Comp Review

Paul from California sued Dillon from Arizona for breach of contract for $100

000 related to the sale of a business. In the same case, Dillon filed a claim against Paul for breach of the same contract. Dillon also asserted a second claim for breach of an earlier contract on an unrelated matter seeking $50,000. Paul filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Which of the following is correct? A) The court has subject matter jurisdiction over both of Dillon's claims. B) The court has subject matter jurisdiction over only Dillon's second claim. C) The court has subject matter jurisdiction over only Dillon's first claim. D) The court has no subject matter jurisdiction over either claim., C) The court has subject matter jurisdiction over only Dillon's first claim.

the state can always regulate economic activities.

A) There is no rational basis for this economic regulation.

Alice purchased a new leaf blower manufactured by Gardening Inc. On a fall afternoon when there was an abundance of leaves over her expansive front lawn Alice decided to use the leaf blower for the first time. As she was using the leaf blower near her neighbor Patrick's driveway it ignited from getting overheated and sparks flew out from the leaf blower injuring Patrick. It was determined that the sparking occurred because Gardening Inc. failed to carefully inspect a compressor belt before marketing the leaf blower. If Patrick asserts a products liability claim based on negligence against Gardening Inc. will he prevail? A) Yes if the defect could have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable care by Gardening Inc. B) Yes because Gardening Inc. knew that there was a risk that the leaf blower could spark. C) No because Alice and not Patrick purchased the leaf blower. D) No assuming that the risk of sparking was small.

A) Yes if the defect could have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable care by Gardening Inc.

Ellis hired Farah to cater his corporate anniversary party for $15000. Ellis gave Farah a deposit of $5000. Ellis created an expensive publicity and media campaign to announce the event costing $10000. Farah got a better contract with a well-known celebrity and cancelled her agreement with Ellis to do the corporate event before Ellis paid anything beyond the deposit. Ellis hired Chef Tell a famous TV chef instead at a cost of $25000 but Ellis had to change the date and this added $2000 to the cost of the media campaign. Ellis sued Farah for breach of contract. If Ellis sues for restitution what amount will he recover? A. $5000 B. $10000 C. $15000 D. $25000

A. $5000 A is the best answer because restitution would require disgorgement of the benefit from the defendant and the Farah received only the $5000. B, C, and D are incorrect because they do not represent amounts that Farah received.

Bill agrees to loan Hal $500000 to purchase a home pursuant to a 20 year mortgage agreement. Hal agrees to make payments to Bill on the mortgage. Hal sells the home to Sandra who agrees to be personally liable to Bill on the mortgage. Bill agrees to discharge Hal from all liability for the mortgage and to accept payments from Sandra and Hal consents. This arrangement is: A. A novation and Hal is no longer liable to Bill. B. A delegation of Hal's duties and Hal remains liable to Bill. C. An accord and satisfaction and Hal remains liable to Bill. D. None of the above.

A. A novation and Hal is no longer liable to Bill. A is correct because this is a novation and Hal is no longer liable to Bill because Bill has agreed to accept the performance of Sandra instead. B is incorrect because Bill's agreement is to accept performance from Sandra and to release Hal. C is incorrect because an accord and satisfaction is an agreement through which the parties to a contract agree that a subsequent performance is agreed upon in discharge of the existing duties under a contract between the same parties. D is incorrect because A is correct.

Leon sued his employer Equi-Fax in federal court for age discrimination based on federal law and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on several age-related comments following which Leon was terminated in connection with a reduction in force in which 20% of the company's employees were let go. At trial Equi-Fax made a motion for directed verdict which the court denied. Leon prevailed and the jury awarded Leon $500000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. What procedures are available to Equi-Fax to address the jury's decision including the merits of the case and the excessiveness of the verdict? I. Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. II. Motion for new trial. III. Appeal. A. All of the above. B. Only I and II. C. Only II and III. D. Only I and III.

A. All of the above. A is the best answer as all of these procedural devices could be used given that a JNOV would allow the court to enter a verdict in favor of Equi-Fax and could attack the damages in a motion for new trial as well as on appeal. Therefore B C and D are incorrect.

Alex was a collector of rare baseball cards and badly wanted a rare baseball card owned by Baskerville. Alex decided to contact his best friend Charlie to ask him to break into Baskerville's home and take the baseball card under the cover of darkness. Charlie told Alex he would try to get the card and then broke into Baskerville's home one evening when he knew that Baskerville was out of town at a baseball card collector's convention and stole the rare baseball card which was on display and gave the card to Alex. Under common law Alex is guilty of: I. Conspiracy to commit burglary II. Conspiracy to commit larceny III. Receiving stolen property A. All of the above. B. I and II. C. I and III. D. II and III.

A. All of the above. A is the best answer. Alex is liable for conspiracy to commit burglary because he and Charlie agreed to commit the crime of burglary by breaking into Baskerville's home under cover of darkness with the intent to commit the theft of the card which is a larceny which is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the property of another. Alex is also guilty of receiving stolen property because he received the property knowing it was stolen and with intent to deprive Baskerville of the property.

Lassiter decided to destroy his dilapidated building in order to collect the insurance money. He broke into the building and carefully searched it to make sure no one was inside. He failed however to see a vagrant asleep in an office closet. He started a fire. The building was destroyed and the vagrant died from burns a week later. Two days after the fire Lassiter filed an insurance claim in which he stated that he had no information about the cause of the fire. If Lassiter is guilty of felony murder it is because the vagrant's death occurred in connection with the felony of A. Arson. B. Insurance fraud. C. Conspiracy. D. Burglary.

A. Arson. Answer choice A is correct. Lassiter committed arson by intentionally burning down the building. Modern statutes have expanded the definition of arson to include buildings other than dwellings such as here. Lassiter is guilty of felony murder because he committed arson and the vagrant's death was a result of the commission of that felony. Answer choices B and C are incorrect because neither the insurance fraud nor the conspiracy is considered an inherently dangerous felony for the purpose of the felony murder rule. Answer choice D is incorrect because although burglary is a sufficiently dangerous felony Lassiter did not commit a burglary because there was no breaking of the building (i.e. he had permission to enter by the owner). Furthermore even if this had qualified as a burglary the answer choice would still be incorrect because the murder was caused by the arson not a burglary.

Saul has a car dealership through which he sells used cars and Bella is interested in purchasing a used car but she doesn't get paid until next week. Sam writes a memo promising to sell Bella a used Volvo license number ABC123 for $5000 with the offer to remain open for two weeks and gets his boss to sign off on it. The next day Saul gets a better offer and sells the Volvo for $5500. A week later Bella returns for the Volvo and Sam tells her he already sold it. Bella shops around looking for another car but only finds a comparable one for $5500 and ultimately buys one at the higher price. If Bella sues Sam for breach of contract what result? A. Bella wins because Sam agreed to keep the offer open. B. Bella wins because she relied on Sam's agreement to her detriment. C. Sam wins because the promise to keep the offer open had no consideration. D. Sam wins because the promise was not signed by both parties.

A. Bella wins because Sam agreed to keep the offer open. A is the best answer because Sam's promise is a firm offer by a merchant Sam in a signed writing that provided that the offer would be held open for the specified period of time. Consideration is not required under the merchant's firm offer rule so C is incorrect. The memo will satisfy the statute of frauds requirement because it is signed by the party to be bound so C is incorrect. B is incorrect because there are no facts suggesting Bella took any action in detrimental reliance and that is not necessary to enforce the promise made here by Sam.

Art owned a factory manufacturing widgets. On April 1 Art sent a letter in which Art offered to sell 10000 widgets to Ben to be delivered by May 1. Ben replied by mail on April 6 accepting the offer. Art called Ben on April 8 and left a voicemail message for Ben indicating that Art had sold the widgets to Corry so they were no longer available. Art received Ben's letter on April 10. What result? A. Ben's acceptance is effective if it was properly addressed. B. Ben's acceptance was too late even if properly addressed. C. Art revoked his offer effectively by leaving the voicemail for Ben. D. Ben's acceptance is effective upon receipt by Art.

A. Ben's acceptance is effective if it was properly addressed. A is the best answer under the mailbox rule which provides that an acceptance is effective upon dispatch if properly addressed. B is incorrect because it was not too late given that no time was stated in the offer and he returned the acceptance within a reasonable time. C is incorrect because the revocation was communicated after the acceptance was mailed and the acceptance is effective upon dispatch under the mailbox rule. D is incorrect because an acceptance is effective on dispatch not upon receipt.

Sam put his home on the market for sale for $1000000. Brenda wanted to buy the home but needed to sell her own home first. Brenda asked Sam to give her an option to purchase his home for $1000000 for a period of 30 days. Sam requested that Brenda pay him $10000 for the 30 day option. Brenda paid Sam the $10000 and their deal was confirmed in a written agreement which both Brenda and Sam signed. Two weeks later Don offered to purchase Sam's home and Sam agreed to sell the home to Don. What are Brenda's rights? A. Brenda can sue Sam for breach of the option contract. B. Brenda cannot sue Sam because the option was unenforceable. C. Brenda cannot sue Sam because the option was revocable. D. Brenda cannot sue Sam because Sam is not a merchant.

A. Brenda can sue Sam for breach of the option contract. A is the best answer because an option contract at common law is enforceable where consideration is given. B is incorrect because the option is enforceable for the foregoing reasons. C is incorrect because the option is not revocable if consideration is given and there is an explicit promise to keep the offer open. D is incorrect because the transaction is not governed by the UCC and it does not matter whether Sam is a merchant.

Diana wanted to kill her husband Hans because she found out he was having an adulterous affair. She planned a spring time trip to the mountains and planned to go hiking to a place they had hiked at on their honeymoon. Once on the hike Diana took the opportunity to push Hans over a cliff and Hans fell to his death. What is the most serious crime Diana can be charged with? A. First degree murder. B. Second degree murder. C. Voluntary manslaughter. D. Involuntary manslaughter.

A. First degree murder. A is the best answer because her conduct was premeditated and she had intent to kill Hans. B is incorrect because she can be charged with first degree murder. C is incorrect because it does not appear that she acted in the heat of passion and she can be charged with first degree murder. D is incorrect because her conduct was intentional not reckless or negligent.

Dave decided to break into Victoria's house in order to steal money. Dave entered the house by opening an unlocked window late one evening but once he was inside he looked around and could not find her purse. Suddenly he heard a strange noise and then he changed his mind and left without taking anything. Victoria called the police. Dave hid at the home of his friend Fred for three days telling Fred that he needed to hang out for a while in order to evade arrest. Dave is guilty of: A. Burglary and attempted larceny. B. Burglary because he entered with intent to steal but he is not guilty of attempted larceny. C. Attempted larceny because he had intent to steal but not burglary. D. No crime because he did not take anything.

A. Burglary and attempted larceny. A is the best answer because burglary is breaking and entering a dwelling in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony here larceny. The breaking occurred when he opened the unlocked window. He had specific intent to commit larceny and took a substantial step toward the larceny when he entered Victoria's home looking for money to steal even though he did not take anything and left. Because larceny is a specific intent crime the prosecution does not have to prove that a specific result actually occurred. B is incorrect because Dave is guilty of attempted larceny. C is incorrect because he is guilty of burglary. D is incorrect because he is guilty of attempted larceny and burglary.

Deb worked for the Postal Service as a manager of a small post office in a rural area. Each night she placed the proceeds from customers in a pouch and took the pouch to the bank. One evening she put the pouch in her car and drove home without going to the bank. The next day she went to a casino and lost the Postal funds. At common law Deb is most likely to be found guilty of A. Embezzlement B. Larceny C. Robbery D. Larceny by trick

A. Embezzlement A is the best answer since Deb was entrusted to take the funds to the bank and therefore had lawful possession. Larceny is less likely because the taking was not considered trespassory at common law so B is incorrect. C is incorrect because here there is no threat of force or violence associated with the taking of the funds. D is incorrect because Larceny by trick requires a misrepresentation not present here.

Victor is a famous dancer with a well-known dance troupe touring world-wide. After Donna met him on tour and spent a romantic evening with Victor she sent him a note indicating that unless he paid her $100000 she would go to the press and disclose information about his sexual orientation. Donna can be convicted of A. Extortion B. Obtaining property by false pretenses if Victor pays Donna. C. Robbery if Victor pays Donna. D. None of the above

A. Extortion A is the best answer because extortion involves a threat to disclose information that would disgrace the victim. B is incorrect because there is no indication the statements were false. C is incorrect because there is no threat of violence as required for robbery. D is incorrect because A is correct.

Ben was low on money and decided to rob a bank. However he decided beforehand that no one would get hurt during the robbery. The bank teller died as a result of a fall after being slapped by Ben during the bank robbery when she refused to give him the money he demanded. Ben will be guilty of: A. First degree murder based on the felony murder rule. B. Voluntary manslaughter because Ben acted in the heat of passion. C. Involuntary manslaughter based on criminal negligence. D. No crime because the death was not caused by acts within the res gestae.

A. First degree murder based on the felony murder rule. A is the best answer because robbery is a serious and inherently dangerous felony so that a death caused during a robbery may be charged as murder under the felony murder rule and a murder caused by commission of a robbery is generally a first degree murder. B is incorrect because there is no indication that Ben was provoked or that a reasonable person would have been provoked to such a degree they would be compelled to kill. C is incorrect because criminal negligence is the deliberate breach of a duty exposing another to an extreme risk and here Ben did not have a duty to the teller involved. D is incorrect because the res gestae in the scope of the crime is comprised of the first substantial step that marks the start of the crime through the time defendant is arrested or leaves the scene. Here Ben's conduct resulting in the death of the teller occurred during the res gestae.

Ben was short on rent money so he decided to rob a bank. Ben entered the bank pulled a gun on the teller and told her to give him all the cash in her cash drawer. The teller fainted from fright fell to the ground and died as a result of the fall. The police arrested Ben after they were alerted by an alarm. Ben will be guilty of: A. First degree murder based on the felony murder rule. B. Voluntary manslaughter because Ben acted in the heat of passion. C. Involuntary manslaughter based on criminal negligence. D. No crime because the death was not caused by acts within the res gestae.

A. First degree murder based on the felony murder rule. A is the best answer because robbery is a serious and inherently dangerous felony so that a death caused during a robbery may be charged as murder under the felony murder rule and a murder caused by commission of a robbery is generally a first degree murder. B is incorrect because there is no indication that Ben was provoked or that a reasonable person would have been provoked to such a degree they would be compelled to kill. C is incorrect because criminal negligence is the deliberate breach of a duty exposing another to an extreme risk and here Ben did not have a duty to the teller involved. D is incorrect because the res gestae in the scope of the crime is comprised of the first substantial step that marks the start of the crime through the time defendant is arrested or leaves the scene. Here Ben's conduct resulting in the death of the teller occurred during the res gestae.

Del hated his neighbor Ned because Ned allowed his dog to run around on Del's property wrecking his landscaping. This had gone on for many years. After Ned returned from the hospital following a heart attack the problem got much worse because no one was watching Ned's dog. Del decided enough was enough and planned to get rid of Ned once and for all. Del decided he would scare Ned late at night hoping to trigger Ned to have another heart attack. Del rang Ned's doorbell late one night. When Ned came to the door Del dressed as a vagrant ran into Ned's house shouting Give me something to eat! Ned indeed suffered a heart attack and died on the spot. The most serious crime Del can be convicted of is: A. First degree murder due to Del's premeditation and deliberation. B. Second degree murder because Del's conduct was not premeditated. C. Voluntary manslaughter based on Del's passionate hatred of his neighbor Ned. D. Involuntary manslaughter based on Del's criminal negligence.

