was understandably upset. Kenton complained to Evan several times about his hobby and the fact that Evan stored flammable fuels in his house. Once, Kenton complained to the county sheriff, whereupon Evan was charged with violating a local ordinance that prohibits the improper storage of flammable liquids on residential property. He was given a warning and told that he must have proper storage permits and facilities if he intended to keep the fuels for his model rockets on his property. Although Evan obtained the proper permits to build underground storage tanks for his fuels, he continued to store them in 55gallon drums in a shed located on the edge of his property farthest away from Kenton. Eventually, Kenton brought a suit based on public nuisance against Evan. If Kenton is seeking an injunction against Evan to prevent his storing flammable liquids on his property and his launching model rockets, the defense by which Evan most likely would prevail is that:
Options:
A. He obtained a permit from the city to build storage tanks for the fuels.
B. There is no showing that Kenton suffered any special damage.
C. This is not a residential neighborhood.
D. There is no specific ordinance that prohibits Evan from launching model rockets on his own property. | B |
The Federal Endangered Species Act imposes criminal penalties for killing certain specified animals that have been determined by Congress to be of importance to the tourism industry in the region in which the animal is located. Among the animals protected are the Puce Bandicoots of the Great Spotted Valley area of the state of Wilderness. The state of Wilderness classifies Puce Bandicoots as varmints that may be destroyed at will by anyone with a general hunting license. Rancher, who possesses a valid state of Wilderness general hunting license, regularly shoots and kills Puce Bandicoots that prey upon his artichoke plants. If Rancher is prosecuted under the federal statute, and challenges the constitutionality of the law, which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument in support of the federal statute?
Options:
A. The commerce power.
B. The Necessary and Proper Clause.
C. The police power.
D. The power to regulate federal lands. | A |
Plumber, a plumbing contractor, sued Drain, a homeowner. Plumber alleged that Drain refused to pay for extensive pipe repairs performed on Drain's home by Wilson, an employee of Plumber. Plumber called Wilson to the stand as a witness. Wilson, under oath, testified that he did not perform any work at Drain's home. Wilson also denied writing a letter to Lorca telling Lorca that Wilson was going to do plumbing work on Drain's house. Without releasing Wilson as a witness, Plumber offers in evidence the letter written by Wilson to Lorca. Which of the following is not a proper basis for admitting Wilson's letter?
Options:
A. Testimony by Wilson's wife that she recognizes Wilson's handwriting.
B. Lorca's testimony that the statements in the letter are responsive to a prior letter from Lorca to Wilson.
C. Comparison by the jury of the Wilson- Lorca letter with another letter that Wilson has admitted writing.
D. In-court comparison by Lorca, a nonexpert, of the Wilson-Lorca letter with another letter that Wilson has admitted writing. | D |
Julio, a vintner, ordered two large stainless steel tanks from Metalworks, Inc. for use in his wine making business. A month after they were installed, the building in which they were housed burned to the ground. Julio brought suit against Metalworks, Inc., alleging that overheating of the tanks caused the fire. Metalworks's defense is that the fire was caused by Julio's failure to install modern electrical wiring in the rather old building. At trial, Julio seeks to establish that the tanks overheated by testifying that, two weeks after the tanks were installed, a Metalworks, Inc. employee came to inspect the installation, and Julio said to him, "You know, sometimes these tanks get awful hot." Should Julio be permitted to so testify?
Options:
A. No, unless there has been no other evidence about overheating of the tanks presented by Julio.
B. No, because Julio's testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
C. Yes, because Julio's testimony is evidence of a fact in issue.
D. Yes, because Julio's testimony is evidence of a verbal act. | B |
At a products liability trial, one of the most critical issues is whether the temperature was below freezing on January 16. Akiro does drafting work at an architectural and civil engineering firm, but Akiro is also an avid amateur meteorologist. The backyard of Akiro's home is rigged with many weather detection instruments that track wind, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and precipitation. One of Akiro's instruments records temperature by markings from a stylus on a round barograph. Akiro's record of the day in question indicates that it was unseasonably warm and that the temperature never fell lower than 48 degrees Fahrenheit, 16 degrees above the freezing mark. The plaintiff offers into evidence Akiro's barograph record of the temperature on January 16. The barograph record is:
Options:
A. Admissible, as past recollection recorded.
B. Admissible, as a record of regularly con- ducted activity.
C. Inadmissible, unless foundation testimony is given as to the accuracy and good working order of Akiro's instrument on the day in question.
D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. | C |
Don's car struck Phaedra, a pedestrian, at a busy intersection. Bob was a bystander at the scene of the accident. As soon as Phaedra was hit Bob blurted out, "My God, she was crossing on the green light!" Wilma was standing next to Bob at the time. She did not see the accident because she was facing the other direction, but she clearly heard Bob's exclamation. That night Bob was talking to his friend Walter. He told Walter, "You know that accident I saw this afternoon? The driver didn't run a red light. The light was yellow." Phaedra sued Don for her injuries. By the time the case came to trial, Bob had died of a heart attack. Phaedra called Wilma to the stand to testify as to Bob's statement that Phaedra was crossing on a green light. Although Don objected, Wilma's testimony was admitted as an excited utterance. Don now wishes to call Walter to the stand to testify as to Bob's statement that Don did not run a red light. Phaedra objects. Should Walter's testimony be admitted?
Options:
A. Yes, but only to challenge the credibility of Bob's earlier inconsistent statement.
B. Yes, both for impeachment purposes and as substantive evidence.
C. No, because Bob is not available to explain or deny the statement.
D. No, because it is hearsay, not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. | A |
Prole was the chief operating officer of the Squidco Division of Octopus Corp., a privately held manufacturing and marketing firm. The Squidco plant was the major employer in Middletown, and Prole was a respected figure with a good reputation in the community. He served on the boards of several Middletown charities and was otherwise active in civic activities. Prole was suddenly fired by Dante, the executive vice president of Octopus Corp., prompting rumors about the financial health of Squidco. A reporter from the Middletown Herald interviewed Dante, and asked Dante why Prole had been dismissed. Dante said: "Prole was fired because Prole was a bad manager and Squidco Division lost money because of Prole's stewardship." Dante's statement was printed in the Middletown Herald, and was picked up by business-oriented publications. If Prole sues the Middletown Herald for defamation, which of the following statements with regard to damages is correct?
Options:
A. To prevail, Prole must plead and prove pecuniary damages, such as an inability to find a position with another company.
B. To prevail, Prole must show evidence of actual injury, such as mental distress.
C. Damages are presumed because the written repetition of a slander is characterized as libel.
D. Damages are presumed if Prole is not deemed to be a public figure. | B |
Daisy is on trial for fraud. One item of critical evidence in this trial is a check for $ 10,000$ that purportedly was signed by her. Daisy has denied that she signed the check in question. The prosecutor calls Julius, the landlord of the apartment building in which Daisy resided for three months before her arrest. Julius intends to testify that it is Daisy's signature on the check, and he bases his opinion of the authenticity of her signature on the ground that he saw her sign the lease to his apartment. The trial court should find this testimony:
Options:
A. Admissible, because there was only a short period of time between when Julius saw her sign the lease and the time of trial.
B. Admissible, because any lay person can testify to the authenticity of another's signature, if that witness has previously seen that person's signature.
C. Inadmissible, because Julius has only seen the signature once and is not acting as a handwriting expert.
D. Inadmissible, because the testimony is inherently unreliable. | B |
Powell owned a parcel of land in the mountains near Redwoods National Forest that had been improved by the construction of a permanent campground, consisting of wooden floors and frames for tents, a wooden mess hall with kitchen, and wooden outhouses. Each year he allowed the Boy Scouts to use the parcel, Camp Whachacallit, for their annual summer camp. The rest of the year Powell and his family and friends used the parcel for camping and other recreation. Powell's will devised the parcel as follows: "Camp Whachacallit to my nephew Ronald, his heirs and assigns, so long as it is used for camping and recreational purposes, otherwise to the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America." Powell died in 1996. The residuary clause of his will left all his property not devised in the remainder of the will to his daughter Erma, who was also his sole heir. Erma died intestate in 2002 , her only heir being her son Harold. The jurisdiction's decisional law follows the common law Rule Against Perpetuities, and a statute provides that future estates and interests are alienable, and may be devised or inherited, all in the same manner as possessory estates or interests. In 2003 , which of the following best describes the interests of Harold and the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America in Camp Whachacallit?
Options:
A. Harold has a possibility of reverter and the Boy Scouts' Council has an executory interest.
B. Harold has an executory interest and the Boy Scouts' Council has nothing.
C. Harold has a possibility of reverter and the Boys Scouts' Council has a contingent remainder.
D. Harold has a possibility of reverter and the Boy Scouts' Council has nothing. | D |
All the land and buildings comprising Miller's Mall, a small shopping center, were owned by Miller, who leased out various stores in the mall. Dwight obtained a two-year lease from Miller on one of the stores. Dwight then opened a gift and greeting card shop which he named "Happy Times Cards and Gifts." Dwight's business was quite successful, and he was making good profits from the store's operation when he underwent a religious conversion and decided that the true meaning of life was not to be found in the quest for material success. Dwight spoke with his friend, Ariel, who was anxious to go into business for herself. Ariel wished to buy Dwight's business and inventory, and Dwight wished to assign his lease on the store in Miller's Mall to Ariel. The lease still had 14 months left to run. Dwight told Miller that he wanted to assign his lease to Ariel, who would run the same kind of business. Miller took out his copy of the lease and pointed out a clause requiring consent to any assignment and providing that any attempted assignment without consent is grounds for terminating the lease. Miller refused to consent to the assignment. Dwight assigned the lease to Ariel anyway; then he went off to meditate under the direction of a famed guru who operated an ashram high in the Himalayas. Ariel operated the card store in the same manner as Dwight, the only difference being a change of the store's name to "Happier Days Cards and Gifts." Has Miller any recourse against Dwight or Ariel?
Options:
A. Yes, he may evict Ariel and collect damages from Dwight because nonassignment clauses are valid and enforceable.
B. No, the nonassignment clause is invalid in this case because Miller has a duty to mitigate damages.
C. No, because Ariel is operating the same type of business as Dwight, and Miller has suffered no damages resulting from the assignment.
D. No, because nonassignment clauses are invalid restraints upon alienation. | A |
Dietz had recently been released from a mental institution, and was living in a halfway house in Kirbyville. Dietz had a long history of mental illness and had been in and out of institutions since he was an adolescent. Although Dietz would improve for a while, he was subject to recurrent hallucinations and delusions involving a belief that people, animals, and alien beings from another planet were about to attack him. Pansy was peacefully walking along a quiet residential street in Kirbyville. It happened to be the same street as that along which Dietz was walking. Pansy noticed that a person was walking up the street on the sidewalk towards her, but she did not know Dietz. When Dietz saw Pansy approaching him, he pulled a softdrink bottle from his shopping bag and hurled it at Pansy, striking her in the head and causing her injury. Afterwards Pansy filed a civil battery action against Dietz. Which of the following, if true, provides the best defense for Dietz?
Options:
A. Dietz had no desire to harm Pansy.
B. Because of his mental illness, Dietz did not understand that his act was wrongful.
C. Dietz did not know he was striking a person.
D. Dietz thought Pansy was about to attack him. | C |
Ten years ago Gasmask Chemicals, a leading chemical manufacturer, decided that it needed a safe place to store byproduct waste from its manufacturing processes. Many of these byproducts were highly toxic; thus, Gasmask took great care in selecting a dump site. A highly reputable engineering company was hired and an exhaustive survey was performed. Finally the Temblor Canyon site was selected and the chemicals were stored there underground, using state-of-the-art techniques. Although the survey and attendant geological soundings were performed with consummate skill, the surveyors failed to discover a crack in the rock of the storage area that was too small for their instruments to detect. Over a period of years the chemicals began to seep through the crack and into the water table below the surface. Scientists in nearby Canyon City discovered that the city's water supply, all of which came from local wells that tapped into the water table, contained unacceptably high levels of chemical contaminants. Canyon City was required to spend $ 5$ million on a complex filtration system to remove the dangerous chemicals from its water. Canyon City brought an action against Gasmask to recover the cost of building the filtration system. At the end of plaintiff's case establishing the above facts, Gasmask moved for a directed verdict. Should the court grant Gasmask's motion?
Options:
A. Yes, because Canyon City has not presented any evidence that Gasmask breached a duty owed to the city.
B. Yes, if the evidence also established that Canyon City's water wells were drilled after Gasmask stored the chemicals.
C. No, if the court determines as a matter of law that the chemicals could not be stored without risk of serious harm no matter how much care Gasmask took.
D. No, because the trier of fact could determine that the chemicals could not be stored without risk of serious harm no matter how much care Gasmask took. | C |
Popeye owned a large fleet of buses. He was fortunate enough to have won the contract to bus all the schoolchildren in a large midwestern city and most of its surrounding suburbs. He purchased a number of new vehicles to expand his fleet. Popeye had farmed out the maintenance of the buses to a number of different repair shops, but he now desired the consistent results obtainable from dealing with one repair and maintenance operation. He therefore contracted in writing with Bluto that all general maintenance and extraordinary repairs required for Popeye's buses would be performed by Bluto, who owned and operated "Bluto's Bus and Truck Center." A schedule of fees for most standard repairs was included in the contract. It happened that Popeye's wife, Olive, owned and operated a small advertising agency. Popeye wanted Olive's business to succeed, and so he included a clause in his agreement with Bluto that Bluto would place all his ads for his repair shop through Olive's agency during the oneyear term of the agreement. Assume for purposes of this question only that Popeye dutifully sent all his buses to Bluto for repair and maintenance. However, six months into the agreement, Popeye divorced Olive. Although Bluto had been placing all his ads through Olive, Popeye told Bluto, "You don't have to place ads with Olive anymore." Bluto promptly began placing ads through another agency. Olive then learned of the agreement between Popeye and Bluto. Popeye continued to send all his buses to Bluto. Can Olive enforce the agreement in her favor?