A. First degree murder due to Del's premeditation and deliberation. A is the best answer. Del's conduct is deliberate and premeditated and he reflected on it and planned his actions so it was not done in the heat of passion. B is incorrect because Del's conduct was in fact premeditated. C is incorrect because Del did not act in the heat of passion. D is incorrect because Del's conduct was intentionally intended to kill Ned not just negligent.

Bank entered into a contract with Oliver the owner of a commercial building to lease part of the building for purposes of running a retail bank. Oliver agreed to provide such security as appropriate for the premises. Ron robbed the bank and in the process injured Tim a teller employed by the Bank. Tim sued the Bank and Oliver. Tim alleged that he was a third party beneficiary of Bank's contract with Oliver. Oliver moved to dismiss Tim's claim against him. How should the court rule? A. Grant the motion if Tim was not an intended beneficiary of the lease. B. Grant the motion because Tim was not in privity with Oliver C. Deny the motion because Tim was an intended beneficiary of the lease. D. Deny the motion because Tim assumed the risk when he took the job.

A. Grant the motion if Tim was not an intended beneficiary of the lease. A is the best answer as Tim as an employee is not likely to be an intended third party beneficiary of a general provision in a lease to provide security to a commercial tenant based on the Masad case. B is incorrect because a lack of privity is not determinative of the right to sue as a third party beneficiary. C is incorrect because Tim is not likely to be an intended beneficiary under the lease. D is incorrect because assumption of risk is a defense to a tort claim not to a breach of contract claim.

Alan brought a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a statement made by his supervisor Sam during a performance review indicating that Alan had not properly managed his time during his last period of review. The two worked remotely and were located in different states. Alan sought $100000 in damages. Alan did not suffer any medical symptoms and did not seek any medical attention due to stress and continued working during the period following the review up through the filing of the lawsuit. A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress. At trial after Alan testified to Sam's conduct Sam moved for a directed verdict/ judgment as a matter of law. How should the court rule? A. Grant the motion unless reasonable jurors could differ as to the result. B. Grant the motion because a verdict for Alan would shock the conscience. C. Deny the motion because there is a genuine issue of material fact. D. Deny the motion because Alan has a right to a jury trial based on the U.S. Constitution.

A. Grant the motion unless reasonable jurors could differ as to the result. A is the best answer because the standard for a directed verdict is that no reasonable juror could find for a party which is the case here. B is incorrect because the test for a directed verdict is whether a reasonable juror could find for the party not whether a verdict would shock the conscience which is one of the tests for a new trial. C is incorrect because there is no genuine issue on these facts and the test stated is used on a summary judgment motion not a motion for a directed verdict. D is incorrect because a directed verdict motion allows the court to take the case from the jury where reasonable jurors could not differ.

Farmer is in the business of selling vegetables to grocery stores and offers to deliver 20 boxes of vegetables to Grocery Store Owner for $20 a box. Grocery Store Owner agrees and on May 1 Farmer faxes a signed preprinted purchase order form that states 20 boxes of vegetable will be delivered to 10 Grocery Store Lane at a cost of $20 a box. Farmer to deliver product by May 10 and will unload the boxes by the back door of the store. On May 2 Grocery Store Owner returns the purchase order form signed and with a handwritten note stating Farmer will stack the boxes in piles of four by the back door of the store. On May 10 Farmer delivers the 20 boxes of vegetables leaving them in piles of five by the back door of the store. If Grocery Store Owner sues Farmer for breach of contract who will prevail? A. Grocer because Farmer was required to stack the boxes in piles of four. B. Grocer because Farmer's breach was material. C. Farmer because he never accepted Grocer's term pertaining to stacking the boxes in piles of four. D. Farmer because Grocer's proposal was a counter-offer.

A. Grocer because Farmer was required to stack the boxes in piles of four. A is the best answer because Grocer accepted the contract and offered an additional term which becomes part of the contract unless it materially alters the contract or is objected to by Farmer neither of which seem to be the case here. B is incorrect because this is a contract for sale of goods and the perfect tender rule applies rather than material breach. C is incorrect because an additional term becomes part of the contract if it does not materially alter the contract and was not objected to which is the case here. D is incorrect because Grocer's communication was an acceptance with an additional term not a counter-offer.

Dale's friend Van promised to sell some cocaine for Dale but Van failed to give Dale the money for the cocaine. Dale heard Van was staying at his friend Esther's house so Dale went to Esther's house and banged on the door in the morning. No one answered but Dale thought Van was inside so he kicked in the door. At gunpoint Dale grabbed Van by the arm and took Van from Esther's house and forced Van into Dale's car saying Drive and get me my money or you die. Dale kept the gun low but pointed at Van at all times. Esther called the police who managed to locate Dale and blocked his car. Van jumped out of the moving car which slammed into a tree. Police arrested Dale. If Dale Is charged with kidnapping he should be found: A. Guilty because Dale used held a gun to threaten Van. B. Guilty but only if the car was locked while they were driving. C. Not guilty because Van jumped out of the car. D. Not guilty because Van did not know if the gun was loaded.

A. Guilty because Dale used held a gun to threaten Van. A is the best answer because Dale used the threat of force to confine Van in car to further his collection of drug money. B is incorrect because Van was confined by threat of force. C is incorrect because it does not negate the fact that Van was confined in the car. C is incorrect for the same reason. D is incorrect because Van was confined in fact regardless of whether or not he knew whether the gun was loaded.

A citizen of Cauliflowernia paid $200 and collected 500000 signatures according to proper procedure to put an initiative on the next ballot. The initiative makes it a crime for any person to engage in 'buggery or same-sex touching of one person's genitals to another person's genitals of the same-sex' punishable by death. Even if the ballot succeeded it would be unconstitutional because: A. The right to privacy includes the right of two consenting adults be sexually intimate regardless of sexual orientation B. Equal protection invalidates any civil or criminal law that classifies people by sexual orientation C. Procedural due process was not followed D. None of the above the measure is constitutional.

A. The right to privacy includes the right of two consenting adults be sexually intimate regardless of sexual orientation The correct answer is (A) because in Lawrence v. Texas the Court recognized the privacy right of two consenting adults to engage in private sexual conduct free from government regulation. Equal protection could invalidate some classifications by sexual orientation but does not invalidate all of them per se so B is wrong. C and D are wrong because there is no way this can be constitutional

Don was angry with his wife Wendy for having an affair with their mutual friend Ivan. Don decided to poison Wendy hoping to kill her. Don who worked as a chemist created a poisonous powder he knew would kill her if she inhaled it. After Wendy drove to work and went into the office Don followed her and placed the powder in her car. Wendy asked Ivan to meet her at her car during her lunch hour. After they both inhaled the powder for about one hour both became very ill. Ivan died. Wendy was hospitalized for a month but eventually made a miraculous recovery. If Don is charged with the murder of Ivan he should be found: A. Guilty because Ivan's death resulted from Don's conduct intended to kill Wendy B. Guilty because the poison used by Don is inherently dangerous C. Not guilty because Don had no idea Ivan would sit in Wendy's car D. Not guilty because Don did not intend to kill Ivan

A. Guilty because Ivan's death resulted from Don's conduct intended to kill WendA is the best answer. Murder is the unjustified killing of another with malice aforethought which includes the intent to kill. Since Don took his actions with intent to kill Wendy and a human Ivan died he is guilty of murder. B is incorrect because engaging in inherently dangerous activity does not constitute malice aforethought though the use of poison would potentially make this first degree murder. C is incorrect because intent to kill anyone (here Wendy) is enough to make Don guilty of murder. D is incorrect for the same reason.

James dated Bella for several years. Bella gave birth to their son then told James she wanted to break up with James. James became obsessed with getting back together with her. James took Bella to court for joint custody which was denied based on his anger issues. James went to Bella's home one evening and grabbed his baby son out of Bella's hands and put the child into the car and drove away. Bella called 911. The police found James later that evening in a wooded area of a park. James had buried the baby in a shallow grave in the park. If James is charged with kidnapping he is A. Guilty because he had no right to be in possession of the child. B. Guilty because the child died while in his possession. C. Not guilty because he is the child's legal father. D. Not guilty because the kidnapping merges with the murder.

A. Guilty because he had no right to be in possession of the child. A is the best answer because James unlawfully confined the child without the child's consent moved him a substantial distance from Bella's home to the park near his apartment warranting conviction for kidnapping. B is incorrect because the death has no relevance to the kidnapping conviction. C is incorrect because even though he was the legal father he had not right to custody of the child. D is incorrect because kidnapping is not a lesser included crime of murder.

Arlen a bank teller was fired by Brandon the president of the bank. Arlen decided to take revenge against Brandon but decided against attempting it personally because he knew Brandon was protected by bank security guards. Arlen knew that Xavier had a bad temper and was very jealous. Arlen falsely told Xavier that his wife was having an affair with Brandon. Arlen said If it were my wife I'd blow his brains out. Xavier grabbed a handgun and rushed to the bank. He walked into the bank carrying the gun in his hand. One of the security guards believing a holdup was about to occur shot and killed Xavier. If charged with the attempted murder of Brandon Arlen should be found A. Guilty because he intended to kill Brandon and used Xavier to carry out his plan. B. Guilty because he was extremely reckless as to Brandon. C. Not guilty because Brandon was never in imminent danger of being killed. D. Not guilty because Xavier if successful would be guilty of no more than manslaughter and an accessory cannot be guilty of a higher crime than the principal.

A. Guilty because he intended to kill Brandon and used Xavier to carry out his plan. Answer choice A is correct. Arlen is guilty of attempted murder because he took steps in the direction of killing Brandon by way of Xavier with the intent to commit that crime. Answer choice B is incorrect because attempt requires the specific intent to commit the target crime. Extreme recklessness would be insufficient to support an attempted murder charge for Brandon (although sufficient to support the murder charge of Xavier). Answer choice C is incorrect because attempted murder does not require that the potential victim be in imminent danger only that the perpetrator take steps to commit the crime and possess the requisite intent. Here Arlen not only intended for Brandon to be killed when he was reckless with Xavier but also believed that the murder would be successful.

Defendant was upset because he was going to have to close his liquor store due to competition from a discount store in a new shopping mall nearby. In desperation he decided to set fire to his store to collect the insurance. While looking through the basement for flammable material he lit a match to read the label on a can. The match burned his finger and in a reflex action he dropped the match. It fell into a barrel and ignited some paper. Defendant made no effort to put out the fire but instead left the building. The fire spread and the store was destroyed by fire. Defendant was eventually arrested and indicted for arson. Defendant is: A. Guilty if he could have put out the fire before it spread and did not do so because he wanted the building destroyed. B. Guilty if he was negligent in starting the fire. C. Not guilty because even if he wanted to burn the building there was no concurrence between his mens rea and the act of starting the fire. D. Not guilty because his starting the fire was the result of a reflex action and not a voluntary act.

A. Guilty if he could have put out the fire before it spread and did not do so because he wanted the building destroyed. Answer choice A is correct. Arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. Even though Defendant wanted to eventually burn down the building he lacked the malicious intent at the time of the fire. But if he could have stopped the fire and intentionally did not that intent would suffice as malicious and he would be guilty of arson. Answer choice B is incorrect because to be found guilty of arson Defendant would have had to possess the requisite intent not merely be negligent. Answer choice C is wrong unless his failure stopped the fire created the requisite and concurrent intent (which is exactly answer choice A). Answer choice D is incorrect because voluntariness would matter only as an indication of Defendant's lack of intent at the time the fire was started

Saddleranch church starts a large youth organization that takes kids camping to try to promote the Moses wilderness experience. The program is open to kids ages 8-14 with preference being given to church members. A 10-year-old boy named James registers to go on the next camping trip and is told that he cannot attend because he is African-American. His parents want to sue for racial discrimination and seek your advice about whether they can sue under the 14th Amendment. You tell them: A. Their best theory is that the denial was a violation of equal protection based on race. B. Their best theory is that the denial was a violation of James' substantive due process rights. C. Their best theory is that the policy is being applied in a discriminatory manner. D. They cannot state a claim because there was no state action.

A. Their best theory is that the denial was a violation of equal protection based on race.

Bernard wanted to kill Phil because he believed Phil was having an affair with Bernard's wife. Early one morning armed with a pistol he crouched behind some bushes on a park hillside overlooking a path upon which Phil frequently jogged. On this morning however Bernard saw Phil jogging on another path about a half mile away. Nonetheless Bernard fired five shots at Phil. None of the five shots came anywhere close to Phil as he was well out of the range of the pistol Bernard was using. Bernard is A. Guilty of attempted murder if he was not aware of the limited range of his pistol. B. Guilty of attempted murder if a reasonable person would not have been aware of the limited range of his pistol. C. Not guilty of attempted murder or any lesser included offense because under the circumstances it was impossible for him to have killed Phil. D. Not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of assault.

A. Guilty of attempted murder if he was not aware of the limited range of his pistol. Answer choice A is correct. An attempt is a step in the direction of committing a crime coupled with the intention to commit that crime. If Bernard was unaware of the range limitation then at the time Bernard fired he had the intent to kill Phil and is guilty of attempted murder. Answer choice B is incorrect because the test of whether Bernard had the knowledge is subjective. Answer choice C is wrong because impossibility not a defense if the crime attempted (because of circumstances unknown to the actor) is factually impossible to commit. Answer choice D is also incorrect because Bernard had the intent to commit murder not to merely assault Phil.

Duffy persuaded Elsa an elderly widow that he loved her and had her transfer title to her home to him by promising her that he would share the returns from a special investment deal in Swiss debentures with her. In fact Duffy was a penniless swindler and there was no such investment. Duffy is most likely A. Guilty of false pretenses B. Guilty of larceny by trick C. Guilty of embezzlement D. Not guilty of any crime

A. Guilty of false pretenses A is the best answer since Duffy obtained title to the home by making a false promise knowing it was false and intending to defraud Elsa. B is less likely here because Duffy obtained title not just possession. C is incorrect because Duffy was not entrusted with possession of Elsa's home. D is incorrect because the elements of obtaining property by false pretenses are met here.

Astor and Brian have a common enemy Victor. Astor and Brian in conversation realize that they would both like Victor dead. Astor encourages Brian to kill Victor and supplies Brian with a rifle with which to do the deed. Brian kills Victor with the rifle. Astor is: A. Guilty of murder because he assisted and encouraged another to commit murder. B. Not guilty of murder because he did not shoot Victor. C. Not guilty of murder because he did not intend to shoot Victor. D. Guilty of felony murder.

A. Guilty of murder because he assisted and encouraged another to commit murder. Choice A is correct because Astor did in fact assist and encourage Brian to commit the underlying crime. Answers B and C are wrong based on the facts and D is also not right because of his otherwise limited involvement in the actual act.

In order to prove a charge of arson the State must present evidence of: A. Intent B. Motive C. Financial gain D. Emotional imbalance

A. Intent A is correct because arson is a specific intent crime. Evidence of motive financial gain or other emotional issues are not relevant.

Betty owns a rural property and on May I she hired John to drill a well to improve the quality of her drinking water. The contract provided that the well must be completed by July 1. John proceeded to drill and when the drill reached two hundred feet down the drill hit rock causing it to break and plug the hole. On June 1 John told Betty that he would not be able to complete a substitute well any earlier than August 1. Betty cancelled the contract with John and hired another driller who completed the well by July 1. What are the respective rights of Betty and John on June 1? A. John's statement constitutes a repudiation and Betty may sue immediately. B. Betty must wait until July 1 to see if John performs before taking any action. C. There is no actionable breach unless John fails to complete the well by July 1. D. Betty must wait until July 1 to take action because John may retract his repudiation.