Options:
A. Yes, because she was an intended beneficiary of the agreement between Popeye and Bluto.
B. Yes, because Olive had an enforceable contract with Bluto concerning the advertising.
C. No, because Popeye and Bluto had a right to modify their agreement without Olive's permission.
D. No, because Olive was a gratuitous beneficiary whose rights depended on her status as Popeye's wife. | B |
When she died, Clara left a valid holographic will that contained the following provision: I want my only child, Truman, to have my house when I die and to live there as long as he wants. After that, I want it to go to my grandchildren. At the time of Clara's death, Truman was married to Dina, and they had a married son, Sam. Both Truman and Dina moved into the house, but about six months later, they separated and Dina moved out. The following year, Truman and Sam were involved in an airplane crash in which Truman was immediately killed. Several weeks later, Sam died, leaving his young widow, Tanya. Dina brings a suit against Tanya claiming an interest in the house as Truman's widow. There is no statute in this jurisdiction that governs the issue of the right of an estranged spouse to inherit property from a decedent spouse, but if Truman is found to own property at the time of his death, it is possible that Dina could inherit one-half as his surviving spouse. In this suit, Dina should most likely:
Options:
A. Prevail, because Clara's will gave Truman a fee simple interest in the property.
B. Prevail, because the devise to Clara's grandchildren in her will is invalid as it violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.
C. Not prevail, because Sam had a vested remainder interest subject to open, which became indefeasibly vested. | C |
Seth owned Slateacre, a rental property in Rock City that generated steady income. After Seth's second child was born, Seth properly executed a will containing the following disposition of Slateacre: "To Truman in trust to pay the educational expenses of my children, but if any of them do not graduate from Rockville University by the age of 30 , then for the benefit of Rockville University's scholarship fund for residents of Rock City." When Seth died, he had three children, all preschoolers. The jurisdiction in which the parties and property are located retains the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. Is the gift in trust to Rockville University valid?
Options:
A. Yes, because the gift is a valid charitable trust.
B. Yes, because the doctrine of cy pres is applicable.
C. No, because the gift is not for a valid charitable purpose.
D. No, because the gift violates the Rule Against Perpetuities. | A |
A standard commercial unit for widgets is one gross, i.e., 144 widgets. Buyer ordered from Seller 50 gross of widgets at $ 100$ per gross, with the widgets to be delivered on or before October 3. On September 15, 50 boxes arrived from Seller. Each box was labeled, "Widgetsone gross." On finding that one of the boxes contains 143 widgets, Buyer considered whether to: I. Seek cover. II. Immediately sue for breach. III. Reject the entire shipment of widgets. Which of the above can Buyer do?
Options:
A. I. and III. only.
B. I. and II. only.
C. III. only.
D. I., II., and III. | C |
Congress enacted a statute, over the President's veto, that granted Congress the power to compel the President to remove United States troops from foreign territory when such troops have for 60 days been engaged in hostilities and there has been no formal declaration of war. The statute also provided that Congress may force the President to withdraw the troops before the 60 days have elapsed if Congress passes a joint resolution to that effect. Which of the following statements best describes the likely result of judicial review of the constitutional validity of this statute?
Options:
A. The statute is a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the war power.
B. The statute is constitutionally suspect as an infringement on the President's exclusive power, as commander in chief, over matters relating to war.
C. The statute is a valid exercise of Congress's foreign relations powers.
D. The statute is constitutionally suspect, because the joint resolution is not subject to a presidential veto. | D |
Harry and Wilma were going through a divorce proceeding and were contesting the value of their house. Harry, a real estate agent familiar with property values in the area, had personally prepared an appraisal shortly before commencement of the divorce proceedings. The appraisal document stated that the house was worth $ 200,000$. Nora, a next-door neighbor of Harry and Wilma's, had seen this appraisal document. During settlement negotiations, Harry maintained that the house was worth $ 180,000$. When negotiations proved to be fruitless, the parties proceeded to trial. At trial, Wilma called Nora to testify as to the value placed on the house in the appraisal document. Nora's only knowledge as to the house's value comes from having read the document. Harry's attorney objects. May Nora testify as to the value stated in the appraisal document?
Options:
A. Yes, because she has personal knowledge of the contents of the document.
B. Yes, if Harry has destroyed the document.
C. No, because the appraisal document is the best, and thus the only admissible, evidence.
D. No, because Nora's testimony would be inadmissible hearsay. | B |
Denise, a 12-year-old girl, entered a grocery store. When she believed that no one was looking, she grabbed two packages of "Blinkies," a popular confectionery item, and concealed them under her coat. As she attempted to leave the store, Gordon, a security guard employed by the store, grabbed Denise by the arm. He told her, "You're too young to be a thief!"' Denise began crying and blurted out, "I lost my lunch money on the way to school and I was really hungry!" If Denise is charged with shoplifting, what is the State's best argument that Denise's Miranda rights have not been violated by Gordon?
Options:
A. Gordon's statement was not interrogatory.
B. It is discretionary whether to give juveniles Miranda warnings.
C. Denise has not yet been arrested and formally charged with any crime.
D. Gordon was not a government agent. | D |
Simpson and two others were indicted on felony charges for electronic theft of bank accounts. Simpson protested that he was innocent and wanted to prove it at trial, but agreed to discuss a plea bargain with the district attorney. The district attorney indicated that he would also charge Simpson with additional theft by computer offenses if Simpson insisted on going to trial, but that if he pleaded guilty to the one charge and agreed to testify against his codefendants at their trial, the prosecution would recommend probation only. Because of the risk of jail time if he was convicted of any of the additional offenses, Simpson agreed. When Simpson appeared in court, the judge informed him of the nature of the charge and the potential punishment, and that Simpson was waiving his right to trial by pleading guilty. She asked if his plea was voluntary and he replied that it was the best deal that he could get, but that he was really innocent of the crime charged. The judge nevertheless accepted the plea, reserving sentencing until Simpson testified against his co-defendants. Just before trial of Simpson's co-defendants, they pleaded guilty and provided additional information of Simpson's central role in the crime and in additional computer theft offenses. At Simpson's sentencing, the prosecution introduced the testimony of Simpson's codefendants and asked the judge to impose a jail term. The judge sentenced Simpson to five years in prison for the crime to which he pleaded guilty. Simpson appeals his sentence, raising the following arguments: I. The prosecution threatened to bring additional charges when Simpson indicated that he was going to exercise his right to go to trial. II. The judge accepted Simpson's guilty plea despite his claim of innocence. III. The prosecution did not adhere to the plea bargain after Simpson's co-defendants pleaded guilty. Which of the above arguments provide a valid basis for vacating Simpson's guilty plea and sentence?
Options:
A. I. and III.
B. I., II., and III.
C. II. and III.
D. III. only. | D |
Dunbad was on trial for the murder of his wife Victa. During the course of the trial, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence that, six months before Victa's death, Dunbad had purchased a large insurance policy on her life, and two weeks prior to her death he purchased two more large policies on Victa's life from separate insurance carriers. If the defense objects to admission of such evidence, the objection should be:
Options:
A. Sustained, because such evidence would be more prejudicial than probative.
B. Sustained, because evidence of insurance is inadmissible as a matter of public policy.
C. Overruled, because the evidence tends to establish motive.
D. Overruled, because the evidence tends to establish criminal propensity. | C |
Hiram owned a residence on a large parcel of land that included a tennis court and a private golf course. He wanted to be sure that members of his family would continue to enjoy the recreational facilities and have a "family home" at which all the relatives could gather, so he provided in his will that the property would pass upon his death "to Horace, my son, for life, then to my eldest grandchild living at Horace's death, for life, remainder to my great-grandchildren, share and share alike." When Hiram died, he was survived by his wife, his son Horace, Horace's children Candace and Suzanne, Hiram's daughter Elvira, and Elvira's children Leon and Emily. Candace was the eldest of the grandchildren, followed in age by Leon, Suzanne, and Emily. After Hiram's death, Horace had another child, Chester, and Elvira had two more children, John and Nancy, born in respective order. When Horace died many years later, Candace and Leon had predeceased him, and seven great-grandchildren (of Hiram) had been born. At Horace's death, in whom is title to the property vested?
Options:
A. Hiram's heirs.
B. Candace, Suzanne, Leon, and Emily.
C. Suzanne for life, remainder to the great- grandchildren.
D. Suzanne for life, remainder to Hiram's heirs. | D |
Sandra had 30,000 miles on her car when she purchased four new "Huggums" tires from Mac's Tire and Muffler Shop. The "Huggums" tires were manufactured by Kimbo Tire and Rubber Company, a reputable tire manufacturer. It was widely known in the tire industry that purchasers of tires would, on occasion, exceed posted speed limits, and therefore tires were designed to perform at speeds higher than the maximum speed of 65 m.p.h. allowable in most states. Sandra was a safe and careful driver who never exceeded the speed limit. When Sandra's car had 32,000 miles on it, she sold the car to Pedro. Pedro immediately took the car on a 500-mile trip to visit his sister. During the course of the journey, Pedro often drove his car 10 m.p.h. over the posted limit of 65 m.p.h. As Pedro approached his destination, he was driving 73 m.p.h. on smooth pavement. Suddenly his left front tire blew out for no apparent reason. The car went out of control, crashed into another vehicle, and Pedro was severely injured. If Pedro sues Mac's for his injuries in a jurisdiction retaining traditional contributory negligence rules, Pedro should:
Options:
A. Recover, because the tire blew out for no apparent reason.
B. Recover, if the tire was defective when it left Kimbo's manufacturing plant.
C. Not recover, if Mac's had no reason to know or anticipate that there would be any defects in "Huggums" tires.
D. Not recover, because Pedro was contributorily negligent in exceeding the speed limit. | B |
Kuegler, who had a long list of petty crimes to his credit, cased the Jaymart Department Store for a week. He noticed that a display case containing very expensive watches was near one of the store's exit doors. He planned to steal the watches by setting a diversionary fire in a trash basket, hoping that this would distract the store security personnel long enough for Kuegler to break the glass covering the watch case, grab the watches, and run out the nearby exit. Kuegler knew that the store had an automatic sprinkler system that would promptly douse the fire, but his purpose was merely to create a distraction rather than to cause any damage to the building. One afternoon at 2:30 p.m., Kuegler entered the Jaymart. He advanced to a trash barrel and poured some lighter fluid onto the trash. He threw the lighter fluid can into the barrel and tossed in a match after it. The lighter fluid immediately caused a long flame to rise. The flame quickly charred the wall next to the barrel and blistered the paint on the surrounding area. No serious damage was done to the structure, because the sprinklers operated as designed and quickly put out the fire before it could spread. Kuegler made a dash toward the case containing the watches, but just as he was breaking the glass case, one of the store's security guards apprehended Kuegler and called the police. Kuegler was read his Miranda rights and taken into police custody. A statute in the jurisdiction extends the crime of arson to buildings other than dwellings. Which of the following best describes the crimes, if any, of which Kuegler could be properly convicted?
Options:
A. Larceny only.
B. Larceny and attempted arson.
C. Attempted larceny and arson. | C |
As Sandra, a newspaper reporter, was walking to her home, she saw undercover officer Cole chasing Tim. Cole yelled, "Don't let him get away. I'm a police officer and he's just mugged a man!" Sandra immediately put out her leg and tripped Tim. When Tim fell, he broke his glasses and badly gashed his cheek. If Sandra was sued by Tim for battery, she would have:
Options:
A. No valid defense unless she had other reasons to believe Cole was a police officer besides his statement.
B. A valid defense if Sandra believed that Cole had grounds to arrest Tim.
C. A valid defense if she actually witnessed the crime.
D. No valid defense if a felony had not in fact been committed. | B |
In a medical malpractice action, Dr. Zorba was called as an expert witness by the plaintiff and testified that the surgical procedure utilized by the defendant was so new and experimental as to constitute negligence under the accepted standard of practice in the relevant medical community. On cross-examination by defendant's counsel, the following occurred: Counsel: "Dr. Zorba, is Modern Surgical Procedures by Weston a reliable authority in your area of specialty?" Dr. Zorba: "Yes." Counsel: "Did you rely upon the treatise in reaching the conclusion that my client was negligent?" Dr. Zorba: "I did not." Defense counsel now proposes to read a passage from the treatise stating that the surgical procedure at issue is widely accepted by responsible medical practitioners. Plaintiff's counsel objects. How should the court rule?
Options:
A. For defendant, but it should also caution the jury that the evidence may only be considered in impeachment of Dr. Zorba.
B. For defendant.
C. For plaintiff, because Dr. Zorba did not rely upon the treatise in forming his expert opinion.
D. For plaintiff, because the passage from the treatise is inadmissible hearsay. | B |
Marty was driving his auto on a public street of Duffyville on his way home from a party. His wife, Dolly, occupied the passenger seat. Two police officers, Dragby and Casey, noticed that Marty's car was weaving and generally being driven in an erratic manner. They pursued the vehicle and curbed it. When Marty emerged from the driver's seat, he was obviously inebriated, and the officers wrote out a drunk driving citation, and insisted that Marty accompany them to the station house. Marty accompanied Casey in the squad car, and Dragby drove Marty's car to the local precinct with Dolly in the passenger seat. Dolly walked into the station house with Marty. As Marty was being booked, Dragby took a standard police search form with him and began searching the car. Beneath the passenger seat he found Dolly's purse. He opened the purse and found a plastic zip-lock bag containing a small amount of marijuana. Dolly was charged with possession of drugs. At Dolly's trial, her attorney moved to suppress the admission of the marijuana seized from Dolly's purse into evidence. Should the court rule favorably on the motion?
Options:
A. Yes, because when conducting a search incident to an arrest the police may not open a closed container.
B. Yes, because the police lacked probable cause to search Dolly's purse.
C. No, because the search was incident to the lawful arrest of Marty.
D. No, because the marijuana was discovered during the course of a valid inventory search. | B |
Capitol City, West Carolina, has a city ordinance that prohibits the distribution of pamphlets "on public sidewalks or other public areas when foot traffic is sufficiently heavy and the manner of distribution of the pamphlets causes obstruction of the foot traffic so as to result in spillover onto public streets where vehicular traffic creates a danger to human life."' The West Carolina state fair is held at fairgrounds whose entrances lie along a busy multilane street. Roger, who was distributing pamphlets advocating repeal of the federal milk price support program during Dairy Day at the state fair, attracted a crowd of about 10 farmers and children outside the fairgrounds entrance at which he stood, but most of the few fairgoers entering the fair at that late afternoon time simply ignored him. When one of the dairy farmers became irate and threatened to "knock his block off," Roger was arrested by a fair security guard and subsequently prosecuted under the city ordinance. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the city ordinance and Roger's prosecution?
Options:
A. The ordinance is void on its face and void as applied to Roger.
B. The ordinance is valid on its face but void as applied to Roger.
C. The ordinance is valid on its face and valid as applied to Roger. | B |
Donald was convicted of burglary after a jury trial at which the prosecution established that Donald broke into Shelley's house at night by cutting open a window screen and climbing into a bedroom, then was frightened into leaping out the same window when Shelley, who was lying in bed in that same bedroom, produced a revolver from beneath her pillow. Donald testified in his own defense that he entered the house merely to use the telephone, and thus lacked the requisite intent for the entry to constitute burglary. The trial court, after instructing the jury on the elements of burglary, said, "If you find that by a fair preponderance of the evidence Donald has shown that he intended to use the telephone when he entered Shelley's home, then you must find him not guilty." If Donald appeals his conviction, will he likely obtain a reversal?
Options:
A. Yes, because the trial court's instruction permitted the jury to use the wrong standard of proof, in that they were told to find by a preponderance rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
B. Yes, because the trial court's instruction placed the burden of proof upon Donald.
C. No, because any error in instructions was harmless, since it is more likely than not that the jury would have convicted him anyway.
D. No, because the trial court is permitted to comment upon the evidence. | B |
On January 2, 1993, Cheap lent Deadbeat $ 1,000$ and the parties agreed in writing that Deadbeat would repay Cheap on or before January 2, 1994. Deadbeat failed to repay Cheap, and on January 6,1999, Cheap phoned Deadbeat and told him, "If you'll pay me $ 600$ now, I'll forget all about that unpaid $ 1,000$ debt." Deadbeat agreed orally and then sent Cheap a signed letter which stated, "I, Deadbeat, agree to pay Cheap $ 600$." Deadbeat never paid Cheap the $ 600$ and Cheap sued Deadbeat. The statute of limitations on suits for debt in the jurisdiction is five years. Cheap is entitled to recover:
Options:
A. $ 1,000$, because the agreement by Deadbeat to pay Cheap $ 600$ revived the original $ 1,000$ obligation.
B. $ 600$, because Deadbeat's moral obligation to pay Cheap $ 1,000$ became the consideration for Deadbeat's agreement to pay Cheap $ 600$.
C. Nothing, because the statute of limitations has run.
D. Nothing, because no additional consideration was provided to support Deadbeat's agreement to pay Cheap $ 600$. | B |
With an election approaching, Congress passed a statute requiring that all full-time employees, including state and municipal employees, be paid overtime for any work over 40 hours per week, or be otherwise compensated through time off or vacation time. Patchquilt was a municipality located in a very warm climate. Many Patchquilt residents were on welfare, and the town contained no major industry or shopping district to bolster its tax base. Patchquilt employed only three refuse collectors and asserted reasonably that it could not afford to hire more. However, during the warmest times of the year, extra refuse collections were routine because of the city council's fear that rotting garbage in the hot climate could contribute to the spread of disease. During the hottest months, the three refuse collectors in Patchquilt regularly worked well beyond the 40 hours per week standard. Because of normal vacation time and the normally heavy garbage collection schedule, it would not be possible to give the refuse collectors additional time off during the cooler months, which were not always very cool, without hiring additional refuse collectors. Patchquilt brings an action in federal district court, asserting that the federal statute requiring overtime pay to municipal workers is unconstitutional. The court should hold the statute:
Options:
A. Constitutional, as a reasonable application of the Necessary and Proper Clause.
B. Constitutional, because regulation of state and local employees is within the ambit of federal power over interstate commerce.
C. Unconstitutional, because regulation of state and local employees is an issue reserved to the states.
D. Unconstitutional, because the state police power to promote health and safety precludes federal action in this case. | B |
State Green had a law on its statute books that made any teacher, guardian, therapist, school administrator, or any other person standing in loco parentis subject to the same rights and duties as actual parents. In effect this meant that persons standing in loco parentis could be charged with liability in cases where a parent would have been liable and granted immunity from liability where such would have been the case for a parent. Dr. Zarkov had a Ph.D. in child psychology and was the director of the Verdant Institute, a residential home for disturbed minors located in Verdant City, the largest city in State Green. The Verdant Institute had no fence surrounding its premises, but regular bedchecks were conducted each night to determine that all of the disturbed children were present. A bedcheck determined that Ming, a 12-year-old resident of the Institute, was absent. In fact, Ming had climbed out a window and run away about 15 minutes before the bedcheck. The security guard who conducted the bedcheck immediately reported to Zarkov that Ming was missing. Zarkov did not report Ming's absence to the police or any other authority. Thirty-six hours after Ming ran away from the Institute, Ming savagely beat and severely injured six-year-old Gordon, a child who lived a few blocks away from the Verdant Institute. Although Gordon recovered, physicians indicated that the beating might well cause Gordon to suffer permanent hearing and vision deficiencies. Gordon's parents filed suit against Zarkov on Gordon's behalf. Which party is likely to prevail in the lawsuit?
Options:
A. Gordon, unless a 12-year-old would not be liable for administering the beating.
B. Gordon, because Zarkov assumed the role of a parent and liability is, therefore, imposed under the in loco parentis statute.
C. Zarkov, because he cannot be found vicariously liable for Ming's acts inasmuch as parents are not vicariously liable for the intentional torts of their children.
D. Zarkov, unless Zarkov had reason to know that Ming had a propensity to commit violent acts. | D |
Jenny, a general contractor, advertised in a trade publication that she planned to bid on the construction of a new building to be located in the Civic Mall. The advertisement welcomed bids from subcontractors to perform various functions, such as plumbing, electrical work, and masonry. The lowest electrical bid was from Ohmco, who bid $ 20,000$. The lowest plumbing bid was from Plunger, who bid $ 10,000$. Jenny used Ohmco's and Plunger's bids in preparing her general bid. At 2 p.m., on June 22, Jenny submitted her general bid. At 3 p.m., Plunger called her and said, 'I'm sorry, Jenny, but I made a mistake on that bid I submitted to you; I can't possibly do that plumbing work for a dime less than $ 12,000$." Jenny told him, "I can't do anything about that because I've already submitted my general bid." Jenny was awarded the contract. Assume for purposes of this question only that Jenny used Ohmco's $ 20,000$ electrical bid to prepare her general bid, but, after Jenny was awarded the contract, she decided to hire subcontractor Wattco to perform the electrical work. Wattco had bid $ 21,500$. Ohmco sues Jenny for damages. Will Ohmco prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, because there was an implied acceptance that Jenny would use the lowest bid for electrical contracting.
B. Yes, because Ohmco's bid was an offer for an option contract that was accepted upon acceptance of the general contract.
C. No, because Jenny never communicated an acceptance of Ohmco's offer.
D. No, because Jenny's advertisement for bids did not constitute an offer. | C |
Jeffries was the chief of security for The Watervliet, a large, exclusive apartment complex. Most of The Watervliet's residents were quite wealthy, and Jeffries resented the fact that he had many responsibilities and received what he considered to be a paltry salary. Therefore, Jeffries was receptive when Garth told him that he would pay Jeffries $ 250$ if Jeffries would obtain a key to the apartment of Mrs. Wealthy and give the key to Garth. Mrs. Wealthy was an affluent and socially prominent widow who resided in The Watervliet. The next day Jeffries obtained a key to Mrs. Wealthy's apartment and gave the key to Garth. Garth handed Jeffries the $ 250$ in cash. Jeffries believed that Garth planned to use the key to take valuables from Mrs. Wealthy's apartment. In fact, Garth planned to pretend that he was a "Good Samaritan" returning a "lost key" to Mrs. Wealthy that Garth had fortuitously found in The Watervliet lobby. Garth felt that this ploy would gain him access to Mrs. Wealthy's apartment, where he planned to sell her a "real estate limited partnership share" in nonexistent Florida property. Garth's plan worked up to a point. He brought the key to Mrs. Wealthy, who thanked him and invited him into her apartment for afternoon tea and watercress sandwiches. Garth attempted to sell the "limited partnership share" to Mrs. Wealthy, but she quickly surmised that the limited partnership was bogus and politely asked Garth to leave. Garth, a resourceful chap, did not want his $ 250$ investment in the key to be a total waste of money, so he surreptitiously removed a small but valuable art deco bronze statuette from Mrs. Wealthy's foyer and left the apartment with it. 9. If Jeffries is arrested and appropriately charged with theft of the key and conspiracy to commit theft of the key, of what additional crime or crimes, if any, could Jeffries be charged and convicted? (A) Attempted false pretenses. (B) Conspiracy to commit burglary. (C) Larceny, conspiracy to commit burglary, and conspiracy to commit false pretenses. (D) None of the above. At Nick's trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce the cocaine into evidence against Nick. Nick's attorney objects. The court should rule the cocaine:
Options:
A. Admissible, because of the emergency conditions arising from the growing menace of drugs to the public.
B. Admissible, because, in consenting to the search of his luggage, Nick impliedly consented to a body search.
C. Inadmissible, because Sam had neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to search Nick.
D. Inadmissible, because Sam had no right to search the luggage. | B |
Paul was admitted to Doctors' Hospital to undergo $\mathrm{x}$-rays and a series of other tests. During the course of the $\mathrm{x}$-rays, Paul was strapped to an $\mathrm{x}$-ray table manufactured by Hospital Suppliers. One feature of the table allowed the table to be tilted into an upright position, so that the patient could be $\mathrm{x}$-rayed while in a vertical position. There was a footrest at the bottom of the table that helped support the patient when the table was in a vertical position. During the course of Paul's $x$-ray procedure, the table was tilted into an upright position. As the technician began to take x-rays of Paul, the footrest fell off the $\mathrm{x}$-ray table. Had Paul been securely strapped in, he would have remained on the table. However, the loss of the footrest caused sufficient additional pressure on the straps that they loosened, and Paul fell from the table onto the floor. Paul's head struck the floor, and delicate brain surgery was required to save Paul's life. Although Paul recovered, he has suffered some permanent disabilities as a result of his fall. Assume for purposes of this question only that the laws of the jurisdiction provide for joint and several liability and that the common law rules regarding contribution have been abolished in favor of a system of contribution based on comparative fault. How much can Pluto collect from Donald?
Options:
A. $ 70,000$, but Donald can compel Mickey to pay him $ 40,000$ as contribution.
B. $ 40,000$, but Donald can compel Mickey to contribute $ 10,000$.
C. $ 30,000$, because Donald was $30 \%$ at fault. | D |
Velma entered into an argument with her neighbor Diana over the height of the bushes on Velma's property. Diana claimed that the bushes were so high that when she attempted to pull out of her own driveway, she was unable to see if traffic was approaching from the south. Diana demanded that Velma cut the bushes down to half their present height. When Velma refused, Diana, in a fit of anger, slapped Velma. Velma reached into her purse, drew out a pistol, and fired a shot at Diana but missed. Just as Velma cocked the pistol to fire another shot, Diana grabbed a shovel and hit Velma over the head, killing her instantly. Diana was charged with the murder of Velma. At trial, Diana testified that she hit Velma because she believed that Velma would have shot and killed her if she did not. If the jury believes Diana, it should find her:
Options:
A. Guilty of murder, because she did not retreat.
B. Guilty of murder, because she was the original aggressor in the encounter and had not withdrawn.
C. Not guilty of murder, because Velma was the first to resort to deadly force.
D. Not guilty of murder, because she had no opportunity to premeditate. | C |
Due to intense foreign competition in the domestic market and other adverse economic conditions, the domestic manufacturers of horse liniment formed a trade association, the American Horse Liniment Institute ("AHLI"), whose main purpose was to lobby Congress for tariff protection and for grants-in-aid to modernize their plants, which everyone agreed were less efficient than those of their Asian and European competitors. Congress passed legislation providing some degree of protection from foreign competition and appropriating 200 million dollars for grants-in-aid to domestic horse liniment manufacturers. However, because of concern about inefficiencies in the industry, the legislation was amended to allow the Secretary of Commerce to deny grants to horse liniment manufacturers who failed to meet certain "management efficiency standards" outlined in the legislation. Lum \& Bagel Co., a liniment manufacturer and a member of AHLI, petitioned the Secretary of Commerce for a $15 million grant, the amount to which Lum \& Bagel would be entitled under the legislation, based upon the number of its employees and plants and upon its average production of horse liniment over a 10-year period. The Secretary of Commerce refused to award funds to Lum \& Bagel, because she determined that Lum \& Bagel was making no attempt to improve its management efficiency. Lum \& Bagel filed suit against the Secretary of Commerce, asserting that the power granted to the Secretary was unconstitutional. Is the legislation constitutional?