A. John's statement constitutes a repudiation and Betty may sue immediately. A is the correct answer. An anticipatory repudiation occurs when a party makes it clear even before his performance is due that he cannot or will not perform. The vast majority of states allow the victim of an anticipatory repudiation to sue immediately and before the repudiator's time for performance has arrived. Here when John told Betty that he would not be able to complete a substitute well by the agreed upon date John anticipatorily repudiated the contract and Betty had an immediate right to sue. B is wrong because her right to sue was immediate. C is wrong since John breached the contract on June 1 when he made the statement. D is wrong since Betty's right to sue for breach was immediate.

Pat a postal service employee delivers a package to Mary at her home. Mary is aware that the package is addressed to her neighbor and that Pat is delivering the package to the wrong address but accepts delivery of the package and signs for it as if it were being properly delivered. Mary is guilty of A. Larceny by trick B. Embezzlement C. Receiving stolen property from Pat D. None of the above

A. Larceny by trick Choice A is correct as she has obtained possession through misrepresentation. B is incorrect because Mary did not take rightful possession. C is incorrect because the property was not stolen when Mary received it. D is incorrect because Mary is guilty of Larceny by trick.

Diva a famous rock singer ordered a gown from a well-known designer Latissa West and agreed to pay $10000 for the gown which she intended to wear to an awards event. After the final fitting Diva had second thoughts and cancelled the order. Latissa was able to sell the gown to another minor celebrity but could only get $5000 for it. If Latissa sues Diva what damages can she recover? A. Latissa can recover $5000. B. Latissa can recover her lost profits as she is a lost volume seller. C. Latissa cannot recover her losses because she sold the gown at too low a price. D. Latissa can only recover her consequential damages.

A. Latissa can recover $5000. A is the best answer because a seller can recover the difference between the market price and contract price when a buyer repudiates. Because this is a specialty item she cannot recover as a lost volume seller so B is incorrect. C is incorrect because there is no indication that the resale was not commercially reasonable. D is incorrect because consequential damages would typically involve lost profits which are not appropriate here and because expectation damages will make the seller whole based on the benefit of the bargain.

Mary agrees to clean Alice's house once a month between the months of January and October for $50 a cleaning. Mary's fee is payable within 30 days of her performance. In May Mary cleans Alice's house as required under the agreement. In June however Mary takes a better-paying job and does not clean Alice's house. On July 1 Alice withholds payment for the May cleaning because of Mary's failure to clean in June. If Mary asserts an action against Alice for breach of contract what is the likely result? A. Mary will prevail because she did not breach the contract in May B. Mary will prevail because she substantially performed C. Alice will prevail because Mary breached the contract in June D. Alice will prevail because Mary's breach in June was a material breach of the entire contract.

A. Mary will prevail because she did not breach the contract in May A is the correct answer. Here the parties divided up their performances into one-month installments with each monthly cleaning by Mary paired in value with Alice's payment of $50. In this divisibility scenario the court will treat the arrangement largely as if it were a series of individual contracts each for one month. Therefore since Mary did not breach the May contract she is entitled to Alice's performance payment of $50. B is wrong since this is a divisible contract divided into a series of monthly contracts and Mary fully performed in May. C is wrong since Mary did perform the May contract she is entitled to Alice's full payment for that month. D is wrong because the court will treat the arrangement largely as if it were a series of individual contracts each for one month.

Art sued Dan in federal court for patent infringement involving several features of a popular phone widely used at the time. At trial the jury found in favor of Dan. After the verdict Art spoke with several jurors who indicated that during jury deliberations several jurors indicated that they had looked at their own phones to determine certain aspects of the alleged patent infringement claims. This violated specific instructions from the judge. The trial court can best address this through what procedural vehicle? A. Motion for new trial. B. Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. C. Only through an appeal. D. All three of the above procedural devices.

A. Motion for new trial. A is the best answer because jury misconduct is a basis for a new trial. B is incorrect because the standard on a JNOV motion is that there is no reasonable basis for the jury's decision which does not address juror misconduct. C is incorrect because although juror misconduct can be addressed on appeal it can also be addressed at the trial level (which is the call of the question here) through a motion for a new trial. D is incorrect for the reasons stated.

Vaughn owns a beautiful violin that he inherited from his family that he would like to sell and believes it is a rare Stradivarius. Bette a famous concert violinist and well known soloist highly knowledgeable about violins inspects and agrees to purchase the violin for $1 million also concluding it is a rare Stradivarius. In fact Bette learns after taking possession of the violin that it is a fake and therefore nearly worthless. Bette cancels the payment to Vaughn. If Vaughn sues Bette to enforce the deal what is Bette's best argument? A. Mutual mistake based on the mutual understanding that the violin was a Stradivarius. B. Unilateral mistake based on Bette's understanding that the violin was a Stradivarius. C. Fraud by Vaughn in connection with the sale of the violin to Bette. D. Duress by Vaughn in connection with the sale of the violin to Bette.

A. Mutual mistake based on the mutual understanding that the violin was a Stradivarius. A is the best answer because both Vaughn and Bette were operating under the same mistaken assumption. B is incorrect because there is no indication that Vaughn had any reason to know of the mistake. C is incorrect because there is no indication of Vaughn intentionally misleading Bette. D is incorrect because Vaughn did not take any conduct that might support an argument for duress.

Oscar wanted to have a party at his house. He decided to invite Roger and Ebert to come over and asked them both to bring alcoholic drinks. Oscar picked up Roger and Ebert and went to a store owner by Michael. Once in the store Roger found that he had left his wallet at home. Not wanting to disappoint Oscar he asked Ebert to grab two six packs and go outside while he paid. Ebert complied and left the store with the two six packs. Roger then threatened to kill the store clerk and left without paying. Oscar then drove both men to his home for the party. Ebert was charged as an accomplice to robbery. Should he be convicted? A. No because Ebert did not commit an actus reus for which he could be criminally liable. B. No because there was no agreement between Roger and Ebert to rob the store. C. Yes because Roger intended to commit a robbery. D. Yes because Ebert was aware that the beer needed to be paid for.

A. No because Ebert did not commit an actus reus for which he could be criminally liable. A is the correct answer. An accomplice is one who assists or encourages the carrying out of a crime but does not commit the actus reus. A principal is one who commits the actus reus (with or without the assistance of an accomplice). The main significance of the distinction is that generally the accomplice may not be convicted unless the prosecution also proves that the principal is guilty of the substantive crime in question. The most important rule to remember in dealing with accomplices is that generally the accomplice is guilty of the substantive crimes he assisted or encouraged. Stated another way one who aids abets encourages or assists another to perform a crime will himself be liable for that crime. For Ebert to have accomplice liability for a crime the prosecution must generally show the that Ebert intentionally aided or encouraged the other to commit the criminal act

In a single writing Washer contracted with Manager to wash the windows on three identical commercial office buildings for $2000 each. The contract provided for Manager's payment of $6000 upon Washer's completion of the work on all three buildings. Washer did not ask for any payment when the windows on the first building were completely washed but she demanded $4000 after washing the windows on the second building. Does the contract require Manager to make the $4000 payment? A. No because Manager has no duty under the contract to pay anything to Washer until all the windows on all three buildings have been washed. B. No because Washer waived her right if any to payment on a per-building basis by failing to demand $2000 upon completion of the first building. C. Yes because the contract is divisible. D. Yes because Washer has substantially performed the entire contract.

A. No because Manager has no duty under the contract to pay anything to Washer until all the windows on all three buildings have been washed. A is the correct answer. Where the parties to a contract expressly provide for payment for service rendered under the contract and the contract is not divisible the terms will dictate the payment. Since the contract provides for one payment of $6000 after performance is complete Manager has no obligation to pay anything until all the windows on all three buildings have been washed. B is wrong since no waiver has taken place because the express terms of the contract will prevail. C is wrong because the contract is not divisible. D is wrong because Washer has not substantially performed until all three building's windows have been washed.

Varga and his friend attended their 20 year college reunion. There the two struck up a conversation with a woman who had been a classmate. Neither had seen her in years. At the end of the reunion all three went to a nearby bar. As they were walking to the bar the friend suggested a shortcut through an alley. In the alley the friend grabbed the woman and threatened her in a sexual manner. Varga despite the woman's pleas continue to walk to the bar. Once there Varga ordered a drink and watched TV while his friend raped the woman in the alley. Varga was charged as an accomplice to rape. Should he be convicted? A. No because Varga did not commit an actus reus for which he could be criminally liable. B. No because there was no agreement between Varga and his friend to rape the woman. C. Yes because the man's actions aided and abetted the friend in committing the rape. D. Yes because the man was aware that the woman did not consent to the sexual advances of his friend.

A. No because Varga did not commit an actus reus for which he could be criminally liable. A is the correct answer. An accomplice is one who assists or encourages the carrying out of a crime but does not commit the actus reus. A principal is one who commits the actus reus (with or without the assistance of an accomplice). The main significance of the distinction is that generally the accomplice may not be convicted unless the prosecution also proves that the principal is guilty of the substantive crime in question. The most important rule to remember in dealing with accomplices is that generally the accomplice is guilty of the substantive crimes he assisted or encouraged. Stated another way one who aids abets encourages or assists another to perform a crime will himself be liable for that crime. For Varga to have accomplice liability for a crime the prosecution must generally show the that Varga intentionally aided or encouraged the other to commit the criminal act

Oscar wanted to have a party at his house. He decided to invite Roger and Ebert to come over and asked them both to bring alcoholic drinks. Oscar picked up Roger and Ebert and went to a store owned by Michael. Once in the store Roger found that he had left his wallet at home. Not wanting to disappoint Oscar he asked Ebert to grab two six packs and go outside while he paid. Ebert complied and left the store with the two six packs. Roger then threatened to kill the store clerk and left without paying. Oscar then drove both men to his home for the party. Suppose that Oscar found out while driving home with Roger and Ebert that Roger did not pay for the beer should he be convicted of larceny? A. No because he did not know at the time of the taking that Roger committed a robbery. B. No because there was no agreement between Oscar and Roger to rob the store. C. Yes because Oscar was aware of the theft while driving. D. Yes because Oscar was aware Roger had a bad temper.

A. No because he did not know at the time of the taking that Roger committed a robbery. A is the correct answer. For post-crime liability one who knowingly gives assistance to felon for the purpose of helping him avoid apprehension following his crime is an accessory after the fact. Under modern law the accessory after the fact is not liable for the felony itself as an accomplice would be. Instead he has committed a distinct crime based upon obstruction of justice and his punishment does not depend on the punishment for the underlying felony. Here while Oscar became aware of the theft or robbery while driving home he will not be guilty of that offense but rather a separate distinct crime like accessory after the fact.

Monica disliked her neighbor Raquel. Raquel had a very nice home wonderful children a large diamond ring and traveled with her husband extensively. The fact that Raquel was happy and that Monica was unhappy with her life cause Monica to become very depressed. While checking her mail Monica found an advertisement for a private security company that could handle all sorts of problems. Upon speaking with a representative of that company named Tim she decided to ask Tim to follow Raquel and dig up any negative information he could find. Tim did follow Raquel and did not pay attention when driving behind her and stuck Raquel's car causing her to be severely injured. Should Monica be convicted of any crime? A. No because she did not intend the outcome of Tim's actions. B. No because there was no agreement between Tim and Monica to physically harm Monica. C. Yes because Monica was aware that Tim would be following Monica and that car accidents happen often. D. Yes because Monica disliked Raquel and wished her physical harm.

A. No because she did not intend the outcome of Tim's actions. A is the correct answer. A frequently-tested scenario involves a principal who commits not only the offense that the accomplice has assisted or encouraged but other offenses as well. The accomplice will be liable for these additional crimes if: (1) the additional offenses are the natural and probable consequences of the conduct that the defendant did intend to assist (even though D did not intend these additional offenses)

Owen's neighbor Brian always admired Owen's home which had a lake front view. Owen told Brian he would agree to sell it to Brian for $500000 cash. Two days later Brian agreed that would be a fair price. Owen and Brian negotiated over the closing date several times and finally agreed that it would be good to finalize the deal at the end of the month. After the date for the sale passed Owen did not receive any funds from Brian and Brian refused to perform. If Owen sues Brian is the contract enforceable? A. No because the contract was not in writing. B. No because the time of performance is not definite. C. Yes because the terms of the contract are definite enough and the contract need not be in writing. D. No because the terms of the contract are not definite enough.

A. No because the contract was not in writing. A is the best answer under the statute of frauds which requires that a contract for the sale of real estate be in writing. B is incorrect because the time for performance is definite as the parties agreed to a 30 day period. C is incorrect because a contract for sale of real estate is required to be in writing under the statute of frauds. D is incorrect because the terms are definite enough but the contract must be in writing so it is not enforceable.

Over a friendly lunch Betty offered to sell her mink coat to Sally for $500. Sally turned the offer down and said I can't afford to pay more than $100. Sally responded I'm offering a good price. I'll give you a week to think about it if you pay me a penny. Laughing Sally said A penny is cheap. I won't change my mind though. Sally said I'll still keep the offer open for you for a week. Three days later Sally ran into Betty's husband who was carrying Betty's mink coat. He explained that Betty had agreed to sell the coat to a consignment store for $1000 and he was taking it to get cleaned. Betty frantically called Sally and said I accept your offer and will buy your mink coat for $500. Which of the following is the most accurate statement? A. There is no contract because Sally knew that Betty revoked the offer before she accepted. B. There is no contract because Sally's counteroffer terminated her power of acceptance. C. There is a contract because Sally had an enforceable option contract. D. There is a contract because Sally never rejected Betty's offer.

A. There is no contract because Sally knew that Betty revoked the offer before she accepted. Revocation of an offer is valid when the offeree receives notice either directly or indirectly that the offeror has revoked the offer. Here Sally learned from Betty's husband that Betty had sold the coat to a consignment store. Thus she had indirect notice of the revocation making her acceptance ineffective.

Art and Bev entered into a written contract pursuant to which Art agreed to sell his invention to Bev for $100000. At the time the parties met to sign the contract just before they signed the sales agreement Bev said to Art I assume you will be getting a patent on the invention. Art said I will do my best of course. But it is not a sure thing. However Bev did not tell her attorney to address this issue in the written contract however the contract did contain an integration clause. Art and Bev went ahead and signed the final contract. Art exerted extensive efforts to obtain a patent for the invention but he was not able to obtain a patent on the invention. Bev sued Art claiming he breached the contract. How should the court rule? A. Obtaining a patent was not part of the parties' contract so Art will prevail. B. Obtaining a patent was part of the parties' agreement so Bev will prevail. C. Bev will prevail because Art misrepresented his ability to obtain a patent. D. Art was obligated to obtain the patent so Bev will prevail.

A. Obtaining a patent was not part of the parties' contract so Art will prevail. A is the best answer because the parol evidence rule and the integration clause will result in the court excluding the oral discussions about the patent and at any rate Art's statements were equivocal about obtaining a patent. B is incorrect because the parol evidence rule and the integration clause will result in the court excluding the oral discussions about the patent and at any rate Art's statements were equivocal about obtaining a patent. C is incorrect because Art's statements were equivocal as to obtaining the patent and would not rise to the level of a misrepresentation. D is incorrect because the contract did not obligate Art to obtain the patent.

Public Military University (PMU) has a long-standing tradition of excellence in educating young minds and turning them into leaders as civilians and soldiers. As an all-male institution PMU prides itself on training future military leaders through a combination of rigorous training regimens reduction of time allowed for relationships outside the school and distinguished speakers and networking events with Generals Admirals and the like without the distraction of women on campus. The state in which PMU is located started an all-female military university that has a similar formula although with less rigorous training and fewer speakers and events. A woman who wants a career in the military sues to attend PMU with the guys. What is her strongest legal theory? A. PMU violates equal protection and assuming she meets the entrance requirements PMU should admit her B. PMU violated her substantive due process rights C. PMU is entitled to exclude women since creating an elite military is a compelling government interest D. PMU has violated her right to travel

A. PMU violates equal protection and assuming she meets the entrance requirements PMU should admit her Choice A is correct. Despite its long-standing tradition unless the school can provide some exceedingly persuasive justification for the gender-based discriminatory policy it will not pass the intermediate scrutiny Equal Protection review to be applied in gender classification cases (United States v. Virginia/ the VMI case). C is wrong because the VMI case made clear that there is not strong enough government interest to sustain two separate unequal institutions for males and females. B and D are related to different rights in the 14th Amendment—not those associated with gender classifications.