Options:
A. Yes, because the Secretary of Commerce, as a representative of the executive branch, may be granted regulatory authority.
B. Yes, because the executive branch, represented by the Secretary of Commerce, shares power with Congress in the field of foreign commerce.
C. No, because there was an improper delegation of legislative power.
D. No, because the executive branch may not impound funds appropriated by Congress. | A |
To help alleviate the burdens of poverty and perhaps to help cut the welfare rolls, the state legislature of Margate passed legislation establishing State Family Counseling Centers throughout the state. The legislature recognized that much of the "welfare and poverty problem" was centered on poor single-parent households headed by a woman. Therefore, it decreed in the legislation that all counseling would be free for single mothers with an income of less than $ 20,000$ per year. Others would have to pay fees for the counseling on a sliding scale depending upon income. The counseling services available at the State Family Counseling Centers included classes on parenting, anti-substance abuse programs, and financial counseling. The counseling centers were popular and other states considered copying the Margate model. Peter's wife had died recently of a drug overdose, and he was left to care for their two children (ages two and four) on an income of approximately $ 7,000$ per year. Peter had no idea how he could manage to care for the two children and himself on his small paychecks. He heard about the State Family Counseling Centers and went to the closest one for financial counseling. Peter was told that he would have to pay a $ 50$ fee for the counseling. Peter had $ 10$ in his pocket, which he needed for bus fare home and to feed his children until his check, due in five days, arrived. Peter became very angry when he learned that single mothers in his situation were entitled to free counseling while single fathers were not. A public-interest law firm agreed to take Peter's case and filed suit in federal court, asking that Peter be allowed to take advantage of the free counseling services because the law establishing them discriminated against males. To win the case:
Options:
A. Peter must show that the law is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest favoring mothers over fathers.
B. Peter must show that the state has no compelling interest in favoring mothers over fathers.
C. Margate must show that favoring mothers over fathers is substantially related to an important governmental interest.
D. Margate must show that the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest favoring mothers over fathers. | C |
Congress passed a statute providing that if the President deployed more than 1,000 United States Armed Forces personnel in a foreign country where "combat conditions" existed, the President was required to return such Armed Forces to the United States within 60 days or formally seek a declaration of war from Congress. The statute further provided that, if Congress failed to declare war within 30 days of the President's request, the President was required to return the Armed Forces to the United States. After several tense incidents, the President ordered 10,000 troops from the Army and Marine Corps to land in Culebra, a Central American republic. The American forces had been fired on and had fired back, and they had continued to receive and inflict casualties. The 60-day period passed, but the President refused to go to Congress to seek a declaration of war, and in a televised address to the nation accused Congress of an unconstitutional attempt to usurp powers denied to it by the Constitution. What is Congress's best argument for the constitutionality of the statute?
Options:
A. In making decisions concerning foreign affairs, the President must first obtain the advice and consent of the Senate.
B. The statute does not limit the President's power to repel invasions.
C. The President cannot institute military actions in foreign countries without a declaration of war, and only Congress has the right to declare war.
D. The statute reflects the balance between the legislature and the executive branch in their shared control over the Armed Forces. | D |
The state of Plains was the headquarters of Bushel Basket Ministries, which had been characterized by the government as a "religious cult." Seeking to broaden his influence, the leader of Bushel Basket, Reverend Bill E. Bob, decided that the state legislature would serve as an effective pulpit for his religious views by giving him a great deal of media exposure and direct mail resources. The state of Plains had no provision barring members of the clergy from serving as legislators. Bob entered a race that already had several other candidates and took advantage of the state's liberal voter registration laws by having many of his followers move into the district a month before the election. Bob's subsequent victory in the race shocked the political establishment and prompted a citizens' group to file a lawsuit in federal district court. The suit, invoking the Establishment Clause, sought to enjoin the state from seating Bob in the legislature or expending any state funds to provide him with legislative privileges. Bob moved to dismiss the lawsuit. Should the court grant Bob's motion?
Options:
A. Yes, because the Eleventh Amendment bars this type of action against a state by its citizens.
B. Yes, because a political question is involved.
C. No, because citizens have standing to challenge government expenditures that may violate the Establishment Clause.
D. No, because the lawsuit is not seeking damages from the state. | A |
St. Minny, a town with a population of 30,000 , was located on the west bank of a small river. Immediately across the river, on the east bank, was Paulopolis, a city of 60,000 . Over the years, many civic improvement groups urged that the two municipalities be merged into "Minnypaulos," a single city of 90,000 souls. The arguments in favor of merger stressed savings to taxpayers accruing from the elimination of duplicate services. Proposals to merge the two places had appeared as referenda on the ballot on two separate occasions. Although the voters of Paulopolis approved each proposal by heavy margins, the voters of St. Minny, fearing that control of the government would be in the hands of more populous Paulopolis, rejected the referendum proposals by more than two to one. To avoid the failure of yet another such referendum, a new proposal was made for the governance of the proposed combined city. For a period of 20 years, beginning at the date of the merger, the city council of the merged city would consist of six persons. The former Paulopolis would be divided into three council districts, as would the former city of St. Minny. Thus, each St. Minny council representative would be elected from a district with a population of 10,000, while the Paulopolis districts would contain 20,000 persons each. A mayor would be elected at large. The proposal was placed on the ballot and was carried by large majorities in both St. Minny and Paulopolis. Representatives from Paulopolis and St. Minny carved each former city into three council electoral districts. Three Paulopolis taxpayers filed suit to enjoin the holding of an election with council districts of such disparate proportions. Which of the following represents the plaintiffs' best constitutional argument?
Options:
A. The government of the merged cities is not a republican form of government.
B. The plaintiffs and other Paulopolitans have been denied equal protection of the law.
C. The plaintiffs and other Paulopolitans have been denied the privileges and immunities of citizenship as guaranteed by Article IV. of the federal Constitution.
D. The plaintiffs and other Paulopolitans have been denied due process of law. | B |
Perry sued Don for bodily injuries suffered by Perry as a result of a collision between the cars they were driving. The accident occurred on a rainy day, when Don's car skidded across the center line and struck Perry's car. A principal issue is whether Don was driving too fast for the wet conditions. At trial, Perry calls Wally to the stand. Wally is prepared to testify that he has lived next door to Don for 15 years, and that Don is notorious in the neighborhood for driving his car at excessive rates of speed. Don's attorney objects. May Wally's testimony be allowed?
Options:
A. Yes, because Don's character as a careless driver is in issue.
B. Yes, because character may be proven by reputation evidence.
C. No, because the testimony is improper character evidence.
D. No, because the testimony is hearsay, not within any exception. | C |
The above chart indicates the configuration of three parcels of property located in State Blue, which has a 15-year prescription and adverse possession period. Seventeen years ago, Wallace purchased Woodlot, which is adjacent to Smoothacre and Roughacre. At the time Wallace purchased Woodlot, he asked Arnold, the owner of Smoothacre, if Arnold would grant Wallace an easement to use the paved way across Smoothacre to haul logs to the public road. Arnold was an affable person and he readily granted the easement to Wallace. Wallace paid nothing for the easement, and the deed granting the easement was properly recorded in the office of the county recorder of deeds. For six months Wallace hauled $\operatorname{logs}$ across Smoothacre. However, Wallace decided it would be easier to haul the logs over Roughacre, because the distance to the public road was less using that route. Wallace negotiated with Brenda, the owner of Roughacre, and Brenda granted Wallace a license to haul logs on the gravel road across Roughacre to the public road. Wallace paid Brenda a modest annual fee for this privilege. In the intervening time period, Wallace never used the paved way across Smoothacre for any purpose. Six months ago, Arnold conveyed Smoothacre to Cyd, and two weeks ago, Cyd had a chain-link fence built around the perimeter of Smoothacre which, of course, blocked Wallace's access to the paved way crossing Smoothacre. One week ago, acting within her rights, Brenda revoked Wallace's license to use the gravel road crossing Roughacre. The next day, Wallace told Cyd, "Open up that chainlink fence where Smoothacre abuts Woodlot, because I have an easement to haul my logs across your paved way." Cyd replied, "Forget it, Buster. I never agreed to any easement, and I don't want you hauling logs across my property." Wallace seeks advice about his rights in the easement across Smoothacre. Which of the following best represents Wallace's rights under the circumstances?
Options:
A. Wallace has no right to use the easement across Smoothacre, because Wallace abandoned the easement.
B. Wallace may compel Cyd to allow him to use the easement, because nonuse of an easement does not constitute abandonment.
C. Wallace may use the paved way across Smoothacre, because the revocation of his license to use the gravel road crossing Roughacre means that he has an easement by necessity to cross Smoothacre.
D. Wallace has no right to use the easement across Smoothacre, because the easement reverted to the owners of Smoothacre by prescription. | B |
When Able purchased Blueacre from Oswald, he took out a $ 160,000$ mortgage on Blueacre. After being in possession of Blueacre for six months, Able concluded that his cash-flow situation would make it difficult for him to continue to make the high monthly mortgage payments. Therefore, he sold Blueacre to Brett. According to the terms of the agreement signed by the parties, Brett took Blueacre "subject to the mortgage" and agreed to "assume payment of' the mortgage. A recession struck the area, and Brett soon found himself in financial difficulties. Brett sold Blueacre to Carly. Under the terms of the agreement signed by the parties, Carly agreed to take "subject to the mortgage." All deeds and the mortgage were properly recorded. After two months on the land, Carly ceased making mortgage payments. Third National Bank ("TNB"), holder of the mortgage, unsuccessfully demanded payments from Carly, Brett, and Able. TNB properly instituted proceedings to foreclose, and Blueacre was put up for judicial sale. Because the recession had severely depressed property values, Blueacre sold for only $ 120,000$. After the $ 120,000$ was applied to the mortgage, $ 37,800$ was still owing on the principal amount. TNB now seeks judgment to cover the $ 37,800$ deficiency. Who can be required to pay the deficiency?
Options:
A. Able only.
B. Able and Brett.
C. Brett and Carly.
D. Able, Brett, and Carly. | B |
After several years in the planning, Jason was ready to begin building his dream house. To save money, he decided to act as the general contractor and hire all of the subcontractors himself. He hired separate contractors for the foundation, the frame, the electricity, the plumbing, and the masonry. After several months of work, the house was finally ready for occupancy. The first night that Jason stayed there, however, a fire swept through the house. Jason managed to escape with a broken ankle and some minor burns, but the house was a total loss. An investigation by the fire marshal established that the fire started from a short in some wiring behind a wall. A small section of wiring that ran to an outlet through a narrow gap between a furnace chimney and a hot water pipe had had part of its outer sheath cut off. Both the chimney and the pipe had been installed, and the walls put up, after the rough wiring had been completed. Jason filed suit against Shortstop Electrical Service, the contractor that did the rough wiring. The parties stipulated that Shortstop had installed the wiring in compliance with the detailed blueprints that Jason had drawn up, and that the wiring had been inspected and approved by the building inspector shortly after it had been installed. At trial, Jason introduced the report of the fire marshal establishing the above facts and evidence of his medical expenses and other damages. At the end of Jason's case, Shortstop's attorney rested her case and moved for a directed verdict. Jason's attorney also moved for a directed verdict. How should the court rule on the directed verdict motions?
Options:
A. Deny both directed verdict motions, because Jason has presented enough evidence to submit the case to the jury.
B. Deny Shortstop's motion and grant Jason's motion for a directed verdict, because Shortstop failed to rebut the presumption of negligence that Jason has established.
C. Deny Jason's motion and grant Shortstop's motion for a directed verdict, because the wire could have been damaged by another contractor.
D. Deny Shortstop's motion and grant Jason's motion for a directed verdict, because a short in the wiring caused Jason's injuries. | C |
Arthur's hobby was restoring classic cars, and he frequently attended shows at which people with similar interests would gather to display their handiwork, compare techniques and information, and view products of manufacturers who catered to such hobbyists. At one such show, Arthur was examining a 1947 Pontiac "Stretch" Roadster when the owner, who was standing nearby, indicated that he was trying to sell the car. Bud, who stated that he had restored the Pontiac himself, told Arthur that (I) the car was restored using nothing but genuine Pontiac parts or parts that Bud had handmade himself. He said that (II) "this is the finest restoration of a 1947 'Stretch' Roadster in the United States, and one of the two best in the world."' As they were discussing price, Bud pointed out that (III) "this car has the original 'rearing horse' grille that was installed by the dealer on 1947 'Stretch' Roadsters." Arthur agreed to purchase the car for a considerable sum, and had it transported to his home. Later, he discovered that Bud had not been entirely truthful about the restoration. In his action for deceit, Arthur establishes that Bud knew, when he made statements I, II, and III, above, that each was false. Assuming that all the other elements of deceit are proven, which of the three statements will support Arthur's claims?