Bumper= $150 payable on delivery. Both parties signed the agreement. Which if the following best describes the obligations of the parties? A. Patrick's payment of the initial $300 is a condition precedent to the body shop's obligation to paint the car and the body shop's painting of the car is a condition precedent to Patrick's obligation to pay the additional $400. B. Patrick's payment of the initial $300 is a condition precedent to the body shop's obligation to paint the car but a condition subsequent to Patrick's obligation to pay the additional $400. C. Payment by Patrick and the painting of the car by the body shop are concurrent conditions. D. Neither party's obligation to perform is conditioned upon performance by the other party.

A. Patrick's payment of the initial $300 is a condition precedent to the body shop's obligation to paint the car and the body shop's painting of the car is a condition precedent to Patrick's obligation to pay the additional $400. A is the correct answer. Performance of one of a series of mutual promises is a condition precedent to others in the series if the circumstances indicate that it should obviously precede the others. Since the agreement called for payment of $300 in advance it is obvious that the parties intended that it should be paid before the work is commenced. Since the contract calls for payment of an additional $400 after completion it is obvious that the parties intended that the paint job should be finished before payment of additional money is required. B is incorrect-since the body shop was obligated to paint before receiving the additional $400 Patrick's payment of the additional $400 cannot be called a condition subsequent of the body shop's obligation to paint the car. C is wrong because the language of the contract makes it obvious that the parties intended a consecutive order of performance. D is wrong since the agreement required partial payment in advance and completion of the job before the balance was due.

Some of the asserted purposes of punishment are primarily backward-looking to rectify past harms and wrongdoing. Others are primarily forward-looking to prevent harms and wrongdoing in the future. Which of the following is not primarily forward-looking? A. Retribution. B. Rehabilitation. C. Deterrence. D. Incapacitation.

A. Retribution. A is correct because the primary reason for retribution is to inflict punishment on the offender just because he or she committed a wrongful act and the commission of the past offense itself justifies the punishment. Choices B C and D address future behavior or freedom.

Daryl a gang member saw Val a rival gang member carrying a package down the street. Daryl heard it was valuable and wanted to steal it so he ran up to Val and violently snatched the package and began to run away. Val followed grabbing onto Daryl's shirt. Daryl pushed Val to the ground and escaped with the package which contained some ammunition for a firearm. What is the most serious crime that Daryl is guilty of? A. Robbery because he stole Val's package. B. Larceny because the taking was trespassory C. Receiving stolen property if the ammunition was stolen D. None of the above

A. Robbery because he stole Val's package. A is the best answer because the elements of robbery are satisfied. B is incorrect because although Daryl did commit larceny robbery is the more serious crime. C is incorrect because there is no indication that Daryl knew the property was stolen when he took it. D is incorrect because this is a larceny.

Under a contract with Acme Farms Boxer Excavation Inc. begins digging an agricultural pond. In mid-project Acme asks for $15000 over the contract price claiming an increase in the cost of doing business. Boxer agrees but later refuses to pay. Their agreement is A. Unenforceable because Acme's performance was a preexisting duty. B. Unenforceable because Boxer's promise was illusory. C. Enforceable. D. Unenforceable because its performance is unforeseeably difficult.

A. Unenforceable because Acme's performance was a preexisting duty.

but the clause would allow Len to recover more than 10 times that amount. A is a weaker argument where the clause was brought to Randy's attention and he initialed it. C is incorrect factually because the clause was not misrepresented or concealed. D is a good argument but does not address as directly the demand for the penalty and would not eliminate the penalty. Frieda is an artist. She has agreed in writing to sell one of her original paintings Floral #91 to Colin who is an art collector for $100000. Colin had his heart set on this painting for many years but Frieda only recently decided to sell it. Prior to delivery of Floral #91 to Colin Frieda receives an offer for the same painting for $150000 from Art another art collector. Colin is irate upon hearing that Frieda is entertaining Art's offer for the painting. Assuming Colin is insisting on having Floral #91 for his collection which is your best advice to Colin? A. Sue for specific performance based on his contract with Frieda. B. Offer Frieda $150000 for the painting. C. Sue for damages assuming Colin can find another painting he likes. D. Sue for restitution based on quasi contract.

A. Sue for specific performance based on his contract with Frieda. A is the best answer in terms of recovering the painting which is presumably unique. B is a secondary practical approach but Colin would be better off enforcing his original contract. C is less desirable because Colin is not ending up with the painting he wants as a result of a damages remedy. D is not applicable factually as there is no unjust enrichment upon which to base a restitution claim and quasi contact is not needed where there is a contract in fact as there is here.

Will owed his sister Rita $5000. He decided to sell his car in order to pay her. Tess agreed to purchase Will's car for $5000 and Tess agreed to pay the proceeds to Rita by May 30. Will told Rita about the arrangement and Rita agreed that it would be acceptable. After Tess had the car checked out by a mechanic she decided it was only worth $4000. As a result Tess and Will agreed to lower the price to $4000. What are Tess's rights against Rita? A. Tess must pay Rita $5000. B. Tess must pay Rita $4000. C. Tess must pay Rita $4000 and Will must pay Rita $1000. D. Tess is no longer obligated to pay Rita after the modification of the contract.

A. Tess must pay Rita $5000. A is the best answer because under the Restatement once a party assents to a third party beneficiary arrangement the rights of the party vest and the obligation cannot be modified without the party's consent. B is incorrect because Rita is not bound by the modification. C is incorrect because the question posed concerns the rights against Tess and because Rita can collect the entire $5000 from Tess. D is incorrect because the agreement may not be modified once the rights of the third party beneficiary have vested and any modification does not alter the rights of the third party beneficiary.

Will owed his sister Rita $5000. He decided to sell his car in order to pay her. Tess agreed to purchase Will's car for $5000 and Tess agreed to pay the proceeds to Rita by May 30. Will told Rita about the arrangement and Rita agreed that it would be acceptable. After Tess had the car checked out by a mechanic she decided it was only worth $4000. As a result Tess and Will agreed to lower the price to $4000. What are Tess's rights against Rita? A. Tess must pay Rita $5000. B. Tess must pay Rita $4000. C. Tess must pay Rita $4000 and Will must pay Rita $1000. D. Tess is no longer obligated to pay Rita after the modification of the contract.

A. Tess must pay Rita $5000. A is the best answer because under the Restatement once a party assents to a third party beneficiary arrangement the rights of the party vest and the obligation cannot be modified without the party's consent. B is incorrect because Rita is not bound by the modification. C is incorrect because the question posed concerns the rights against Tess and because Rita can collect the entire $5000 from Tess. D is incorrect because the agreement may not be modified once the rights of the third party beneficiary have vested and any modification does not alter the rights of the third party beneficiary.

A group of college film students make a film documenting the life of the artist Robert Maplethorpe. Because Maplethorpe included many nude subjects in his photography the film features nude actors and actresses including close-ups of genitalia. The city bans the film as pornography and the students sue based on freedom of speech. How is a court likely to rule? A. The film is protected free speech B. The film is obscene C. The film causes a clear and present danger D. None of the above

A. The film is protected free speech The correct answer is (A). Under the Miller test one of the factors that determines whether material is obscene (and therefore not protected speech) is whether it lacks any serious artistic political or scientific value. Because this film has historical and artistic value in that it documents a famous artist's life it cannot be banned as obscene and B is wrong. The film is not intended or likely to cause imminent lawlessness so C is wrong.

The church of Santeria practices animal sacrifice as part of its religious ceremonies. The City of Danton motivated by the dislike of the religious practice of animal sacrifice by some very vocal citizens of Danton passes an ordinance prohibiting animal sacrifice without reference to the Santeria religious practices. Several church members want to challenge the ordinance. What is the most likely result? A. The ordinance is not valid based on the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. B. The ordinance is not valid based on the establishment clause of the First Amendment. C. The ordinance is valid based on a valid governmental objective. D. The ordinance is valid when tested based on intermediate scrutiny.

A. The ordinance is not valid based on the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. A is the best answer because where the City acts with an intent to interfere with religious practice the free exercise clause is violated. B is incorrect because this scenario does not implicate the establishment clause. C is incorrect because the ordinance was not supported by any articulated public interest. D is incorrect because the ordinance is not evaluated based on intermediate scrutiny - strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard.

After one of the West Street Boys was humiliated by Ed Red a member of a rival gang seven West Street members headed into the other gang's territory looking for Red and seeking revenge. Carrying metal baseball bats but before they had even the remotest idea of where Red was they were stopped by police. Would the police have a sound legal basis to charge the seven with attempted assault? A. Yes under the traditional common law dangerous proximity approach to deciding cases of attempt. B. Yes under the transferred intent doctrine. C. Yes under both of the above doctrine. D. No the police would have no basis to prove criminal intent.

A. Yes under the traditional common law dangerous proximity approach to deciding cases of attempt. Choice A is correct because under the common law approach an attempt required there to be a dangerous proximity of success of completion. Choices B C and D are wrong because they discount how far the seven members came to being able to commit the crime.

Sam received an anonymous email stating that his wife Wendy was having an affair with Ron a family friend. Enraged Sam drove to Ron's house with a loaded gun. The garage light was on and Sam saw the shadow of a person moving within the garage. Sam decided to fire his gun into the bedroom next to the garage just to scare Ron. In fact Ron was inside the garage and Ron's 15 year old son Junior was in bedroom next to the garage. Junior was hit after Sam fired three shots into the bedroom. Ron saw Sam's car leaving after Junior was shot and drove to Sam's house meeting Sam in the driveway. Ron began beating Sam up as Sam exited his own car. Did Ron commit criminal battery? A. Yes because Ron intentionally beat Sam B. Yes because Sam provoked Ron C. No because Ron acted in the heat of passion D. No because Ron reasonably believed that Sam shot Junior

A. Yes because Ron intentionally beat Sam A is the best answer here because battery is intentionally causing a harmful or offensive touching of a victim a general intent crime. B is incorrect because whether one person provoked another is not a determinative element for battery. C is incorrect because acting in the heat of passion may mitigate murder to a voluntary manslaughter but does not negate the mental state required for battery. D is incorrect because Ron does not have any right to take the law into his own hands regardless of Sam's conduct.

Don went to his girlfriend Jill's apartment when she was at work waitressing on the evening shift with the intent to take a jar of tips she collected from her customers. Jill had forbidden him from going to her apartment after some of her belongings went missing. Don was able to climb into her apartment through a back window left unlocked grab the money from the jar and make his escape unnoticed in the darkness. Did Don commit common law burglary? A. Yes because he entered with intent to commit theft B. Yes if the window is usually locked. C. No because the window was unlocked. D. No assuming Jill owed Don money.

A. Yes because he entered with intent to commit theft A is the best answer because entry through an unlocked window fulfills the breaking requirement he entered at night and entered with intent to commit theft. B is incorrect because it is not relevant. C is incorrect because entry through an unlocked window or door without consent fulfills the breaking requirement. D is incorrect because it irrelevant.

A public high school in Florida bans all clothing that includes rainbows or any other pro-gay agenda symbols to avoid disruptive ideas in the classroom. Kate is sent home for refusing to remove a rainbow bracelet that says "Love is Love" while her neighbor is allowed to wear his shirt depicting the confederate flag to school. Can Kate make a successful First Amendment challenge to school policy? A. Yes because it is content-based. B. No because it is content-neutral. C. No because a school has the right to ban controversial ideas. D. Yes because students have absolute free speech rights.

A. Yes because it is content-based.

Billionaire Inc. contracted in writing with Sam who owned all of XYZ Corporation's outstanding stock to purchase all of its stock at a specified price per share. At the time the contract was executed Billionaire's contracting officer said to Sam Of course our commitment to buy is conditioned on our obtaining approval of the contract from ParentCorp Ltd. our parent company. Sam replied Fine. No problem. Sam subsequently refused to consummate the sale on the grounds that Billionaire had neglected to request ParentCorp's approval of the contract which was true. ParentCorp's chief executive officer however is prepared to testify that ParentCorp would have routinely approved the contract if requested to do so. Billionaire can also prove that it has made a substantial sale of other assets to finance the stock purchase. If Billionaire sues Sam for breach of contract is Billionaire likely to prevail? A. Yes because the condition of ParentCorp's approval of the contract being designed to protect only Billionaire and ParentCorp can be and has been waived by those entities. B. Yes because Billionaire detrimentally relied on Sam's commitment by selling off other assets to finance the stock purchas

A. Yes because the condition of ParentCorp's approval of the contract being designed to protect only Billionaire and ParentCorp can be and has been waived by those entities. A is the correct answer. Billionaire Inc and ParentCorp Inc. waived the condition of ParentCorp's approval of the contract. A waiver is a knowing and voluntary abandonment of a right. A court is likely to find that a condition has been waived if it is a minor one such as a procedural or technical condition. B is wrong because detrimental reliance is not relevant to enforcement or lack of enforcement of the condition. Although the statement is true C is not the correct answer since the condition was waived. D is incorrect since Billionaire's failure to obtain ParentCorp's approval was not a breach of contract but rather a waiver of that condition.

Plaintiffs filed a shareholders' derivative action requiring the filing of a bond by plaintiffs in order to proceed. Defendants moved to require the posting of a bond. The court denied the motion. Defendant appealed. Should the collateral order doctrine apply to allow appellate review? A. Yes because the right is separable from the rights asserted in the action and review would effectively be denied. B. Yes because the right to require a bond is a prerequisite to the shareholders' derivative suit and the rights are related. C. No because the bond requirement is not collateral to the shareholders' rights asserted in the action. D. No because the appeal on the bond requirement can be deferred until the case as a whole is adjudicated.

A. Yes because the right is separable from the rights asserted in the action and review would effectively be denied. The correct answer here is A. This is hypothetical is similar to the Cohen case at page 1003. Court held that court has appellate jurisdiction. B is incorrect because it is not the test and the bond right is collateral to the shareholders derivative rights. C is incorrect because it is collateral. D is incorrect because if the appeal on the bond were deferred until the case as a whole is adjudicated then it would be meaningless.

Dell and his wife Val lived a very wealthy lifestyle due to Val's inheriting a fortune from her family. Dell got romantically involved with Carla a woman from his gym and at Dell's urging the two made a plan to kill Val in order to get control of Val's fortune. Carla obtained a poisonous substance from the laboratory where she worked and gave it to Dell who slipped it into Val's morning coffee when their maid Mary was not looking. Mary served the coffee to Val just as she did every morning killing Val. The autopsy detected the poison and Carla Dell and Mary were charged. Is Dell criminally liable for the death of Val? A. Yes for first degree murder. B. Yes for second degree murder. C. Yes for felony murder. D. No because Mary delivered the poison to Val.

A. Yes for first degree murder. A is the best answer because Dell had intent to kill and actually caused the death by putting the poison into the coffee knowing it would be given by Mary to Val and this is first degree murder by enumerated means through use of poison. B is incorrect because the conduct fits the requirements for first degree murder and therefore is not second degree murder. C is incorrect because there is no inherently dangerous felony involved (rape arson robbery or burglary). D is incorrect because Mary's involvement does not absolve Dell of responsibility.

Which of the following are considered final for purposes of appeal assuming the matter is not certified for appeal? I. Order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. II. Order granting a motion to transfer venue to another jurisdiction. III. Order dismissing plaintiff's complaint under Rule 37 for failure to comply with discovery. A

All of the above are final. B. I and II. C. II and III. D. III only., D. III only The best answer is D because (I) is not final

A legislator in Arizona is concerned that after Lawrence v. Texas

Arizona's law prohibiting bigamy will be invalidated. Since you are a renowned constitutional scholar, he seeks your advice. You tell him that: A. Lawrence would not apply to a bigamy case because it did not involve a fundamental right. B. The state may need something beyond mere morality as a reason to outlaw bigamy since marriage is a fundamental right. C. Religious freedom protects the right to marry more than one wife. D. States are not bound by a Supreme Court decision., B. The state may need something beyond mere morality as a reason to outlaw bigamy since marriage is a fundamental right.

Pam's husband died in a plane crash. Ten survivors filed separate wrongful death cases against the Airline in ten separate states. In seven cases the jury found that the Airline was not negligent. In three cases the jury found that the Airline was negligent. Pam filed case number 11 in her own state seeking damages for wrongful death against Airline. Pam files a motion for summary judgment seeking to use the determinations that the Airline was negligent in three cases to preclude the Airline from litigating the cases based on the doctrine of res judicata/claim preclusion. How should the court rule? A) Deny the motion because it is not fair for Pam adopted a wait and see attitude. B) Deny the motion because the parties differ and Pam was not in privity with the other plaintiffs. C) Grant the motion because there was a final valid judgment on the merits. D) Grant the motion because the claims involve the same transaction or occurrence.

B) Deny the motion because the parties differ and Pam was not in privity with the other plaintiffs.

Marty sued Felix for breach of contract. Felix moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The motion was denied. Felix then filed an answer in which he raised the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Did Felix waive either of the two defenses? A) Both were waived. B) Only the defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction was waived. C) Only the defense based on failure to state a claim was waived. D) Neither defense was waived.

B) Only the defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction was waived.

Which of the following will be a successful abandonment to avoid being charged with conspiracy: A. John tells Mary and Bob that he will not participate in the planned robbery. B. George calls the police to inform them of Sue's planned burglary. C. Fatima informs her lawyer that Ahmed is going to set fire to his mother's house. D. Donald tells the police everything he knew about George's previous crime spree.

B. George calls the police to inform them of Sue's planned burglary. B is correct because the defense to a conspiracy charge is that there was a sufficient abandonment such that the purpose of the crime is thwarted. This affirmative act can be shown through informing the police.

Dennis lives in a remote cabin in the woods where he keeps a pet bear. Dennis tries to keep the bear inside the cabin in the summer when the area is frequented by campers. One night Dennis' bear escapes from the cabin and wanders over to a campsite where Pat and her family are sitting around singing camping songs. The bear lets out a huge roar and although the bear did not attack Pat it terrified her so much that she suffered a heart attack. If Pat asserts an action against Dennis in strict liability for her injury she will likely: A) Prevail since Dennis did not act reasonably in allowing the bear to escape the cabin. B) Prevail since Dennis is strictly liable for injuries Pat suffered that were caused by the bear frightening her. C) Not prevail since the bear did not physically attack Pat. D) Not prevail because Dennis' bear was not a dangerous animal.

B) Prevail since Dennis is strictly liable for injuries Pat suffered that were caused by the bear frightening her.

A group of 190 past and present computer programmers for WebCo filed a class action lawsuit against the company in federal court claiming they were improperly classified as exempt. Wanda works at WebCo. She sent a memo to WebCo's President stating she believed that the programmers were not exempt and should be paid overtime. WebCo should: A) Provide Wanda's name and the memo to the plaintiffs in its initial disclosures. B) Provide Wanda's name but not the memo in its initial disclosures. C) Provide the memo but do not identify Wanda specifically in its initial disclosures. D) Not provide Wanda's name nor produce the memo in its initial disclosures.

B) Provide Wanda's name but not the memo in its initial disclosures.

Pam a 17 year old purchased a used truck from Dave for $5000. The reasonable market value of the truck was $3000. After Pam owned the truck for two months the brakes failed while she was driving it causing her to collide with another car. Although Pam was not hurt the truck sustained $1000 worth of damage. Pam returned the truck to Dave and demanded her money back but Dave refused to refund the money. If Pam asserts a claim against Dave the court should award Pam A. The amount of $5000 the purchase price of the truck B. $2500 the reasonable market value of the truck C. $4000 the purchase price minus the damage it had sustained D. Nothing

B. $2500 the reasonable market value of the truck B is the correct answer. A minor may disaffirm a contract on the ground of incapacity. If the disaffirming minor is a plaintiff in an action for restitution her recovery may be offset by the reasonable value of the benefit she received. Therefore Pam would receive the value of the truck not the contract price. Consequently A is wrong. C is wrong since the damage that the truck sustained is not related to the benefit that she received. D is wrong since it fails to recognize the minor's right to disaffirm the contract.

A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to do either an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. The Pinkerton Rule holds that: A. A conspirator is responsible for any criminal act committed by a co-conspirator. B. A conspirator is only responsible for criminal acts committed by a co-conspirator that fall within the scope of the conspiracy. C. A conspirator is responsible only for the agreed upon crimes committed by a co-conspirator. D. None of the above.

B. A conspirator is only responsible for criminal acts committed by a co-conspirator that fall within the scope of the conspiracy. Answer B is correct because the Pinkerton Rule is specific in holding co-conspirators responsible for acts committed in furtherance of the underlying crime. Choices A and C are wrong because they limit liability.

The New York Times newspaper wants to publish a report that details methods of torture that were used at Guantanamo Bay before 2008 and calling on President Obama to fulfill his promise to shut down the prison there. The Obama administration sues for an injunction arguing that decisions made by George W. Bush were in his capacity as commander in chief and should be subject to executive privilege for national security reasons. The strongest argument for allowing the newspaper to publish the report is: A. The First Amendment gives citizens the right to know about all decisions made by an elected official. B. A free press includes the right to publish things that make the government look bad as long as future operations are not put at risk. C. The Obama administration does not torture people so the American people have no right to know about the prior administration. D. None of the above.

B. A free press includes the right to publish things that make the government look bad as long as future operations are not put at risk.

The crime of solicitation is one of the following: A. A promise to do an illegal act. B. A request of another person to commit an illegal act. C. The fulfillment of an illegal act. D. An attempt to commit another crime.

B. A request of another person to commit an illegal act. Answer B is correct in that solicitation is the crime of urging or encouraging another person to commit a crime.

Delta is a manufacturer of a variety of components used in airplane manufacturing including bolts. Delta enters into a written contract with Aero Flight to supply 10000 bolts per month for a period of one year at a price of 5 cents per bolt. In March Delta notified Aero Flight that it could no longer deliver the bolts as agreed starting in June due to a problem with a materials supplier. Which of the following are correct? A. Aero Flight must wait until June to see if Delta in fact breaches. B. Aero Flight may treat the notification as a breach and sue immediately. C. Aero Flight must wait to see if Delta retracts its statements. D. Aero Flight must wait until it incurs damages to sue for breach

B. Aero Flight may treat the notification as a breach and sue immediately. B is the best answer because Delta has anticipatorily repudiated its contract with Aero Flight which may be treated as a breach upon learning of the repudiation even if the damages have not yet occurred as long as the repudiation is clear which is the case here. A is incorrect because although Aero Flight could wait for the actual breach it is not required to do so. C is incorrect because although Delta might retract its statement Aero Flight may immediately sue for breach and there is no requirement that it wait for a retraction. D is incorrect because damages need not be incurred and the party may sue for repudiation upon learning of the breach.

Yvonne is charged with the crime of theft for taking Zach's briefcase which Yvonne mistakenly thought was hers. A mistake of fact is a defense A. If the fact was not reasonably made known to the public. B. If the mistake negates the mental state necessary to commit a crime. C. If the perpetrator was intoxicated. D. Under any circumstances.

B. If the mistake negates the mental state necessary to commit a crime. Choice B is correct because an honest mistake is enough to affect the mens rea requirement for the crime of theft which requires the intentional taking of property of another. Choice A and D are not relevant while Choice C could be offered to reduce liability from a specific intent to a general intent crime.

The State of Francis decides to expand its university system and open a new public university. In order to attract a diverse student body in their first graduating class the university administration decides to award a set number of points to applicants who are of an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. This plan is: A. Constitutional because it promotes diversity in a public school B. An unconstitutional classification by race C. An unconstitutional denial of due process D. None of the above

B. An unconstitutional classification by race The correct answer is (B) because any racial classification must satisfy strict scrutiny to be valid. The Supreme Court has held that rigid points awarded based on race or quota systems cannot survive this heightened standard of review. So A is wrong. C is wrong because it states an irrelevant constitutional theory.

Bill is a chef who runs a business preparing and serving fine cuisine dinners for homeowners hosting parties. Bill enters into a written contract with Angela a wealthy celebrity to prepare and serve an elegant sit-down dinner for thirty people to celebrate New Years' Eve. The negotiated contract price is $50000 with 60% of the contract price representing the costs of the specified food beverages and place settings and 40% representing the fee for preparing and serving the meal. Angela agreed to pay $30000 up front and the rest upon her manager's certification following the event that the service was acceptable. After the dinner Angela's manager refused to issue the certification regarding acceptable service because some of the food was cold and the service was too slow. As a result Angela refused to pay the balance of the contract price. If Bill sues Angela for the balance of the contract price who will prevail? A. Angela unless Bill can prove that other managers would have been satisfied. B. Angela if she can show that her manager's refusal was in good faith. C. Bill unless Angela proves that her manager's refusal was both in good faith and reasonable. D. Bill if Bill proves that the

B. Angela if she can show that her manager's refusal was in good faith. B is the best answer because this is condition of satisfaction by a specific person the manager. Therefore the satisfaction of someone else is irrelevant so A is incorrect. For the same reason C is incorrect because reasonableness implies some objective standard while the contract here is based on a subjective standard the approval of a particular person. D is incorrect because this will not meet the condition of approval.

Dale's friend Van promised to sell some cocaine for Dale but Van failed to give Dale the money for the cocaine. Dale heard Van was staying at his friend Esther's house so Dale went to Esther's house and banged on the door in the morning. No one answered but Dale thought Van was inside so he kicked in the door. At gunpoint Dale grabbed Van by the arm and took Van from Esther's house and forced Van into Dale's car saying Drive and get me my money or you die. Dale kept the gun low but pointed at Van at all times. Esther called the police who managed to locate Dale and blocked his car. Van jumped out of the moving car which slammed into a tree. Police arrested Dale. Dale can be convicted of: I. Battery of Van. II. Burglary at common law. A. All of the above. B. Battery only. C. Burglary only. D. None of the above.

B. Battery only. B is the best answer because burglary at common law required breaking and entering of the dwelling of another in the nighttime for the purpose of committing a felony

Art sued Dell for breach of contract. Dell brought a claim against Tom for indemnity arising out the breach of contract claim brought by Art against Dell. Dell also brought a claim against Art claiming Art had breached the same contract and seeking damages. Which of the following is correct? A. Dell's claim against Tom is based on impleader and Dell's claim against Art is a cross-claim. B. Dell's claim against Tom is based on impleader and Dell's claim against Art is a counterclaim. C. Dell's claim against Tom is a cross-claim and Dell's claim against Art is a counterclaim. D. Dell's claim against Tom is a cross-claim and Dell's claim against Art is a cross-claim.

B. Dell's claim against Tom is based on impleader and Dell's claim against Art is a counterclaim. B is the best answer as Dell's claim against Tom is bringing Tom into the action as a third party which is impleader and Dell's claim against Art is a counterclaim against an opposing party not a cross-claim against a co-party. Accordingly A C and D are incorrect.

Bella a resident of California filed a claim in federal district court in California alleging breach of contract against Don a resident of Texas. Don filed a motion to dismiss the case based on failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court denied the motion. Don then filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. How should the court rule? A. Deny the motion only if Don had minimum contacts with California. B. Deny the motion as untimely. C. Grant the motion if Don did not have minimum contacts with California. D. Grant the motion if Don was not a resident of California at the time of the contract.

B. Deny the motion as untimely. B is the best answer because the motion is untimely given that Don filed the first motion to dismiss without raising the personal jurisdiction issue thereby waiving the personal jurisdiction issue. A is incorrect because the motion should be denied regardless of whether Don had minimum contacts with California. C and D are incorrect because the motion would be denied for the reasons indicated.

Joe and Tom are merchants dealing in widgets. Over the phone they discuss: Joe: I can sell you 100 widgets for $1 each and deliver them to you on Friday by 9:00 a.m. Tom: Yes I accept. Please deliver after 1:00 p.m. and send me the invoice by e-mail. If Joe responds with silence delivers the widgets at 9:00 a.m. and leaves the invoice in an envelope with the widgets how will a court treat Tom's requests if Tom sues for breach of contract? A. Find that an enforceable contract was formed and treat Tom's requests as terms of the contract. B. Find that an enforceable contract was formed replace the delivery time with a reasonable delivery time and include the method of invoicing as a term of the contract. C. Find that an enforceable contract was formed keep the delivery time as 9:00 a.m. and include the method of invoicing as a term of the contract. D. All of the above.

B. Find that an enforceable contract was formed replace the delivery time with a reasonable delivery time and include the method of invoicing as a term of the contract. Under the UCC in transactions between merchants additional terms that are not objected to are incorporated into the contract and different terms may be deleted and replaced with a reasonable term by the court. Here the parties identified different delivery times and Tom included the additional term of invoicing. Thus the invoicing term would be included and the delivery time would be deleted for a reasonable time. Accordingly Option B is correct. Option A is incorrect because it treats both terms as additional terms. Option C is incorrect because the law does not support it.

Patty who is from Arizona filed a lawsuit against Diane who is from California for breach of contract in federal district court in California seeking $150000. The two had done business for years. Patty creates a wide variety of pottery which Diane sells in several retail outlets in Southern California. Diane filed a counterclaim against Patty for breach of a separate contract involving several paintings seeking $10000. Patty moved to dismiss the counterclaim. How should the court rule? A. Grant the motion because the claim is compulsory counterclaim but the court has no subject matter jurisdiction. B. Grant the motion because the claim is a permissive counterclaim without subject matter jurisdiction. C. Deny the motion because the claim is a compulsory counterclaim and the court has original jurisdiction. D. Deny the motion because the claim is a permissive counterclaim and the court has supplemental jurisdiction.

B. Grant the motion because the claim is a permissive counterclaim without subject matter jurisdiction. B is the best answer because the claim is a permissive counterclaim since it is on an unrelated contract and the court has no supplemental jurisdiction over such claims and this claim does not qualify for original jurisdiction due to the amount in controversy. A is incorrect because this is not a compulsory counterclaim since it involves a different contract. C is incorrect because this is not a compulsory counterclaim since it involves a different contract and because the court does not have jurisdiction. D is incorrect because the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction because the claim relates to a different contract.

Paula a citizen of California was vacationing in Hawaii where she had dinner at a small restaurant owned operated by Art a citizen of Hawaii. Paula became very ill requiring hospitalization and incurring $100000 in medical expenses. The problem was traced to some vegetables Art had purchased from Van a California resident a wholesaler who purchased the vegetables used to make the dinner from Frank a resident of California. Paula sued Art. Art impleaded Van who impleaded Frank. Paula then filed a claim in the same case against Frank. Frank moved to dismiss the claim by Paula and the claim by Van. How should the court rule? A. Grant both motions. B. Grant the motion to dismiss as to Paula's claim but deny the motion as to Van's claim. C. Grant the motion to dismiss as to Van's claim but deny the motion as to Paula's claim. D. Deny both motions.