Options:
A. I only.
B. I and II.
C. I and III.
D. I, II, and III. | C |
The citizenry of East Rabbit's Foot had experienced a tremendous increase in the incidence of begging in the downtown area. In response, the city council enacted an ordinance that required anyone soliciting for charitable contributions of any sort in any public place to wear an identity card issued by the local police department. Identity cards could be obtained by filling out an affidavit providing identification and address information about the applicant and further affirming that the applicant was not soliciting for personal use and belonged to a recognized charitable organization. George, a member of Airbreathers Against Tobacco ("AAT"), wishes to solicit contributions by similarly minded persons for use in his organization's campaign against public smoking. He does not want to comply with the identity card ordinance. He comes to you for legal advice and asks the advisability of challenging the ordinance in federal court. You should inform George that the ordinance is probably:
Options:
A. Unconstitutional, because it violates the First Amendment's prohibition of government infringement of the right of free speech.
B. Unconstitutional, because it prevents religious organizations from obtaining contributions from their members, and thus interferes with the free exercise of religion.
C. Constitutional, because it represents a reasonable balancing of the state's police power interest in protecting its citizens from fraud and annoyance against the right of people to seek charitable contributions.
D. Constitutional, because preventing fraud in the solicitation for charitable contributions is a compelling interest. | A |
Woody is on trial for embezzlement. He does not take the stand. Which of Woody's previous convictions is most likely to be admitted into evidence against him?
Options:
A. A 7-year-old conviction for arson, a felony.
B. A 12-year-old conviction for embezzlement, a felony.
C. A 6-month-old conviction for disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.
D. A 2-year-old conviction for felonious sexual assault. | B |
Drew was tried for the July 21 murder of Victor. Drew called Warren to testify to an alibi. On cross-examination of Warren, the prosecutor asked, "Weren't you on the jury that acquitted Drew of another criminal charge?"' The best reason for sustaining an objection to this question is that:
Options:
A. The question goes beyond the scope of direct examination.
B. The probative value of the answer would be substantially outweighed by its tendency to mislead.
C. The question is a leading question.
D. Prior jury service in a case involving a party renders the witness incompetent. | B |
During a gang shootout in City, Joe looked for Egbert among the combatants because he wanted to kill him. He spotted Ira, who resembled Egbert. Believing Ira to be Egbert, Joe shot at Ira and missed. The bullet passed through a window and killed Gladys, who was asleep on her sofa. Joe may properly be convicted of: I. Attempted murder of Egbert. II. Attempted murder of Ira. III. Murder of Gladys.
Options:
A. I. and II. only.
B. II. only.
C. II. and III. only.
D. None of the above. | C |
Via a circular, WidgeCo, a manufacturer of widgets, sent an offer to Distrucorp, a major wholesaler. WidgeCo offered a standard lot (quantity well-known in the widget trade) of widgets for $ 8,000$. This was a good price, and the president of Distrucorp personally mailed back to WidgeCo Distrucorp's standard printed acceptance form. However, the president wrote "in large letters in his own hand on the form, "Our liability on this contract is limited to $ 200$." Two days later, the WidgeCo sales manager received the communication from Distrucorp. A week later, WidgeCo had sent no additional communication to Distrucorp. Assuming no additional facts, what is the relationship between the parties?
Options:
A. There is no contract between WidgeCo and Distrucorp, because Distrucorp made a material alteration.
B. There is a valid, enforceable contract between WidgeCo and Distrucorp, but it is limited to the terms of WidgeCo's offer.
C. There is a valid, enforceable contract between WidgeCo and Distrucorp, and it contains the additional term because WidgeCo raised no objection.
D. Distrucorp has sent a valid counteroffer to WidgeCo, which WidgeCo can accept or reject. | B |
State Green has a statute providing as follows: Any judgment properly filed shall, for 10 years from the date of filing, be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered. Oscar conveyed Birchacre, located in State Green, to Allen, who had had a judgment lien recorded against him two years earlier in the county in which Birchacre was located. One year later, Allen conveyed the property to Brenda by general warranty deed. The deed did not mention the lien, but Brenda was aware of it. Two years later, Brenda conveyed Birchacre to Carla by special warranty deed. Carla was not aware of the lien and her deed also made no mention of it. One year after that transaction, Carla conveyed Birchacre to Dave by general warranty deed. Dave's deed did not mention the lien but Dave was aware of it. The next year, Dave entered into a contract to convey Birchacre to Edgar. Edgar's title search disclosed the judgment lien against Allen, and Edgar refused to proceed with the transaction because title was not marketable. Dave brought an action against Edgar for specific performance and was denied relief. He then brought an action against Allen, Brenda, and Carla for breach of warranty. Assume for purposes of this question that all transactions concerning Birchacre were promptly and properly recorded, and that the party holding the judgment lien has taken no action as of yet to enforce it. Which parties, if any, will be liable to Dave?
Options:
A. No one, because Dave had actual knowledge of the lien when he purchased Birchacre.
B. Carla only, because the party holding the judgment lien has taken no action as of yet to enforce it.
C. Carla and Allen, because Brenda conveyed by special warranty deed.
D. Brenda and Allen, because they were aware of the judgment lien but did not mention it in their deeds, but not Carla, because she was not aware of the lien. | B |
Olivia and Scarlet were roommates who both attended a prestigious fashion design school. When Olivia had received her acceptance letter from the school, she splurged and purchased a new Scandervan 2001 sewing machine for $ 1,000$ so that she would be more than adequately equipped for her design assignments. One day when Olivia was at class, Scarlet loaned Olivia's sewing machine to Violet, whose own machine lacked the fancy options of the Scandervan 2001. Scarlet had loaned Olivia's Scandervan 2001 to other design students on several prior occasions. Unfortunately, Violet, who was not familiar with the delicate Scandervan 2001, caused extensive damage to the machine when she tried to create a cutting edge design by sewing silverware on a dress. It would cost $ 400$ to repair the sewing machine. If Olivia sues Scarlet for the damage Violet caused to the sewing machine, what will be the result?
Options:
A. Olivia will recover $ 1,000$.
B. Olivia will recover the fair market value of the sewing machine.
C. Olivia will recover $ 400$.
D. Olivia will recover nothing, because Scarlet did not damage the machine and Violet's conduct was not intentional. | B |
Astro developed a new synthetic liquid that could safely double the output of electrical power plants. He built a manufacturing plant unlike any other in the world capable of producing this liquid. A byproduct of the production of the liquid was a hazardous chemical that was not biodegradable in the environment. Astro buried the waste chemical in a depression on his land. Before doing so, Astro secured expert opinion, based on soil analysis, that led him reasonably to believe that the earth beneath the disposal site was impermeable, and that there was no danger of contaminating the underground waters. The chemical, nonetheless, seeped through the underlying soil strata, and was carried by the flow of percolating water to a well used by Herder to water his sheep, which he raised on an adjacent property. The chemical rendered the water in the well unfit for consumption by sheep. If Herder's sheep were harmed by drinking from the contaminated well, and Herder asserts a claim against Astro for damages to the sheep, which of the following facts, if established, would best aid Astro's case? Assume that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules.
Options:
A. Many companies converted their power plants so that they could utilize the synthetic liquid developed by Astro.
B. Herder did not do what a reasonable person would have done to prevent harm to his sheep after he learned that the well was contaminated.
C. If he had exercised ordinary care, Herder would have discovered the contamination before his sheep were harmed.
D. Astro's plant was in place and in operation before Herder purchased his property. | B |
A statute in the state of Lemon forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of religion; however, an exception provides that established religions that employ persons to engage in nonprofit activities may be exempted from this rule. A new religion sprang up called the Church of the Sunrise. It espoused a number of nontraditional views, among which was the belief that the sun is really a temple that is moved across the sky by a powerful race of aliens. When the Church gained enough members to open a meeting place, it advertised for clerical and maintenance workers. Patricia applied for a position and was told that she would be hired if she converted to the Church of the Sunrise religion. Patricia refused to do so and complained to the state of Lemon human relations board. After investigating, the board concluded that the Church was not an established religion and its beliefs were not plausible. It ruled that the religious exemption would not be applicable and ordered the Church to hire Patricia. Church officials filed an action in federal district court challenging the board's refusal to apply the exemption. How is the court likely to rule?
Options:
A. The board may not refuse to apply the exemption unless it can prove scientifically that the Church's beliefs are false.
B. The board may not refuse to apply the exemption because it does not have compelling grounds for favoring other religions over this one.
C. The entire exemption scheme is unconstitutional because it does not have a secular purpose and has a primary effect of advancing religion.
D. The board may refuse to apply the exemption because the state has the power to deny any religion the right to discriminate in its hiring. | B |
Howard was supposed to be out of town on a three-day business trip. Because he completed his business more quickly than expected, he flew home on Wednesday night instead of Thursday afternoon. Howard arrived home and let himself into the house. He heard noises from the bedroom and, upon investigation, Howard was shocked to find his wife, Chastity, in bed with Nick, a good friend of Howard, who lived four blocks away. Nick dressed quickly and took off out the back door. Howard screamed a number of epithets at Chastity and then told her, "Nick's going to pay for this! Get me a drink! It will give me the steadiness to do what I have to do to avenge my honor." A frightened Chastity brought Howard a bourbon and water. Howard drank it quickly and demanded yet another drink. After consuming several more drinks, Howard unlocked the closet, pulled out a rifle, and loaded it. He then set off for Nick's house. Howard arrived at Nick's about 10 minutes later. Nick had neglected to lock his front door, so Howard walked in. He found a trembling Nick in the living room, and Howard pointed the gun at him. Nick immediately began apologizing, blaming the affair on Chastity, and pleading for his life. Howard stood silently listening to Nick, but he kept the gun trained on his erstwhile friend. Suddenly, Nick pulled a switchblade knife from his pocket. As the metal flashed, Howard fired a single shot at Nick. The bullet struck him in the middle of the forehead and Nick died instantly. Howard set the gun down, fell to his knees, and began crying. A neighbor who heard the shot reported it to the police. They arrived a few minutes later and found a distraught Howard muttering about losing a friend and a marriage in one night. Howard can be convicted of:
Options:
A. Murder.
B. Manslaughter, because Howard was still distraught over finding Nick in bed with Chastity.
C. Manslaughter, because his intoxication prevented Howard from having the requisite intent for murder.
D. No homicide crime, because Nick was about to attack him with a knife. | A |
Victor was desperately ill with a particularly virulent and painful form of cancer. He was permanently hospitalized and quite helpless as the killer disease tore at his vitals. Victor's daughter, Dana, was devoted to her dad. She visited him every evening in the hospital and spent many hours with him on the weekends. For over two months, Victor pleaded with Dana, "Please kill me and put me out of my misery. I'm in such terrible pain. The pangs of Hell couldn't be any worse than this!" Every day or evening that Dana visited, Victor would renew his plea to be killed. The staff doctors and nurses had often heard Victor's plaint. One Saturday afternoon, Dana paid her usual visit to Victor. His pleading was as heartrending as ever. With a tender expression on her face, Dana pulled a small revolver from her purse. She fired a shot at Victor, killing him instantly. Dana immediately broke into tears and repeatedly kissed the face of her dead father. Hospital authorities called the police, and Dana was charged with Victor's death. What is the most serious offense of which Dana can be convicted?