B. Grant the motion to dismiss as to Paula's claim but deny the motion as to Van's claim. B is the best answer because there is no supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse claim against a third party by a plaintiff and no original jurisdiction because Paula and Frank are not diverse but the court does have supplemental jurisdiction over the third party claim brought by Van against Frank. A is incorrect because there is no supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse claim against a third party by a plaintiff. C is incorrect because there is no supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse claim against a third party by a plaintiff and no original jurisdiction because Paula and Frank are not diverse but the court does have supplemental jurisdiction over the third party claim brought by Van against Frank. D is incorrect because the court does have supplemental jurisdiction over the third party claim brought by Van against Frank despite the fact they are not diverse.

Art Ben and Carl all lived in the same college dorm. Vince lived just down the hall. Vince kept reporting Art for violating the rules and regulations of the dorm so Art and Ben decided to take Vince's medication for asthma and hide it hoping if he had an asthma attack in the middle of the night Vince would die. Carl heard Art and Ben discussing their plan and secretly agreed but did not say anything to anyone. The next morning Art and Ben went into Vince's unlocked dorm room while he was in class to hide the medication. Art hid the medicine in Vince's laundry bag. Ben changed his mind and told Art he had to go to the bathroom and left. Vince suffered an asthma attack and died overnight. If Art is charged with murder under common law a court will probably find Art: A. Guilty of first degree murder based on the felony murder rule. B. Guilty of first degree murder based on premeditation. C. Guilty of voluntary manslaughter based on adequate provocation. D. Guilty of involuntary manslaughter based on criminal recklessness.

B. Guilty of first degree murder based on premeditation. B is the best answer. A is incorrect because the felony murder would not apply here. There does not appear to be a burglary given there was no breaking and Art and Ben entered during the morning which does not meet the nighttime requirement under common law. C is incorrect as the crime was deliberated. D is incorrect because the conduct of Art was intentional in hiding the medication not reckless.

Dolly was determined to do anything to get into the Guys and Dolls gang and decided to firebomb a popular restaurant frequented by an opposing gang. Dolly took her sister Sis to the restaurant late one night when it was very crowded and told Sis that she would kill her if Sis did not throw a Molotov cocktail through the front window of the restaurant in order to scare everyone and establish her street credibility. Sis fearing for her life agreed and tossed the firebomb through the window resulting in an inferno that killed 10 members of the opposing gang. If Dolly is charged with murder she will most likely be found: A. Guilty of second degree murder. B. Guilty under the felony murder rule. C. Not guilty because Sis threw the firebomb. D. Not guilty because Dolly had no intent to kill.

B. Guilty under the felony murder rule. B is the best answer based on felony murder premised on arson which under modern law includes the malicious burning of any property. Felony murder by arson will be a first degree murder not a second degree murder so A is incorrect. The fact that Sis threw the firebomb will not relieve Dolly of liability because it is a foreseeable cause not a superseding cause so C is incorrect. D is incorrect because even if Dolly had no intent to kill she can be guilty of murder based on wanton/reckless conduct (depraved heart) or based on the felony murder rule.

Domino causes a disturbance at El Nino Cafe. He is arrested and charged with disorderly conduct a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is a crime generally punishable by A. A fine only. B. Imprisonment up to one year. C. Imprisonment up to six months. D. Imprisonment up to ten days.

B. Imprisonment up to one year. Choice B is correct because misdemeanors are generally punishable with imprisonment up to one year. Choices A C and D are therefore not right.

The substantial step test requires that the act or omission constitute a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime. An act will not qualify as a substantial step unless: A. There is proof to a moral certainty. B. There is a strong corroboration of the actor's criminal purpose. C. There is only circumstantial evidence. D. There is only direct evidence.

B. There is a strong corroboration of the actor's criminal purpose. Choice B is correct because the substantial step test requires corroboration of the actor's purpose more than just moral certainty in Choice A. Choices C and D use the incorrect terminology.

Helen had always dreamed of starting a small boutique and decided to take the leap. George agreed to lease a retail space to Helen for the store for three years. After the lease was signed Helen spent $20000 on inventory and another $10000 on décor for the store specifically designed to mesh with George's location. George breached the lease before Helen even moved into the property notifying her on the day prior to move in that he had decided to lease to another tenant. The other tenant moved into the space. Helen located another space but had to completely redo the décor arrangements. If Helen sues George she is most likely to be able to recover: A. Specific performance of the lease. B. Her expenses incurred on the décor. C. Lost profits from her anticipated sales. D. None of the above.

B. Her expenses incurred on the décor. B is the best answer as Helen incurred these expenses in reliance on the contract with George. A is not likely because a court will not award specific performance where it will disrupt the subsequent tenant and Helen will have difficulty proving that damages are inadequate once she is in another space so she would not be likely to seek specific performance. C is not likely because new businesses are unlikely to be able to establish lost profits with certainty. D is incorrect because it is likely she can recover her expenses in reliance.

Garth agreed that he would paint a fence for Jillian for $500. When the time came for Garth to do the job he had a more lucrative customer so Garth arranged for Ken to do the work for Jillian instead and agreed to pay Ken $400 and provided Ken with all the paint and other supplies needed for the job. Which of the following are correct? I. Jillian is a third party beneficiary of the contract between Ken and Garth. II. Jillian may enforce Ken's promise to paint the fence. III. Garth remains liable to Jillian for the work. IV. The agreement operates as a novation. A. All of the above. B. I II and III. C. II III and IV. D. I II and IV.

B. I II and III. B is the best answer because Garth's agreement with Ken creates a third party beneficiary situation I and II are correct. III is correct because Garth will remain liable to Jillian in the absence of any agreement by Jillian to consent to the transfer of duties which is the case here. Without such consent there is no novation so that IV is incorrect. For these reasons A, C, and D are incorrect. Gerald operates a music store and sells a high volume of musical instruments. Jack agreed to purchase a violin from Gerald for $250. Gerald has a very reliable supplier and never has trouble getting violins in stock at a cost of $100 to Gerald. A few weeks later Jack advises Gerald he's decided not to buy the violin. Gerald put the instrument back into his inventory and sold it to Jill for $250. What damages if any would Jack owe to Gerald? A. None because Gerald was able to re-sell the violin at the same price. B. Only incidental damages. C. Damages based on the difference between the contract price and the resale price. D. $150 since Gerald is a lost volume seller., D. $150 since Gerald is a lost volume seller. D is the best answer because given an unlimited supply of violins Gerald will qualify as a lost volume seller and be able to recover the lost profits. A is incorrect because a lost volume seller can recover lost profits less expenses saved. B is incorrect here as there do not appear to be any incidental damages in the form of additional expenses incurred. C is incorrect because there is no difference in the contract price of $250 and the resale price of $250 so this measure would not yield any damages.

Nora entered into a written contract to purchase designer pens for her chain of women's boutiques with Quincy a local artist. She agreed to purchase 200 pens per month for $5 per pen for a period of six months. Nora sold the pens for $20 each and they sold out in the first month. After the first month Quincy called and said he could not keep up with the production schedule and maintain the high quality so he had to back out of the contract. Nora took a month to locate another suitable vendor but was able to enter into a contract with Selma to deliver the pens at $7 per pen for the remainder of the contract period. If Nora sued Quincy for breach of contract she can recover: I. Consequential damages for the month with no sales less expenses saved II. Expectation damages based on the difference in value III. Incidental damages incurred A. All of the above B. I and II C. II and III D. I and III

B. I and II B is the best answer under 2-713 allowing a buyer to recover the difference between the market price and contract price (II) plus consequential damages less expenses saved (I). There are no incidental damages referenced as incidental damages would include expenses incurred.

Frank George and Hal have hired you to advise them whether they can bring a class action against their former employer for discrimination. Frank wants to allege discrimination based on race. George wants to allege age discrimination. Hal wants to allege discrimination based on his sexual orientation. At this time they are not aware of others who have encountered similar discrimination by their employer. What advice do you have for them? I. Their claims do not share common questions of law. II. They cannot meet the requirements for numerosity. III. Interpleader would be a better procedural device. A. All of the above. B. I and II only. C. II and III only. D. I and III only.

B. I and II only. B is the best answer as their claims of distinct types of discrimination will not meet the standard of common questions of law and only three plaintiffs would not meet the requirement of numerosity

Bart signed a contract with his employer Mercer Labs Inc. agreeing that he would not work for a competitor in the same area for one year following the end of his employment and would not use any trade secrets learned in his position with a competitive company. Boston Labs hired Bart by doubling his salary. Mercer learned that Bart disclosed information regarding a medical device under development at Mercer Labs to Boston Labs which Boston was using to develop a similar device. If Mercer sues Boston labs at this point Mercer should seek what remedies against Bart and Boston Labs? I. Injunctive relief II. Compensatory damages A. Both I and II. B. I only. C. II only. D. None of the above.

B. I only. B is the best answer here. An injunction is available to order Bart and Boston not to use the trade secrets. Compensatory damages may also be available but will not be appropriate here as there are no damages yet. Therefore A C and D are incorrect.

Deb borrowed $1000 from Carl and agreed to repay the loan in 30 days. After entering into this agreement Deb incurs an unexpected repair bill for $500 for her car. She calls Carl and requests that he accept $1100 in 60 days in discharge of her original agreement. Carl agrees to Deb's proposal in writing. What are Carl's options? A. This is a novation and Carl must wait for 60 days for Deb's payment. B. If Deb makes timely payment of the $1100 Carl must accept it. C. Carl can still sue on the original agreement after 30 days. D. Deb's duty to Carl on the original agreement is discharged when Carl agrees to accept $1100 in 60 days.

B. If Deb makes timely payment of the $1100 Carl must accept it. B is the best answer as once Deb makes the payment of $1100 in 60 days this is an executed accord and satisfaction. A is incorrect because this is not a novation which would have to involve a third party. C is incorrect because Carl has promised to wait for 60 days so that any suit by Carl after 30 days would be a breach of the agreement with Deb. D is incorrect because the agreement is not discharged until the payment is made.

The State of Sciana is dismayed that its students have fared worse than other states on standardized tests especially in math and science. In order to try to motivate teachers and make sure students have the resources they need to succeed the state legislature votes to subsidize teachers' salaries teacher trainings and science textbooks in all public and private schools located within the state. This policy: A. Violates the Lemon test because of excessive entanglement B. Is constitutional because parents choose whether to send their kids to religious schools C. Is constitutional because there is a financial need in all public and private schools D. Is constitutional because the state is not directing curriculum at the private schools

B. Is constitutional because parents choose whether to send their kids to religious schools The correct answer is B. A is wrong because the Lemon test was formally abandoned in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022). C is wrong because whether there is a financial need standing alone is not dispositive on the question of whether there has been an unconstitutional establishment of religion. D is wrong for the same reason.

Adam who worked at a warehouse told his two friends Ben and Cal that a shipment of goods would be delivered to the warehouse and told them he would leave the alarm off and it would not be hard to break in if they wanted to do so. The following night Ben and Cal went to the warehouse and broke in through a back window that was already cracked. As Adam had indicated the alarm was off. Ben and Cal loaded two new appliances into their truck to steal them. Cal then waited in the truck. Ben went back into the warehouse to get his jacket. On his way out Ben threw a cigarette into a trash container and it burst into flames. Ben ran for the truck and Ben and Cal sped away. The fire spread and the warehouse was destroyed. Under common law what crimes did Ben commit? A. Burglary only. B. Larceny only. C. Arson and burglary. D. Larceny and arson.

B. Larceny only. B is the best answer because Ben committed larceny when he and Cal took the appliances they committed a trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of the warehouse owners with an intent to permanently deprive them of the property. C is incorrect because at common law arson was the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. D is incorrect for the same reason. A is incorrect under common law because burglary at common law was the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another in the night with intent to commit a felony and here we don't have a dwelling.

Riley a State Bank employee deposits into his account checks that are given to him by bank customers to deposit into their accounts. This is A. Embezzlement. B. Larceny. C. False pretenses. D. No crime.

B. Larceny. Choice B is correct because Riley has taken the property of another without permission. Choice A is not correct because it implies an authorization to handle the checks which Riley did not enjoy as only an employee of the Bank not the customers. C is not proper as there has been no false representation which allowed Riley to take possession of the property.

Sam received an anonymous email stating that his wife Wendy was having an affair with Ron a family friend. Enraged Sam drove to Ron's house with a loaded gun. The garage light was on and Sam saw the shadow of a person moving within the garage. Sam decided to fire his gun into the bedroom next to the garage just to scare Ron. In fact Ron was inside the garage and Ron's 15 year old son Junior was in bedroom next to the garage. Junior was hit after Sam fired three shots into the bedroom. Junior died of his wounds. Sam is guilty of: A. First degree murder B. Murder based on depraved heart C. Felony murder D. Voluntary manslaughter

B. Murder based on depraved heart B is the best answer because depraved heart murder involves extremely negligent conduct such that a reasonable person would realize that it creates a very high degree of risk of death or serious bodily injury to another which actually causes death to another. Here the risk created by shooting into the home of a longtime family friend with a teenager living in the home fulfills this requirement. No intent to kill is required. A is incorrect because first degree murder requires deliberate premeditated killing or killing by enumerated means or an enumerated felony not present here. C is incorrect because the facts do not show any inherently dangerous felony (rape arson robbery or burglary).

In a writing signed by both parties on December 1 Dan agreed to sell his lawnmower to Paul for $1000 delivery to be made on the following February 1. Through a secretarial error the writing called for delivery on March 1 but neither party noticed the error until February 1. Before signing the agreement Paul and Dan orally agreed that the contract of sale would be effective only if Paul notified Dan in writing no later than January 2 that Paul had arranged to resell the lawnmower to a third person. Otherwise they agreed orally There is no deal. On December 15 Paul entered into a contract with Tammy to resell the lawnmower to Tammy at a profit. Paul did not give Dan notice of the resale of the lawnmower until January 25. Meantime the value of the lawnmower had unexpectedly increased about 75% since December 1 and Dan cancelled the agreement. If Paul asserts an action against Dan on February 2 for breach of contract which of the following is Dan's best defense? A. The secretarial error in the written delivery-term was a mutual mistake concerning a basic assumption of the contract and the agreement is voidable by either party. B. Paul's not giving written notice by January 2 of his resale o

B. Paul's not giving written notice by January 2 of his resale of the lawnmower was a failure of a condition precedent to the existence of a contract. B is the correct answer. A condition is an event not certain to occur which must occur before performance under a contract becomes due. In other words when making a contract the parties agree that the obligation to render a particular performance is contingent on the happening of a specified uncertain event. Here the parties agreed that the sale of the lawnmower from Dan to Paul was contingent upon Paul's reselling the lawnmower and notifying Dan by January 2. When that condition did not occur Dan's obligation to sell the lawnmower to Paul was extinguished. A is wrong since neither party here made a mistake. C is wrong since the purpose of the contract was to sell the lawnmower which was not thwarted by Paul's failure to notify Dan of the resale. D is wrong since the delivery date here was not an omitted term and the parties acted with the correct date February 1 in mind.

Don saw his girlfriend Veronica walking down the street with Art holding hands and became infuriated. Later that evening he drove to Veronica's house and through a window saw Veronica and Art together drinking wine. Don went to his car and got a gun. Intending to scare Art he fired his gun into the house. The bullet from Don's gun struck and killed Art. The most serious crime Don can be convicted of is: A. First degree murder. B. Second degree murder. C. Voluntary manslaughter. D. Involuntary manslaughter.

B. Second degree murder. B is the best answer. First degree murder is a willful deliberate and premeditated killing killing done by enumerated means (use of poison torture or ambush) or killing caused by the commission of an enumerated felony (rape robbery arson and burglary). Any other murder that is not first-degree murder is second degree murder. Here Art's conduct was not premeditated but he acted with malice aforethought because he acted with a depraved heart that is a willful and wanton disregard for human life.

Dan enters into a contract with Pearl to build her a vacation home near a lake. That contract stated that the cost of construction was $100000 and that Acme hardwood flooring was to be installed throughout the house. A flooring subcontractor hired by Dan substituted Brave flooring for the Acme flooring because Acme flooring was difficult to get in the area. Brave flooring was comparable to Acme in appearance quality and durability. Several months after the construction was completed Pearl was in her garage when she noticed a box of flooring stamped with the name Brave on the outside of the packaging. Pearl complained to Dan that Brave rather than Acme flooring had been installed and Dan told her it would cost $20000 to replace all of the flooring in the house. The difference in the market value of Pearl's vacation home with Brave rather than Acme flooring was negligible. If Pearl asserts an action against Dan seeking damages for breach of contract how should the court rule? A. Pearl should be awarded the cost of replacement of the flooring because Dan did not substantially perform B. Pearl should be awarded damages equal to the difference between the market value of the property with A

B. Pearl should be awarded damages equal to the difference between the market value of the property with Acme flooring and the market value with the Brave. B is the correct answer. It is not appropriate to award the cost of rectifying a nonconformity in performance where the breach is neither material nor willful and the cost of remedying the defect in performance is grossly out of proportion to the harm caused by the breach. Therefore C is incorrect. A is incorrect since the cost of replacing the flooring is 20% of the contract price and Dan did substantially perform. D is incorrect because Pearl would still be entitled to the diminution in market value although it may be de minimis.

Ray purchased new carpet for his home from Carpet World. The advertisements for Carpet World had a customer satisfaction guarantee stating if for any reason a customer is not satisfied with the carpet for any reason Carpet World will replace it for free. Ray thought he liked the sample when he saw it in the store but once it was installed he did not like the look of it in his home. What are the rights of the parties? A. Ray is not entitled to have new carpet installed unless he articulates an objective and specific reason for his dissatisfaction. B. Ray is entitled to have new carpet installed at no cost if Ray is acting in good faith. C. Ray is entitled to have new carpet if a reasonable person would do so. D. Ray is entitled to have new carpet if a third party confirms his judgment.

B. Ray is entitled to have new carpet installed at no cost if Ray is acting in good faith. B is the best answer where there is a condition of satisfaction that is subjective it is enforceable as long as it is exercised in good faith. A is incorrect because the condition of satisfaction here was subjective based on Ray's taste. C is incorrect because a subjective condition examines only the good faith of Ray's opinion not the opinion of a reasonable person. D is incorrect because it is not necessary to address the opinion of a third party where that was not required under the agreement between the parties.

Art entered into a written contract to sell his property to Bob for $100000. After Bob signed the contract Art spent $5000 cleaning up some debris on the property as requested by Bob. Bob repudiates the contract and Art is able to sell the property to Cal for $100000. If Art sues Bob he can recover A. Expectation damages of $100000. B. Reliance damages of $5000. C. Restitution based on the benefit to Bob. D. None of the above.

B. Reliance damages of $5000. B is the best answer because Art as a seller incurred expense in reliance on Bob's agreement and request to clear the debris. Art has not incurred expectation damages of $100000 since he was able to resell the property so A in incorrect. There is no benefit to Bob so restitution is not available and therefore C is incorrect. D is incorrect because B is applicable.

Robert sued his former business partner Dillon for breach of their partnership agreement and dissolution of the partnership as well as conversion based on allegations of embezzlement by Dillon. Robert sought discovery in the lawsuit including financial records from Dillon's bank during the time period of the alleged embezzlement. The Bank was not a party to the case. Based on partnership records Robert believes that the Bank records will show that Dillon had been siphoning money from the partnership account into Dillon's personal account. Which of the following is correct? A. Robert may obtain records from the Bank through a document request and the records are relevant to the subject matter of the action. B. Robert may obtain records from the Bank through a subpoena and the records are relevant to his claims. C. Robert may not obtain records from the Bank because the records are not relevant to his claims. D. Robert may only obtain records from the Bank by filing a motion with the court seeking the information.

B. Robert may obtain records from the Bank through a subpoena and the records are relevant to his claims. B is the best answer as it appears the records are relevant to the claim of conversion and embezzlement and the Bank is not a party so a subpoena is needed to obtain the records. A is incorrect because a document request can be issued only to a party and the relevance is determined based on the claims not the subject matter of the action generally. C is incorrect because the records are relevant. D is incorrect because a motion is unnecessary.

Jay agreed to paint the entire interior of Ron's house by June 1 for $4000. Jay completed most of the work by May 28 and Jay's work was satisfactory on most of the house but he failed to paint several of the baseboards in one of the bedrooms. Ron pointed this out to Jay on May 29. Jay claimed he had completed the job and requested payment. Ron refused to pay Jay prior to June 1 and demanded that Jay complete the job before payment. Which of the following is correct? A. Ron is excused from payment under the contract as of May 30 due to Jay's failure to complete the work. B. Ron is excused from payment as of June 1 if Jay fails to cure. C. Jay substantially completed the work and is entitled to payment on May 30. D. Jay is in material breach on May 30 and has forfeited his right to cure.

B. Ron is excused from payment as of June 1 if Jay fails to cure. B is the best answer because Jay is in breach on May 30 but has the right to cure until the contract deadline of June 1 and if so to receive payment in full. A is incorrect because Jay has until June 1 to cure any defects in the work at which time Ron would be obligated to pay him. C is incorrect because the work was not completed by May 30 and Jay is not entitled to payment. D is incorrect and Jay has until the contract deadline of June 1 to cure.

The best argument for applying strict scrutiny to laws that invidiously discriminate against members of the LGBT community would be: A. The Constitution specifically guarantees equality for LGBT Americans. B. The LGBT community is a discrete and insular minority that lacks political power. C. Discrimination against LGBT folks distorts the democratic process. D. None of the above.

B. The LGBT community is a discrete and insular minority that lacks political power.

Randy entered into a lease with Len a retail landlord for a small donut shop for a term of five years and agreed to pay $700 per month. The lease provided that if Randy breached the lease he would be required to pay a penalty of 50% of his gross revenues for the store over the past year. Len explained the clause to Randy and he initialed it when he signed the lease. The store earned about $10000 in gross revenues per month until a new donut store opened nearby with about six months left on the lease which seriously harmed Randy's business. With six months left on the lease Randy realized he was not making any profit and he decided to close his business and cancel the lease. Len accepted the cancellation and advised Randy that he owed Len a total of $60000 as a penalty. What is Randy's best argument? A. The charge is procedurally unconscionable. B. The charge is an unenforceable penalty. C. The charge is fraudulent. D. Len must mitigate his damages by re-leasing the premises.

B. The charge is an unenforceable penalty. B is the best answer because although parties may agree to liquidated damages the clause must be a reasonable forecast of actual damages from the anticipated breach and not a penalty. Here the consequence of the breach is the loss of $4200 in rent which is an amount reasonably ascertained based on the lease provisions

Paul a resident of Oregon filed a claim for personal injuries against Dell a California resident who ran into Paul's car when Dell was driving a delivery truck for Dan's Deli a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Dover Delaware. At the same time Paul filed a claim against Dan's Deli based on vicarious liability for Paul's negligent conduct. Dan's Deli brought a third party claim against Dell and a claim against Zorro Insurance for indemnity. Which of the following are correct? A. The claim brought by Dan's Deli against Dell is a counterclaim and its claim against Zorro Insurance is an impleader claim. B. The claim brought by Dan's Deli against Dell is a cross-claim and its claim against Zorro Insurance is an impleader claim. C. The claim brought by Dan's Deli against Dell is a cross-claim and its claim against Zorro Insurance is an interpleader claim. D. The claim brought by Dan's Deli against Dell is a counterclaim and its claim against Zorro Insurance is a claim in intervention.

B. The claim brought by Dan's Deli against Dell is a cross-claim and its claim against Zorro Insurance is an impleader claim. B is correct because a claim against a co-party is a cross-claim and a claim against a third party is an impleader claim. A is incorrect because a counterclaim is a claim against an opposing party. C is incorrect because a claim against a third party is an impleader claim not an interpleader claim. D is incorrect because the claim against Zorro is an impleader claim not a claim in intervention.

Sober State's legislature has learned that the medicine pseudoephedrine can be used to make illegal methamphetamines and that teens have been buying Sudafed in large quantities and creating pop-up meth labs across the state. Disturbed by the over-the-counter drug's ease of acquisition by teenagers the legislature passes a law that requires a business making an over-the-counter sale of a product containing ephedrine pseudoephedrine or norpseudoephedrine to make the purchaser show a driver's license or other form of government-issued photo ID that indicates the person is 16 or older before allowing the purchaser to acquire any of the drug. The law also limits the amount of ephedrine pseudoephedrine or norpseudoephedrine a person can purchase within a given month. Allison an allergy sufferer files a lawsuit claiming that Sudafed is the only drug that helps with her allergy symptoms and that her work schedule does not allow her to go to the pharmacy during working hours (when the pharmacists are there to give out controlled substances). Assuming Allison has standing to challenge this law the court is likely to rule: A. Imposing a burden to acquire photo identification is unconstitutional B

B. The law is valid as it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest The correct answer is (B) because acquiring pseudoephedrine is not considered to be a fundamental right. Under mere rationality if the state wants to monitor the amount purchased and impose an age limit for pseudoephedrine sales it may do so as a way to reduce teens' ability to make meth while still allowing law-abiding citizens to purchase Sudafed. A is wrong because the Court has found photo ID requirements to be valid even for fundamental rights such as voting and there is no fundamental right at stake here. C is wrong because strict scrutiny does not apply here. D is wrong because the commerce power belongs to Congress and this is a state law passed according to Sober State's police powers.

Owner and Contractor entered into a written agreement under which Contractor agreed to build a house and pave an adjacent sidewalk for Owner at a price of $500000. While construction was proceeding Contractor informed Owner that he did not have enough workers to pave the sidewalk but he could complete the house on time. Owner orally agreed to modify the contract so that Contractor did not have to pave the sidewalk but would still be paid $400000 upon completion of the construction of the house. Contractor completed the house. Contractor took another job after Owner confirmed verbally that Contractor was no longer obligated to do the paving. Owner later demanded that Contractor pave the adjacent sidewalk. Contractor refused. Can Owner recover for breach by Contractor based on Contractor's failure to pave the sidewalk or is the modification enforceable? A. Any modification to a contract must be in writing so the modification is not enforceable. B. The modification is enforceable because Contractor detrimentally relied upon Owner's promise by taking another job. C. The modification is enforceable only if the contract did not include a no oral modification clause. D. The oral modification

B. The modification is enforceable because Contractor detrimentally relied upon Owner's promise by taking another job. B is the best answer. This contract is governed by the common law because it involves a service. Under the common law modifications to a contract require additional consideration but detrimental reliance is a substitute for consideration. Here Contractor relied on Owner's oral modification of the parties' agreement by taking another job. Choice A is incorrect because there is no law requiring that a modification be in writing. Choice C is incorrect because even if the contract included a no oral modification clause that clause could be waived. Choice D is incorrect because it is only required for modifications under the UCC.

Following an automobile accident between Pat and Debbie Zurich Insurance questioned Walt a witness concerning the accident. Pat sued Debbie and Debbie issued a subpoena to Zurich seeking production of Walt's statement concerning the accident. Zurich had sent the statement to Pat's attorney. Walt is available and could be interviewed by Debbie's attorney. Which of the following is correct? A. The statement is protected by the attorney client privilege. B. The statement is protected by the work product doctrine. C. The statement is protected by both the attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine. D. The statement is not protected by either the attorney client privilege or the work product doctrine.

B. The statement is protected by the work product doctrine. B is the best answer because the statement was prepared in anticipation of litigation and there is no undue hardship to obtain the information through Debbie having her attorney take a statement from Walt. A is incorrect because the statement is not a confidential communication between client and counsel. C is incorrect for the same reason. D is incorrect because the statement is protected by the work product doctrine for the reasons indicated.

Residents at a City Council meeting complain that they work for retail stores who will not allow them time off on Sundays to attend Christian church services. The City Council eager to help these fellow Christians discusses how religious freedom is threatened these days and passes an ordinance that all businesses shall remain closed until at least Noon on Sundays. This ordinance: A. Will fail because it is a taking of private property. B. Will fail because it has a religious purpose. C. Will fail because it incidentally benefits Christians. D. None of the above.

B. Will fail because it has a religious purpose.

On June 1 Sam and Bob contracted in writing for the sale and purchase of Sam's cattle ranch and to close the transaction on December 1. On November 1 Bob told Sam I'm increasingly unhappy about our June 1 contract because of the current lamb market and do not intend to buy your ranch unless I'm legally obligated to do so. Sam immediately sent a fax to Bob stating I am counting on you to follow through with our deal. Let me know immediately if you do not intend to do so. If Sam hears nothing in response from Bob and sues Bob on November 20 for breach of contract Sam will probably A. Win because Bob committed a total breach by anticipatory repudiation on November 1. B. Win because Bob's November 1 statement created reasonable grounds for Sam's insecurity with respect to Butcher's performance and Sam did not receive assurances of Bob's performance. C. Lose because the parties contracted for the sale and conveyance of a cattle ranch and Sam cannot bring suit for breach of such a contract prior to the agreed closing date. D. Lose because Bob's November 1 statement to Sam was neither a repudiation nor a present breach of the July 1 contract.

B. Win because Bob's November 1 statement created reasonable grounds for Sam's insecurity with respect to Butcher's performance and Sam did not receive assurances of Bob's performance. B is the correct answer. A Prospective Inability to Perform is where there are reasonable grounds for the promisee to believe that a promisor will commit a breach by non-performance. While courts are split on whether this can be considered as an immediate breach all courts agree that the promisee may suspend his performance and demand adequate assurances of due performance. UCC 2-609 the demand for adequate assurance of performance is required to be in writing. If such assurances are not provided within a reasonable time the failure to provide assurances may be treated as a breach of contract. Here Sam had reasonable grounds to believe that Bob would not perform and since Bob did not provide adequate assurance of performance within a reasonable time Sam is entitled to sue for breach. A is wrong since Bob's statement was not an anticipatory repudiation since it was not an unequivocal statement of breach. C and D are incorrect for the reasons stated above.

Lisa and Megan are both merchants dealing in widgets. On May 1 Lisa called Megan and offered to sell her 100 widgets for $100. Lisa told Megan that the offer would remain open until May 10. Lisa sent Megan a confirming letter to Lisa to this effect. On May 3 Megan sent a signed acceptance letter to Lisa by mail. On May 4 Lisa called Megan and revoked her offer. On May 6 Lisa received Megan's letter of acceptance. Was a valid contract formed between Lisa and Megan? A. Yes if there was consideration for Lisa's promise to hold open the offer until May 10. B. Yes because Lisa promised her offer would remain open until May 10. C. No because Lisa revoked her offer before she received Megan's acceptance. D. No because there was no consideration given by Megan for Lisa's promise to hold the offer open.

B. Yes because Lisa promised her offer would remain open until May 10. B is the best answer. Under the mailbox rule revocation is effective upon receipt and acceptance is effective upon dispatch. A merchant's firm offer under the UCC is irrevocable even if no consideration is given when it includes a promise to hold the offer open in writing and explicit assurance that it will be held open for a stated period of time. These requirements are met here because Lisa offered to hold the offer open until May 10 in writing. Megan accepted the offer by that date. And Lisa's offer was irrevocable prior to May 10 so her attempted revocation was ineffective. A is incorrect because no consideration is required for a merchant's firm offer. D is incorrect for the same reason. C is incorrect because the revocation was ineffective given 1) the promise to hold the offer open until 5/10 and 2) the dispatch of the acceptance prior to the revocation.