Options:
A. First degree murder, defined by the jurisdiction as premeditated and deliberate killing of another human being.
B. Second degree murder, defined as any murder not classified as first degree murder.
C. Voluntary manslaughter.
D. No crime. | A |
Alert police officers noticed that a late-model "Belchfire 500" automobile was being driven at an excessive rate of speed. The car, driven by Doofus, was pulled over to the curb. As Officer Smith issued a speeding citation to Doofus, her partner, Jones, fed the license plate numbers into the police computer. It turned out that the Belchfire had been very recently reported as stolen. Doofus was unable to produce satisfactory registration papers and was arrested for car theft. At the police station, Smith gave Doofus the standard Miranda warnings, and Doofus agreed to answer Smith's questions regarding a local "chop-shop" network, which arranged for the theft of expensive automobiles so that they could be cut up for parts. After a while, Jones suggested, "Let's break for lunch." He and Smith escorted Doofus to a nearby cafeteria. During the course of their lunch, which lasted about an hour, Smith noticed that Doofus, who was otherwise rather shabbily dressed, was wearing an obviously expensive "Xelor" watch. Upon their return to the station, and without giving any new Miranda warnings, Smith resumed interrogation of Doofus. She asked Doofus about a recent home invasion in the swank "Notting Hill" neighborhood, where a quantity of valuable jewelry, including a "Xelor" watch, was taken. Doofus thereupon confessed to the home invasion, and was indicted on the home invasion charge, a felony under the jurisdiction's modern criminal code. If Doofus files an appropriate motion to prevent the confession from being admitted at his trial, Doofus will probably:
Options:
A. Succeed, because the police did not repeat the Miranda warnings before questioning Doofus about another crime.
B. Succeed, because the police acted in a custodial setting.
C. Fail, because Doofus was not in custody on a home invasion charge.
D. Fail, because the original Miranda warnings given Doofus were sufficient under the circumstances. | D |
With the busy summer beach season fast approaching, Trendee of Bayonne, a retail women's wear store, ordered 100 women's swimsuits at $ 10$ each, as advertised in the catalog of Stingray, a manufacturer of swimwear. Stingray shipped Trendee 40 swimsuits, along with a letter, stating in relevant part: "We have shipped you 40 swimsuits at $ 10$ each as per your recent order. Please remit $ 400$ to Stingray. Be informed that we will be unable to ship the additional 60 suits you requested at this time or at any time during this year's beach season." Trendee took the 40 suits, put them on their salesracks, and began to sell them. Trendee immediately sought an alternate supplier of swimsuits. The best price it could obtain was $ 11$ per suit from Flying Fish Industries. Trendee ordered, received, accepted, and paid for 60 suits at $ 11$ each from Flying Fish. Trendee has refused to pay Stingray. If Stingray sues Trendee, Stingray is entitled to:
Options:
A. $ 400$, the contract price for the 40 suits delivered by Stingray and accepted by Trendee.
B. $340, the contract price for the 40 suits, less Trendee's cover damages.
C. The fair market value of the 40 suits, less the $ 60$ cover damages.
D. Nothing, because it failed to fully perform the contract. | A |
Johnson, a small business owner, filed a treble damages civil antitrust suit against Greed Industries. While Greed's director of marketing, Mimms, was on the stand, Greed's attorney produced a "synopsis of sales," a document generated by Greed's marketing division. Johnson's attorney objected that the record is hearsay. Greed's attorney responded, "Your Honor, this is a business record and, as such, can be admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule." Johnson's attorney complained, "Your Honor, this so-called 'synopsis of sales' is some selfserving writing concocted for this litigation. The hearsay exception requires that business records be made in the ordinary course of business. I demand a hearing to determine whether this qualifies as a business record." Which of the following is the most appropriate way for the issue to be decided?
Options:
A. The issue should be decided by the judge after hearing evidence from Greed's attorney and Johnson's attorney outside the presence of the jury.
B. The issue should be decided by the judge after hearing evidence from Greed's attorney and Johnson's attorney and may be conducted in the presence of the jury.
C. The issue should be decided by the jury after hearing evidence from both sides.
D. The issue should be decided by the judge after hearing evidence from both sides outside the presence of the jury, but if the document is admitted by the judge, Johnson may present evidence challenging that finding while presenting his case, and the ultimate decision rests with the jury. | B |
Debra's car struck Peter, a pedestrian, and sped away from the scene of the accident. The car was linked to Debra, but she denies that she was driving the car when Peter was hit and injured. Peter sued Debra for his injuries. The only eyewitness, other than Peter, was Willie, a six-year-old child. During the trial, Peter put Willie on the stand, and Willie testified that he saw Debra driving the car that hit Peter. The defense elected not to cross-examine Willie. The plaintiff's next witness was Schrinkov, a child psychologist. Schrinkov, who had never met Willie before, was prepared to testify that, based on his observations of Willie on the witness stand, it was highly probable that Willie was telling the truth. Schrinkov was qualified as an expert witness with many years of experience dealing with children. However, the defense objected to any questions regarding the veracity of Willie. Should Schrinkov be allowed to testify about Willie?
Options:
A. Yes, because parties may put witnesses on the stand to reinforce or challenge the veracity of other witnesses.
B. Yes, because an expert may be needed to explain how children testify in order to avoid confusing the jury.
C. No, experts may not testify regarding veracity.
D. No, because Willie's veracity has not yet been questioned. | D |
An act of Congress provides for the payment of Social Security benefits to the disabled children of deceased workers. A complex set of regulations carefully defines the meaning of the term "disabled." The benefits are payable even after the child reaches his or her age of majority, but terminate automatically when the recipient marries, unless the recipient marries a person who is also disabled, in which case the Social Security payments continue. Dorit has been disabled since birth, and her father died in a coal mine cave-in when Dorit was 14 years of age. She has received Social Security benefits since her father's death. However, at age 25, Dorit married Jack, who is not disabled, and her Social Security benefits were summarily terminated. She files suit in federal district court, seeking to compel the government to restore her benefits. She asserts, among other things, that there is no logical reason why she should be deprived of benefits when unmarried disabled persons and disabled persons who marry other disabled persons continue to receive them. Which of the following provides the strongest constitutional basis for Dorit's suit?
Options:
A. The privileges and immunities of national citizenship protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
D. The prohibitions against bills of attainder. | C |
Popeye owned a large fleet of buses. He was fortunate enough to have won the contract to bus all the schoolchildren in a large midwestern city and most of its surrounding suburbs. He purchased a number of new vehicles to expand his fleet. Popeye had farmed out the maintenance of the buses to a number of different repair shops, but he now desired the consistent results obtainable from dealing with one repair and maintenance operation. He therefore contracted in writing with Bluto that all general maintenance and extraordinary repairs required for Popeye's buses would be performed by Bluto, who owned and operated "Bluto's Bus and Truck Center." A schedule of fees for most standard repairs was included in the contract. It happened that Popeye's wife, Olive, owned and operated a small advertising agency. Popeye wanted Olive's business to succeed, and so he included a clause in his agreement with Bluto that Bluto would place all his ads for his repair shop through Olive's agency during the oneyear term of the agreement. Assume for purposes of this question only that for six months Bluto dutifully placed all his ads through Olive's agency and informed her of his agreement with Popeye. During that time, Olive turned down work from two prospective clients because of the time that she would have to devote to designing and disseminating ads from Bluto. Bluto then discovered that Popeye was having some of his buses repaired and maintained by other shops. Bluto immediately ceased placing ads through Olive and employed another agency. Can Olive successfully bring suit against Bluto to enforce the agreement?
Options:
A. Yes, because she partially performed by placing ads for Bluto during the first six months of the agreement.
B. Yes, because she detrimentally relied on Bluto's promise to place ads when she refused other clients.
C. No, because Olive provided no consideration for the agreement between Popeye and Bluto.
D. No, because Popeye's exclusive use of Bluto's repair shop was a condition for Bluto's duty to purchase ads through Olive, and Popeye's actions excused Bluto's duty to Olive. | A |
After a bomb explosion in an airport locker, Detective Jones received some information from Carlos, an informant who had given him reliable information several times in the past, that Karl was a member of a radical group that took credit for the bombing. Carlos told Jones that, three months before, he had been in Karl's apartment and on that occasion had seen what appeared to be some sticks of dynamite. Reasonably believing that Carlos's information established probable cause, Jones prepared an affidavit for a search warrant. After the warrant was issued, Jones and a group of police raided Karl's apartment. No evidence connecting Karl with the bombing was discovered, but in the search of his apartment the police discovered several grams of cocaine. At his trial for possession of narcotics, Karl's motion to suppress the evidence would probably be:
Options:
A. Denied, because Carlos was a reliable informant and Jones reasonably believed that Carlos's information was accurate and that the warrant was properly issued.
B. Granted, because in fact the police did not discover any evidence linking Karl to the bombings and, therefore, the seizure of the cocaine was fruit of the poisonous tree.
C. Granted, if the court determines that the information supplied by Carlos to Jones concerned information too remote in time to justify a claim of probable cause at the time Jones requested the search warrant.
D. Granted, because the search warrant was not issued for the purpose of searching Karl's apartment for illegal drugs. | A |
Filmont designed and constructed a playground for children. Shortly thereafter, Filmont dedicated the property to the city of Oakville, to be used as a public park. Ken, a 10-year-old resident of Oakville, was playing at the park when he fell off the monkey bars, breaking his leg. On his behalf, Ken's parents filed suit against Filmont and Oakville, on the grounds of negligence in the design of the monkey bars. At the trial, Filmont was granted a directed verdict, because Oakville now owns the park. Ken's parents appealed the granting of the directed verdict as to Filmont. The appellate court will most likely hold that:
Options:
A. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be upheld, because Filmont was relieved of liability when he dedicated the park to Oakville.
B. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be upheld, because Filmont designed and constructed the park in the public interest.
C. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be overturned if plaintiffs introduced evidence that Filmont dedicated the park to Oakville in an effort to avoid liability for the park's negligent design.
D. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be overturned, because Filmont's liability for negligence was not affected by the dedication of the park to Oakville. | D |
The city of West Rabbit's Foot, which lies astride a major interstate highway, recently passed a referendum declaring itself to be a "nuclear free zone." The referendum included a provision making criminal any importation of specified nuclear materials into the city limits. The law was immediately challenged in federal court by an interstate trucking firm which regularly transported prohibited nuclear materials through West Rabbit's Foot on the highway. The case ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court, which held in a 5-4 decision that the challenged ordinance was constitutional because the city had a rational basis for concluding that the citizens of West Rabbit's Foot would be safer if the prohibited materials were kept outside of town, and because the ordinance did not unduly burden interstate commerce. Many other towns and cities throughout the nation considered similar enactments after the Supreme Court decision was announced. You are a lobbyist hired by the trucking industry to persuade Congress that a federal statute prohibiting the state regulation of interstate transportation of nuclear materials must immediately be enacted. Congress member Bluster has tentatively agreed to sponsor such legislation, but wants to know whether such a federal statute would pass constitutional muster. You should advise Bluster that the proposed statute would probably be held:
Options:
A. Unconstitutional, since the Supreme Court has already ruled that local governments may prohibit specified nuclear materials from crossing their borders.
B. Unconstitutional, because the disparate treatment of interstate versus intrastate carriers of nuclear materials would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. Constitutional, because Congress has plenary power to regulate interstate commerce.
D. Constitutional, because the Supremacy Clause requires that state enactments bow to conflicting federal legislation. | C |
Shelley lived in a house on a large corner lot. A few hundred feet down the street was a convenience store used by many people in the neighborhood, and everyone would take a short cut across Shelley's front yard rather than staying on the sidewalk that bordered her lawn. The heavy foot traffic was starting to wear a path through her lawn, and everyone left soft drink cans and candy wrappers strewn all over her front yard. Shelley therefore decided to build a fence around her front lawn, and hired Jack, a local contractor, to do the work. The next afternoon, Jack started the job by surveying the property and digging post holes. After he had completed that task, he left to do another small job in that area, leaving behind a wheelbarrow with a shovel leaning against it. When Shelley noticed that Jack had left the wheelbarrow and shovel in her front yard, she called his office and spoke to his wife. Jack's wife said that he was on another job in the area and must have intended to pick up the wheelbarrow and shovel on his way back. Shelley said that was fine, and left to go to her weekly bridge club meeting. Later that evening, Jack, who had finished the other job, returned to his office without stopping at Shelley's house. Eric, who owned a house down the street from Shelley, was walking to the convenience store to pick up a six-pack of beer. Because it was summer, it was still quite light, although it was 7 p.m. When he came to Shelley's house he took his usual short cut. A police car with siren wailing went by on the main street just as Eric was walking by the wheelbarrow, and as he followed the police car with his eyes, he tripped over the shovel leaning against the wheelbarrow and fell, breaking his arm. Is Shelley liable to Eric for his broken arm and related damages?
Options:
A. No, because she did not create the condition that harmed him.
B. No, because the danger to which he was exposed was open and obvious.
C. Yes, because she was aware of the condition that harmed him.
D. Yes, because she knew that he frequently cut across her lawn on the way to the convenience store. | B |
The citizens of Tidytown prided themselves on the neatness and beauty of the town of 30,000 people. This was reflected in the tough anti-litter ordinances that had been passed by the city council. Littering offenses carried fines of up to $ 500$ and were always very strictly enforced. Center Park was located near the downtown business area of Tidytown. Signs at each of the park entrances, and on the many trash barrels situated throughout the park, carried conspicuous warnings against littering. On October 15, a group of students from nearby colleges chose Center Park in Tidytown as the site for their demonstration against the proliferation of weapons in space. Approximately 125 students gathered in the park with placards and banners, and several speakers addressed the group. One of the speakers, Demagoga, during the course of her speech, walked to one of the trash barrels and dumped the contents out on the ground. As she did so, she told her listeners, "This is what outer space is starting to look like, cluttered with the trash of nuclear weapons." The meeting broke up 15 minutes later. The students left the park peacefully, but no one bothered to pick up the trash or right the overturned barrel. Demagoga was arrested pursuant to the Tidytown littering ordinance. She was fined $ 500$ after her conviction. If Demagoga seeks to have her conviction set aside on constitutional grounds, she is likely to:
Options:
A. Lose, because the anti-littering ordinance furthers an important governmental interest and is not aimed at communication.
B. Lose, because Demagoga was convicted for her conduct rather than for what she said.
C. Win, because Demagoga's conduct constituted symbolic speech.
D. Win, unless the town can prove a compelling interest in its anti-litter laws. | A |
Ellen owns a high-style ladies' fashion store in Beverly Hills. Calvin is the designer and manufacturer of a world-famous line of original gowns. On April 1, Ellen and Calvin signed a written agreement wherein Ellen was appointed the "sole and exclusive" retail distributor for Calvin's clothes in Beverly Hills. The contract provided that Calvin was to have the absolute right to cease doing business with Ellen "at any time and for any reasons Calvin chooses." On May 1, Ellen handed Calvin a written order for $ 50,000$ worth of his original gowns, to be delivered to Ellen on September 1. Calvin did not sign an acknowledgment of Ellen's order, but in her presence he set aside the originals designated in her order by putting her name on them. To publicize her new line of merchandise, Ellen conducted a large advertising campaign announcing to the Beverly Hills public that she would have a wide selection of Calvin's originals on display on September 1. She also made substantial improvements to the store to display these clothes in lush and expensive settings. On August 15 , Calvin wired Ellen, "Sorry, darling, I have to invoke my right to terminate our arrangement. Your competitor in Beverly Hills, Shannon, has made an offer for the clothes you ordered that I simply couldn't pass up. I know you'll understand. Best wishes, Calvin." Upon receipt of the message, Ellen filed suit against Calvin. Calvin defends on the ground that his April 1 agreement with Ellen is unenforceable for lack of consideration because Ellen did not obligate herself under the contract in any way. How should the court rule on that issue?
Options:
A. Any want of consideration at the formation stage was cured by Ellen's actual tender of a large order.
B. The April agreement was, in effect, a "firm offer" between merchants and hence binding on both parties even though there was no consideration.
C. There was sufficient consideration in Ellen's implied promise to exercise her best efforts to promote the sale of Calvin's gowns.
D. Calvin set aside the gowns in Ellen's presence, and thereby apparently expressed his willingness to ship as per her order. | C |
Dorothy's very best friend was Melissa, and Dorothy shared all of her secrets with her. Dorothy and her husband, Hank, often brought Melissa, a divorcee, along on vacations and dining engagements. One day, however, after being tipped off by a mutual friend, Dorothy went through Hank's drawer and discovered steamy love letters to him from Melissa. The tone of the letters made it obvious that Hank and Melissa had been having an affair for at least three years. Dorothy became furious, but kept repeating to herself, "Don't get mad, get even!" She purchased a handgun and waited for the right moment to use it. The moment occurred at a large outdoor barbecue celebrating Melissa's birthday. At the barbecue, Dorothy gave the gun to Melissa's 10-year-old nephew, Sammy. She told Sammy, "Why don't you go up and point this gun at your Auntie Melissa. When you pull the trigger a sign will come out saying, 'BANG! and Happy Birthday,' just like in the circus." Sammy took the gun, pointed it at Melissa, and pulled the trigger. However, Sammy's aim was faulty, and when the gun discharged the bullet struck Hank, killing him. The police quickly linked Dorothy to the crime. Which of the following best describes the crime or crimes of which Dorothy can be properly convicted?
Options:
A. Murder of Hank and attempted murder of Melissa.
B. Murder of Hank, but not attempted murder of Melissa.
C. Attempted murder of Melissa, but not murder of Hank.
D. Attempted murder of Melissa or murder of Hank, but not both. | A |
Chaven was arrested in the city of Briggs, which is located in the state of Riverfront. He was charged with possession of illegal narcotics and placed on trial in the municipal court of Briggs. Chaven demanded a jury trial, which was duly granted. After the jury had been sworn, selected, and impaneled, Chaven's attorney, Fenway, filed a motion with the presiding judge praying for a dismissal based on a technical error in the bill of information drawn up by the city prosecutor. No witnesses had yet been sworn at the time Fenway filed the motion. The judge ordered an immediate recess while he considered the motion. Two days later he ruled in favor of defendant Chaven and dismissed the charges against him. A week later a state grand jury indicted Chaven for possession of illegal narcotics with intention to distribute same. The charges arose out of the same incident and arrest described above. Chaven was ordered to appear in the superior court of the state of Riverfront to answer the charges. Fenway immediately filed a motion on Chaven's behalf asserting that it would be unconstitutional to retry Chaven in the state court. The best argument against granting the motion is which of the following?
Options:
A. The city of Briggs and the state of Riverfront are separate sovereigns.
B. The state charge requires the proving of a fact not required by the municipal charge.
C. Chaven's trial in municipal court had not yet reached the stage where jeopardy attaches.
D. The dismissal of the case in municipal court was based on a technicality that did not go to the merits of the case. | D |
Darryl is being sued under a federal statute that allows an action for damages by victims of domestic violence committed on military bases or other federal land. The lawsuit stems from the alleged longtime physical abuse of Violet, who is the eight-year-old daughter of Darryl's live-in girlfriend. At trial in federal court, the plaintiff, Violet's legal guardian, calls Phil to the stand. Phil is a physician who treated Violet for her injuries. The plaintiff seeks to have Phil testify that, during his treatment of Violet, he told her that in order to treat her injuries properly, he needed to know how she received her injuries and the length of time that her condition had existed. Phil will testify that Violet told him that Darryl had beaten her, and that the beatings had taken place fairly regularly for several months. The testimony of Phil is:
Options:
A. Admissible only if Violet or her legal guardian has waived the physician-patient privilege.
B. Admissible as a statement made to a doctor to treat a physical condition.
C. Inadmissible, because the statement of Violet is not limited to a description of symptoms, but also includes a statement that Darryl caused her injuries.
D. Inadmissible, unless Violet is too young to testify or is otherwise unavailable. | B |
Oralee owned Blackacre for many years. After she reached retirement age, Oralee sold the property to Amber, who financed the purchase with a note secured by a 20 -year mortgage with Maritime Bank. Amber promptly recorded her deed, and for 20 years Amber promptly made every payment to the bank. During that period of time, Amber financed the purchase of three automobiles with loans from Maritime Bank, and her record of payment was exemplary. Five years after Amber had paid off the mortgage, she revisited the mortgage loan department of Maritime Bank. She told the loan officer that she wanted to borrow $ 30,000$ to help pay for the medical school education of a favorite niece, securing the loan with a mortgage on Blackacre. After confirming Amber's continuing employment status, the bank officer quickly approved the loan based upon Amber's excellent record with the bank. On June 3, Amber executed the note and the mortgage, and the bank gave Amber a certified check for $ 30,000$, which she immediately deposited in her account at National Bank. On June 4, Amber sold Blackacre to Brittany for $ 150,000$. Brittany, a wealthy actress and film director, paid Amber in cash. Brittany knew nothing about the mortgage. On June 5, Brittany recorded her deed to Blackacre. Two hours after Brittany recorded, Amber closed out her account at National Bank, which included the $ 30,000$ from the mortgage. Amber, an only child who had never married, had no "favorite niece." By nightfall, Amber was on a flight to Tahiti with the proceeds of the aforementioned transactions, plus $ 2$ million that she had secretly embezzled from her employer. Brittany did have a favorite niece, an aspiring actress named Christie. On the evening of June 8 , which was a Saturday, Brittany presented Christie with a deed to Blackacre as a gift. At 10 a.m. on June 10, Maritime Bank recorded its mortgage. At 2 p.m. on June 10, Christie recorded her deed. After Amber missed her first mortgage payment on July 1, Maritime Bank employees were sent scurrying to the title office. They discovered the deeds to Brittany and Christie, and the facts surrounding Amber's hasty departure soon surfaced. Maritime Bank demanded that Christie satisfy the $ 30,000$ mortgage. Brittany provided Christie with an attorney, who filed an appropriate suit to determine the various interests in Blackacre. The recording statute in the jurisdiction reads, in relevant part: A conveyance of an estate in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, unless the conveyance is recorded. The court should rule that:
Options:
A. Christie owns Blackacre subject to Maritime Bank's mortgage, because Christie is a donee.
B. Christie owns Blackacre subject to Maritime Bank's mortgage, because Maritime Bank recorded before Christie.
C. Christie owns Blackacre free of Maritime Bank's mortgage, because Brittany was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
D. Christie owns Blackacre free of Maritime Bank's mortgage, because the bank does not qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value. | C |
Carol owed June $ 90,000$, which was due on January 1. On January 15, Carol offered to pay June $ 80,000$ if June would agree to accept the amount in full satisfaction of the $ 90,000$ debt. June agreed and Carol paid $ 80,000$ to June. If June then sues Carol for $ 10,000$, June will:
Options:
A. Win, because Carol had an obligation to pay $ 90,000$ on January 1.
B. Lose, because of June's agreement to accept $ 80,000$.
C. Lose, because there was an accord and satisfaction.
D. Lose, because June agreed to the $ 80,000$ after the January 1 due date. | A |
State Blue has a statute making it a crime to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated. State Blue has another statute providing that a blood alcohol level of 10 raises a presumption of intoxication. State Blue police spotted Billy Bob's pickup weaving from lane to lane on the highway and they stopped the truck. Billy Bob took a breathalyzer test that indicated a $.12$ blood alcohol level, and so Billy Bob was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. At trial, at the close of all the evidence, and over Billy Bob's objection, the judge instructed the jury: "If you are convinced that, at the time Billy Bob was pulled over, his blood alcohol level was 10 or greater, you must presume that he was intoxicated." Billy Bob was convicted, and he is appealing on the ground that the judge's instruction was improper. The appellate court should:
Options:
A. Affirm, because the judge may instruct the jury on the law, and he merely cited the state statute.
B. Reverse and remand, because the jury should have been left to draw its own conclusion without the judge's instruction.
C. Reverse and remand, because the presumption might lead the jury to believe that the prosecution did not have to meet its burden of proving Billy Bob guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
D. Reverse and remand, because the instruction was substantially more prejudicial than probative. | C |
In which of the following situations is the named defendant most likely to suffer a criminal conviction that would be upheld on appeal?
Options:
A. Byron, who admits to an undercover operative that he regularly snorted Jack Daniels whiskey until last Christmas, is prosecuted under a law effective January 1 of this year that makes it a felony for anyone to snort any alcoholic beverage.
B. Chadwick, when asked by an off-duty police officer to sell two Super Bowl tickets for five times their face value, loudly proclaims, "I couldn't do that, stranger, because scalping is a felony in this state!" Chadwick, who is unaware that the buyer is a police officer, then whispers to the buyer, "But if you make it six times face value, you've got a deal, buddy." Also unknown to Chadwick, effective the previous week, it is no longer a criminal offense in that state to scalp tickets to sports events. Chadwick is prosecuted for attempted scalping.
C. State law makes it a misdemeanor to place water in a container that has held chlorine bleach. Duncan, whose car has overheated in the desert, walks several miles to a deserted gas station that has running water and fills an old chlorine bleach container with water to carry back to his car. On the way back, he is picked up by the highway patrol who notice the bleach container and ask what is inside. When Duncan answers, "Water," he is arrested for violation of the misdemeanor statute.
D. Ed, sitting at a bar whose bartender is an undercover police officer, says to the officer, "God, I'd like to kill my wife. If there was any way I thought I could do it and not get caught, I'd blow her away in a second." Ed is prosecuted for violating a statute that proscribes intent to murder. | C |
The Classical School is a private school located in the state of Romanova. Under an aidto-education statute passed by the state legislature a few years ago, The Classical School and certain other private schools receive state benefits. Among those received by The Classical School are: (i) free textbooks from the state, (ii) an exemption from state taxes, and (iii) $20 \%$ of its operating budget in the form of state grants. The remaining $80 \%$ of The Classical School's budget is covered by tuition fees and by donations from alumni and others. The Classical School is licensed by the state, but the state has no requirement for certification and licensure of teachers in private schools. Timon was hired to teach history at The Classical School and was given the standard three-year contract given to teachers in their first stint at the school. Timon, who had been a student activist in college, was annoyed every day when he faced classes wearing the uniform required by The Classical School. Timon kept his mouth shut until he was chosen, in the fall term of his second year, to give the monthly "History Enrichment Lecture" to the entire school. The topic of Timon's lecture was Europe between the two world wars. Timon's lecture was factual, balanced, and nonopinionated, until, at the end of his lecture, he told the assembled students, "We've talked a lot this afternoon about the rise of fascism, but think about this: there is absolutely no qualitative difference between those uniforms you're wearing and those worn by the Hitler Youth. If you had any gumption you'd organize a protest against having to wear them." After the speech, Timon was called to the administrative office by the headmaster and fired on the spot, despite Timon's protests that he had almost two years left on his contract. Timon requested a hearing and was curtly told to leave the premises of the school immediately. Charging that his constitutional rights had been violated, Timon filed suit in federal district court. Timon will:
Options:
A. Succeed, because the school's action violated Timon's freedom of speech rights.
B. Succeed, because Timon has been denied due process of law.
C. Fail, because Timon was not in his position long enough to acquire property rights in his job.
D. Fail, because assistance and involvement by the state did not result in the private school's action being conduct by the state. | D |
In the wake of revelations regarding safety hazards and toxic emissions from plants processing radioactive materials, a bill was introduced into the legislature of State Green barring the processing of plutonium, a radioactive artificial element, in State Green. After extensive public hearings it was clear that the bill had strong support in both houses of the state legislature and that, if called to a vote, the bill would pass easily. Governor Luddite had also made a major speech announcing that he would sign such a bill. However, a few members of the legislature raised questions as to the bill's constitutionality. The constitution of State Green provides that the state supreme court may hand down declaratory judgments, and the question of the bill's constitutionality was brought before the state supreme court. The court ruled that the bill, in the form it was introduced into the legislature, is constitutional. There is only one plutonium processing plant in State Green. It is owned and operated by Master Minerals Corporation. The plant operates under contract with the federal government and is highly profitable for Master Minerals. Master Minerals seeks to have the judgment of the state supreme court overturned, and its attorneys have filed appropriate papers to bring the case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court should:
Options:
A. Not hear the matter, because no case or controversy exists.
B. Review the state court's opinion and reverse it.
C. Review the state court's opinion and affirm it.
D. Not review the state court's opinion, because it is based on an independent state ground. | A |
Doobad was on trial for armed robbery. The defense placed Doobad's friend Wendt on the stand as an alibi witness. Wendt testified that at the time of the armed robbery Doobad was engaged in other activities with Wendt. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Wendt, "Isn't it true, Mr. Wendt, that the grand jury has indicted you for the same crime as Mr. Doobad?" Doobad's lawyer knew that Wendt had been indicted for the armed robbery and was to be tried separately in two weeks, but she vigorously objected to the prosecutor's question. Her objection should be:
Options:
A. Sustained, because Wendt has been indicted, but not convicted, of the armed robbery.
B. Sustained, because prior bad acts may not be introduced to impeach a witness.
C. Overruled, because Wendt's indictment tends to show his criminal propensities.
D. Overruled, because Wendt's indictment tends to show bias on the part of the witness. | D |
The President of the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with Nerddistan, a sovereign nation, regarding the probate of estates. One part of the agreement provided that, should a citizen of Nerddistan die owning property in the United States or its Commonwealths or Territories, the executor or administrator appointed in Nerddistan should have the power to deal with such property and a separate American administrator or executor need not be appointed. Reciprocal rights were extended to United States citizens who died owning property in Nerddistan. Tadzik, a citizen of Nerddistan, died owning property in the United States state of Gulfstream. Tadzik's will appointed Elwwan, a citizen of Nerddistan, as executor. A law in the state of Gulfstream requires that all property left by will within the state of Gulfstream be probated by an executor or administrator who is a resident of Gulfstream. If Elwwan desires to act as executor of the estate and properly distribute the Gulfstream property in accordance with Tadzik's will, should he be allowed to do so, notwithstanding the Gulfstream statute?
Options:
A. No, because the probate of real property within the state is within the exclusive purview of the state.
B. No, because an executive agreement is not a treaty, and state law takes precedence over executive agreements.
C. Yes, because executive agreements supersede state laws.
D. Yes, because executive agreements are entitled to full faith and credit. | C |
Rupert held a majority ownership interest in one of the three daily newspapers in City, as well as numerous other media outlets across the country. When a popular City radio station was put on the market, he entered into negotiations to purchase it. However, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") blocked the sale on the basis of a regulation forbidding ownership of a radio or television station to any entity owning a daily newspaper in the same city. The next year, however, the FCC suspended enforcement of that regulation to permit the radio station to be sold to Sumner, the owner of another daily newspaper in City. Rupert filed an action in federal district court seeking to enjoin the sale. The court should:
Options:
A. Decide the case on the merits, because Rupert can claim that the FCC's unequal treatment of the two transactions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
B. Decide the case on the merits, because Rupert can claim that the FCC's refusal to allow him to own the station violated his freedom of speech rights under the First Amendment.
C. Dismiss the action, because Rupert cannot show that enjoining the transaction will eliminate any injury that he might have suffered.
D. Dismiss the action, because the federal government has the power to regulate ownership of the broadcast media. | C |
The state of Petrolia derived most of its income from extractive industries, especially its extensive oil and natural gas fields. However, a worldwide drop in the price of petroleum was severe enough to cause a depression in Petrolia, and the state's unemployment rate soared. To counter the effect the depression was having on Petrolia's citizens, the state legislature passed a law requiring all employers operating in the state's oil and natural gas fields to give preference in hiring to residents of Petrolia. The bill banned the hiring of nonresidents unless no other qualified person could be found to fill an oilfield or natural gas field position. Under prevailing economic conditions, the statute was tantamount to a total ban on hiring of nonresidents because so many unemployed oil and gas workers had been created by the depression and little new exploration was taking place. "Roughnecks," as oilfield workers call themselves, tend to be an itinerant lot, moving from place to place as new fields are brought into production. Driller was a 48-year-old roughneck whose permanent residence was in Louisiana. He had worked on offshore rigs in the Gulf waters off his home state, but Driller had also worked in Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska, Kuwait, Indonesia, and Venezuela. Upon hearing that one of the few independent companies actively exploring in Petrolia had struck a new field in that state, Driller drove to the field office of Ewing Exploration Company in Petrolia and applied for a job. Looking at Driller's extensive experience as described on Driller's resume, Ewing's personnel officer sadly shook his head. He indicated that Driller's qualifications were better than anyone's working in the field, but that he had more applications from experienced Petrolia residents than he had jobs to offer. The sole reason given for not hiring Driller was the preferential hiring statute favoring state residents. Driller filed suit in federal district court challenging the statute. The court should rule in favor of:
Options:
A. Petrolia, because employment discrimination is only unconstitutional if it involves race, religion, alienage, or sex.
B. Petrolia, because the state's interest in hiring local residents outweighs the interest of nonresidents.
C. Driller, because the law denies him the privileges and immunities of state citizenship.
D. Driller, because the preferential hiring law impairs Driller's rights under the Contract Clause of the federal Constitution. | C |
Devlin is being tried for murder in the bludgeoning death of Vandross. Devlin denies any involvement in the crime. He calls Westin to the stand. Westin testifies that, in his opinion, Devlin is a nonviolent, peaceable man. Which of the following, if offered by the prosecution, would most likely be admissible?
Options:
A. A neighbor's testimony that Westin has beaten his wife on several occasions.
B. A police officer's testimony that Devlin has a general reputation in the community as a violent person.
C. A neighbor's testimony that Devlin has a reputation for being untruthful.
D. Evidence that Devlin has a conviction for aggravated battery. | B |
Oiler, an investment banker in Big City, began having cash flow problems. Seeing no other way out, he decided to sell Cattlefork, a distant ranch that had been in his family for generations, to his childhood nemesis, Astro. Not wanting to lose control of the family property forever, Oiler inserted a provision in the deed to Astro binding "Astro, his heirs, and assigns" to offer "Oiler, his heirs, and assigns" the right of first refusal to purchase Cattlefork when it was offered for sale. Astro was not happy with the provision, but Oiler refused to sell the property without the covenant included. Astro reluctantly agreed. Cattlefork was conveyed to Astro, and the deed containing the right of first refusal was duly recorded. Astro lived on Cattlefork for 23 years. His dislike for Oiler was so great that he did not want Oiler to ever get the property back. Therefore, Astro devised a stratagem to get around the covenant. When informed that Cowboy was interested in buying the property, Astro decided to execute his plan. Astro's friend Ranger agreed to act as a "straw man" to avoid the consequences of the covenant. Astro deeded Cattlefork as a "gift" to Ranger. Ranger recorded the deed, which did not contain the right of first refusal covenant, and Ranger then sold the land to Cowboy for $ 200,000$, giving the proceeds of the sale to Astro. Cowboy knew nothing about the right of first refusal because he inspected only Ranger's deed from Astro. When Oiler learned of what had happened, he filed suit to compel conveyance of the land to him. To back up his words, Oiler produced a $ 200,000$ letter of credit. The jurisdiction in which the property is located has an unmodified common law Rule Against Perpetuities and the following recording statute: Any conveyance of an interest in land, other than a lease for less than one year, shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice, whose conveyance is first recorded. How will the court most likely rule in this case?
Options:
A. Oiler will prevail, because a deed with the covenant granting the right of first refusal was in Cowboy's chain of title.
B. Oiler will prevail, because Astro and Ranger acted in bad faith.
C. Oiler will not prevail, because the covenant is void under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
D. Oiler will not prevail, because the covenant, although enforceable against Astro personally, does not run with the land. | C |
Owen owned Copperacre, a large tract of mineral-rich land in a sparsely populated area. He entered into a lease with Yukon, a prospector who was interested in developing the land for mining. The term of the lease was two years and gave Yukon an option to buy the property at any time after the first year. Yukon did not record the lease. Six months later, Yukon left Copperacre for a period of time to prospect in Mexico, leaving no goods on the land that would identify him. Owen then conveyed Copperacre in fee simple to Darlene, who had inspected the property while Yukon was in Mexico and was unaware of the prior transaction. Darlene did not immediately record her deed. After three months in Mexico, Yukon returned to Copperacre and encountered Darlene. A statute in the jurisdiction provides, in part: No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land, other than a lease for less than one year, is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded. If Darlene brings an action to quiet title to Copperacre, how should the court rule?
Options:
A. Darlene takes title subject to Yukon's leasehold interest and his option to purchase because Yukon acquired his interest first.
B. Darlene takes title subject to Yukon's leasehold interest but not his option to purchase because he does not yet have the power to exercise the option.
C. Darlene takes title subject to Yukon's leasehold interest and option to purchase regardless of whether she now records, because she will have had notice of Yukon's interest before recording.
D. Darlene takes title free of Yukon's leasehold interest and option because Yukon failed to record before Darlene purchased the property without notice of his interest. | A |
Soar Airlines Flight 226 was a flight from Miami to Washington, D.C., with an hour stopover in Orlando. At the Orlando Airport, Mike and Nick, holding tickets to Washington, D.C., disembarked from the plane. Each carried a rather large piece of carry-on baggage. Mike went into a telephone booth and placed a call, while Nick stood with his back to the booth, looking around in all available directions. Sam, an officer of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration assigned to watch for drug activities at the Orlando Airport, noticed Mike and Nick. As soon as Mike emerged from the phone booth, Sam approached the two men. Sam identified himself and asked Mike and Nick, "Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?" Both agreed. After asking about such matters as their destination, Sam asked, "Do you mind if we go into my office and inspect what's in your hand baggage?" Both Mike and Nick agreed. In the office, Sam searched both pieces of luggage and found nothing suspicious in either. He then proceeded to pat down Mike and Nick. He found nothing on Mike, but he felt a bulge around Nick's stomach. Further investigation revealed that Nick was wearing a pouch around his waist which proved to contain cocaine. Mike and Nick were charged with possession of cocaine. Assume for purposes of this question only that Nick pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. At Mike's preliminary hearing it has been stipulated that Mike owns the cocaine, but Mike's attorney brings a motion at the hearing to suppress the introduction of the cocaine at trial. How should the court rule on the motion?
Options:
A. In favor, because Mike was not in possession of the cocaine.
B. In favor, because Mike and Nick had a reasonable expectation of privacy when Sam elected to search them.
C. Against, because Mike has already stipulated that he owns the cocaine.
D. Against, because the search of Nick did not violate Mike's reasonable expectation of privacy. | C |
Tommy was in his third year of college, and Tommy's father, Dad, often sent Tommy money to help Tommy pay for books and for living expenses. During the last winter break, Tommy brought his girlfriend Gidget home to meet his family. Dad took an instant dislike to Gidget, and has continually lectured Tommy about her, insisting that Tommy could find someone "more refined" to date. In early March, Tommy telephoned Dad from College Village, where the university was located. Tommy asked Dad for $ 1,000$. Dad told Tommy, "I'll send you the thousand bucks, but if you don't find a classier girlfriend than that Gidget person, this is the last subsidy you'll get from me, young man." Tommy thanked Dad, and promptly went to a jeweler with Gidget, where Tommy and Gidget selected an engagement ring priced at $ 5,000$. Tommy, who was 21 years of age, signed a contract to purchase the ring. The contract required Tommy to make a $1,000$ down payment and then to make a series of installment payments. Tommy planned to use the $ 1,000$ check he was expecting from Dad for the down payment. Tommy and Gidget both worked at part-time, minimum wage jobs while they attended school. Through a friend who lived in College Village, Dad discovered Tommy's plan to buy Gidget an expensive engagement ring. Dad refused to send Tommy the $ 1,000$ check. The jeweler is now demanding that Tommy make the $ 1,000$ down payment on the ring and pay the first installment as well. Can Tommy legally enforce Dad's promise to send Tommy $ 1,000$ ?
Options:
A. Yes, because Tommy relied on Dad's promise and the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies.
B. Yes, because Tommy was an intended beneficiary.
C. No, because Dad's promise was a gift unsupported by consideration.
D. No, because Dad did not promise to send the money with the expectation of inducing Tommy to buy an engagement ring for Gidget. | D |
Tekmart, a leading computer supply retailer, contacted Megabyte, a manufacturer of blank diskettes, on October 25 to supplement the supply of diskettes at Tekmart's area stores. In response, Megabyte offered to supply 50 cartons of boxed diskettes at $ 200$ a carton, for a total price of $ 10,000$, delivery one week after acceptance, and sent a letter containing those contractual terms to Tekmart on October 26 . The president of Tekmart signed the letter on October 27 without making any changes to it and sent it back to Megabyte by first class mail. The next day, having not heard from Tekmart, Megabyte's sales manager contacted the president of Tekmart and informed him that, if Tekmart accepted by the end of the month, it would receive a $1 \%$ discount in the total price. When Tekmart's president responded that he had already sent the acceptance, the sales manager assured him that the discount would still apply. On October 31, Tekmart received a circular from Dataco offering comparable diskettes for $5 \%$ less than Megabyte's price. The president of Tekmart immediately faxed a rejection to Megabyte. Megabyte received the rejection immediately but took no action on it. The next day, November 1, Megabyte received the signed contract from Tekmart. What is the status of the agreement between the parties?
Options:
A. An enforceable contract was formed for $ 9,900$ because Tekmart accepted before October 31 and needed no additional consideration for the oral modification.
B. An enforceable contract was formed for $ 10,000$ because the parol evidence rule precludes Tekmart from offering evidence of the telephone conversation.
C. An enforceable contract was formed for $ 10,000$ because, even though Tekmart accepted before October 31 , the Statute of Frauds makes the oral modification between the parties unenforceable.
D. An enforceable contract was not formed between the parties because Tekmart's rejection was received before its acceptance. | C |