In January Margaret who lived in California went on-line to book a ticket to Brazil to attend the World Cup in June. She found a good deal on the Fly Cheap Airline website and proceeded to make her purchase. After she entered her credit card information a new screen displayed that contained a great deal of text under the heading Terms of Service. As she had done on other websites she clicked on the I accept button without reading the text. The next screen displayed her confirmation number. Had Margaret read the text on the screen she would have seen a statement that read: Purchaser agrees to resolve all disputes with Fly Cheap Airlines in binding arbitration in Alaska. In June Margaret went to Brazil and had a great trip. Her return flight however was horrible and Fly Cheap lost her luggage. When Margaret threatened to sue Fly Cheap the flight attendant told her she could only file an arbitration action in Alaska against Fly Cheap. The flight attendant told her it was a term of service displayed on the website before a purchase is finalized. Is Margaret bound by the arbitration clause in the terms of service policy? A. Yes because it is a standard policy in contracts B. Yes because M

B. Yes because Margaret agreed to the terms of service policy.

After having destroyed his dilapidated building in order to collect the insurance money Lassister wanted Cerano to burn down his home in order to destroy any evidence connected with the commercial building's fire. Cerano was unavailable so Lassister decided to do it himself by using an improvised explosive device which would overload the electrical panel with a surge causing many of the fixtures in his home to explode and catch fire. Lassister called the fire department and then set the time on the explosive. The device failed to explode until a fireman found it and threw it into a trash can. The trash can caught fire along with the rest of the home. Has Lassister committed arson? A. Yes because he caused the fireman to dispose of the device improperly. B. Yes because he had the required intent. C. No because his mistake caused an intervening event to negate his liability. D. No because even if his actions were outrageous they would not have constituted arson.

B. Yes because he had the required intent. Answer choice B is correct. Lassister committed arson by intentionally burning down his home. Modern statutes have expanded the definition of arson to include buildings other than dwellings such as here. Lassiter is guilty because he had the required intent and completed all of the actions that would result in the crime. That an unwitting fireman accomplished his task will not relieve him of responsibility.

Polly is the widow of Jake who died when a truck driven by an employee of ABC Inc. collided with Jake's car. Before he died Jake initiated a lawsuit against ABC for personal injuries sustained in the accident. A jury concluded that ABC's driver was not negligent and thus issued a verdict in ABC's favor. After Jake passed away from his injuries he sustained in the accident Polly initiated a wrongful-death suit against ABC in Pennsylvania federal court. ABC moves to dismiss the action asserting that the previous personal injury action involving Jake precludes Polly's wrongful death suit. How should the court rule? A) Deny the motion because Polly is proceeding on her own behalf. B) Deny the motion because Jake did not represent Polly's interests in the earlier case. C) Grant the motion because Polly litigated the prior action through Jake as a proxy. D) Grant the motion because Polly is suing as Jake's survivor.

D) Grant the motion because Polly is suing as Jake's survivor.

Cleaning Company placed flyers around the city that list its available services and states: This coupon is worth $20 off the price if you call within 24 hours and order a top-to-bottom house-cleaning for $500. Call us by noon and we will clean your home today. Bryan called Cleaning Company at 10 am and ordered the top-to-bottom cleaning at his home at 100 Main St. located in City that afternoon. Do the parties have a contract? A. Yes because the flyer is an offer for a unilateral contract. B. Yes because there is mutual assent to the terms. C. No because the flyer is an invitation to make an offer. D. No because the flyer failed to provide specific and definite terms.

B. Yes because there is mutual assent to the terms. Here the ad specifies the terms for a deal—$480 for a top-to-bottom house-cleaning—and identifies how a person may accept—calling within 24 hours. Thus the ad is an offer. Bryan accepted as specified by calling so his acceptance is valid. There is a bargained for exchange so there is adequate consideration. Therefore B is the best answer. A is incorrect because the offer is not for a unilateral contract. C is incorrect because although many ads are invitations to make offers this ad includes words of commitment - call us by noon and we will clean your house today. D is incorrect because as to the top to bottom cleaning the flyer provided specific and definite terms.

Marty sued Felix for breach of contract. Felix moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion was denied. Felix now moves to dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process. What result? A) Granted if service was not sufficient. B) Granted if Felix was not personally served. C) Denied because it was waived. D) Denied but only if Felix had actual notice.

C) Denied because it was waived.

Pam's husband died in a plane crash. Ten survivors filed separate wrongful death cases against the Airline in separate states. In seven cases the jury found that the Airline was not negligent. In three cases the jury found that the Airline was negligent. Pam filed case number 11 seeking damages for wrongful death against Airline. Pam files a motion for summary judgment seeking to use the determinations that the Airline was negligent in three cases to preclude the Airline from litigating the cases based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. How should the court rule? A) Grant Pam's motion because the issue was previously actually litigated. B) Grant Pam's motion because the issue was previously necessarily determined. C) Deny Pam's motion due to the inconsistent verdicts. D) Deny Pam's motion because the prior determination was not essential to the judgments.

C) Deny Pam's motion due to the inconsistent verdicts.

Rasha sued Kahn who lived much of his time in an apartment in New York where he had certified to the building that he resided but frequently traveled abroad to Saudi Arabia. Rasha served the summons and complaint at Kahn's New York apartment where he had been staying for a month. Kahn's live-in maid age accepted service. Kahn failed to answer the complaint based on his assumption that service on his maid was not valid. The court entered a default based on Rasha's request and entered judgment against Kahn. Kahn then filed a motion to set aside the default claiming the service of the complaint was invalid. How should the court rule? A) Grant the motion because service on his maid is invalid. B) Grant the motion because Kahn did not reside in New York. C) Deny the motion because service was valid. D) Deny the motion because Kahn spent substantial time in Saudi Arabia.

C) Deny the motion because service was valid.

Consider the facts set forth in question 4 and assume the ordinance was struck down for lacking a rational basis. Pretend you are a City Attorney for Canweyego and a member of the city council asks you to redraft the ordinance to keep sexual predators away from schools and parks. Your best bet at saving the ordinance by safeguarding offenders' due process rights would be to: A) Put in place an opportunity for a hearing before a judge before a parolee could be banned from housing in the safe zones. B) Re-draw the safe zones to be 1800 feet instead of 2000 feet which would leave 2 extra available apartment complexes in Canweyego. C) Guarantee every parolee a hearing in which he could present evidence of his crimes and only apply the safe zone ban to those offenders whose crime(s) were against children. D) There is no way to save the ordinance because people have a fundamental right to rental housing in the city of their choice.

C) Guarantee every parolee a hearing in which he could present evidence of his crimes and only apply the safe zone ban to those offenders whose crime(s) were against children.

Dennis buys 2 snow tires for his truck from Tia's Tires. The manufacturer of the tires is Treadco and the two tires are mounted and balanced by Tia. After driving around for 3 weeks Dennis notices that the left snow tire is low on air. He is angry and decides to refill the tire and then head to Tia's Tires to complain. Dennis drives to the nearest gas station for air and starts pumping air into the tire. He notices the tire slowly starting to bubble along the sidewall and the more air that he puts in the worse the bubble gets. As Dennis puts in 5 lbs more the bulge gets bigger and then suddenly explodes. A steel belt from inside the tire flies out and hits Dennis in the eye causing an injury. Subsequent investigation revealed that the snow tires had a manufacturing defect. Dennis sues both Tia's Tires and Treadco. Will Dennis prevail in his suit against the tire manufacturer Treadco? A) No if Tia's Tires failed to inspect the tire. B) No if the tire was improperly installed. C) Yes if the defect existed when the tire left Treadco's plant. D) Yes unless the design of the tires was the 'state of the art'.

C) Yes if the defect existed when the tire left Treadco's plant.

Julie Yard owner of a music school contracted with Tacky Treasures to purchase a bust of Beethoven for $300 to be delivered the day before her grand opening. Tacky called Julie the day of delivery and said there would be a delay. Desperate for décor Julie ran around town seeking a replacement. All she can find is a bust of Mozart in a local art gallery. The price is $500 but she had to have something so she bought it and sued Tacky for damages. Julie can recover: A. $500 based on the price of the Mozart piece. B. $300 based on the Beethoven piece. C. $200 based on the difference in value between the two pieces. D. $200 based on the market value of the Beethoven piece.

C. $200 based on the difference in value between the two pieces. C is the best answer because the measure of cover is the difference between the contract price and the price of the substitute transaction. A B and D are incorrect because they do not derive from the correct rule.

A parent sues to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned in her state claiming that calling the United States a nation under God violates the Establishment Clause. A court will likely: A. Ban the Pledge of Allegiance for endorsing religion. B. Ban the Pledge of Allegiance for indoctrinating children. C. Allow the Pledge of Allegiance despite the incidental mention of God. D. Allow the Pledge of Allegiance because instilling patriotism is a compelling state interest that justifies religious discrimination.

C. Allow the Pledge of Allegiance despite the incidental mention of God.

Art entered into a written agreement to work as a news anchor for CBC a national news organization for two years for $1 million per year. Art's contract provided that CBC's rights under the contract for Art's services could not be assigned and that any assignment would be void. CBC sold all of its assets to ANA an international news organization and assigned all contracts with CBC employees to ANA. CBC advised ANA of Art's non-assignment clause at the time of the sale. For personal reasons Art did not wish to be affiliated with ANA as he felt it would tarnish his reputation as an independent newsperson. If ANA sued to compel Art to work for ANA Art's best argument would be: A. Consideration is required for the assignment. B. CBC breached Art's contract in making the assignment. C. Art's contract is not assignable under these circumstances. D. Generally assignments are valid only with the consent of the promisee.

C. Art's contract is not assignable under these circumstances. C is the best answer here. Clauses that prohibit assignment of the rights of a party under the contract are generally enforceable under the Restatement 2nd section 322 assuming they provide that the contract would be void and because Art's contract is a personal services contract for unique services that would not be assignable under these circumstances where the change is material to Art. A is incorrect as a statement of law because generally no consideration is required for an assignment. B is technically correct as far as CBC breaching Art's contract but that argument is more appropriate in a claim for breach against CBC. D is incorrect because generally an assignment of rights is valid even if there is no valid consent.

Vladimir is a payday lender charged with filing false claims in bankruptcy proceedings against his customer-debtors. The standard of proof to find a defendant who has been charged with a crime guilty is A. A preponderance of the evidence. B. Beyond all doubt C. Beyond a reasonable doubt. D. Clear and convincing evidence.

C. Beyond a reasonable doubt. C is correct because for all criminal cases the appropriate standard for guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. All of the other choices apply to either civil cases or some probable cause hearings.

After a Subway train derailed seventeen passengers were killed and 180 passengers were injured. Subway carried insurance for $20 million through Arrow Insurance. The passengers who were killed were from Delaware Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Subway is located in Massachusetts. Arrow is located in Florida. If the survivors of the decedents seek to assert claim against the insurance policy issued by Arrow assuming the amount in controversy is satisfied which joinder device is appropriate? A. Only rule interpleader because the parties are diverse. B. Only statutory interpleader because the diversity requirement is met. C. Both statutory and rule interpleader are available. D. Neither statutory nor rule interpleader apply on these facts.

C. Both statutory and rule interpleader are available. C is the best answer because rule interpleader requires that the stakeholder and claimants are diverse which is the case here and statutory interpleader requires only that any two claimants be diverse which is also the case here. A is incorrect because statutory interpleader is also available. B is incorrect because rule interpleader is also available. D is incorrect because both statutory and rule interpleader are available.

Dan was jealous of Vaughn who was dating Dan's former girlfriend. Dan decided to kill Vaughn. One night in a bar Dan shot at Vaughn but missed and instead hit Carl in the arm wounding Carl. What result if Dan is charged with attempted murder of Carl? A. Dan is guilty because he fired a gun at Vaughn. B. Dan is guilty because Carl was wounded. C. Dan is not guilty because he did not intend to kill Carl. D. Dan is not guilty because Cal did not die.

C. Dan is not guilty because he did not intend to kill Carl. C is the best answer because attempted murder requires specific intent to kill the victim Carl and Dan did not have such intent. A is incorrect because Dan did not have specific intent to kill Carl as required for attempted murder. B is incorrect for the same reason. D is incorrect because whether or not Carl dies is not relevant if the charge is attempted murder.

Matt (from New York) sued Frank (from Florida) seeking $70000 alleging antitrust violations under federal law. Frank filed a motion to dismiss the case for improper venue. The motion was denied. Frank then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule? A. Grant the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. B. Grant the motion for failure to state a claim and deny the motion based on subject matter jurisdiction. C. Deny the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and deny the motion based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. D. Deny the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim but grant the motion due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

C. Deny the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and deny the motion based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. C is the best answer because the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was waived when Frank filed the motion for change of venue

Dexter contracts in writing to sell his 2014 monster truck to Thomas for $55000. Dexter agrees to deliver the truck on Friday and Thomas promises to pay the $55000 on the following Monday. On Thursday Thomas tells Dexter that he changed his mind and will not buy the truck. Over the weekend Thomas changes his mind again and tenders $55000 to Dexter on Monday. Dexter told Thomas that he sold the truck to another party over the week-end. In an action by Thomas to enforce the contract who is likely to prevail? A. Thomas since he could retract his repudiation of the contract at any time before the time performance was due. B. Thomas because Dexter breached the contract C. Dexter since Thomas's repudiation released him from his duty to perform under the contract. D. Dexter since he did not breach of their contract.

C. Dexter since Thomas's repudiation released him from his duty to perform under the contract. C is the correct answer. When Thomas told Dexter that he changed his mind and would not buy the truck on Thursday that was a repudiation of the contract. On Monday Thomas attempted to retract his repudiation by tendering the contract price to Dexter. A repudiation may be retracted until an event occurs to make the repudiation final. In most courts the time for retracting a repudiation ends as soon as the other party changes his position materially in reliance on the repudiation. Consequently when Dexter sold the truck to another buyer over the week-end he detrimentally relied on Thomas' repudiation and Thomas could no longer retract it. A is wrong since his ability to retract the repudiation ended when Dexter detrimentally relied on it. B is wrong since Dexter did not breach the contract. D is wrong since although it is a true statement it was Thomas' repudiation of the contract that caused Dexter's duty to perform to be extinguished.

Donald is a house guest of Mason. One night he decides to steal a prized copy of a comic book that Mason keeps in his locked desk drawer. Donald put on a mask used a kitchen knife disabled the lock and took the comic book. Which of the following best describes why Donald can be charged with burglary: A. At the time Donald took the comic book he decided not to return it. B. Donald knew that Mason kept the comic book in his desk drawer. C. Donald's use of the knife constitutes a breaking D. Donald was wearing a mask.

C. Donald's use of the knife constitutes a breaking Choice C is correct because however slight the breaking is entering the drawer while within the dwelling constitutes a burglary. A is incorrect since it is relevant to larceny but not any of the elements of burglary. B is not dispositive of Donald's intent to commit a felony. D is incorrect since it is not relevant to the elements of burglary.

Cora agreed to sell her waterfront home on Balboa Island to Emily in a written contract for $2.5 million. The location is choice and there are no others available on the market. After one of Cora's neighbors suggested that Cora should sell the home to a man instead Cora backed out of the sale agreement with Emily. Emily wants the property very badly and had already deposited the cash necessary for the purchase into escrow. What is the best remedy for Emily under the circumstances? A. Emily should buy another property and recover the difference in value from Cora. B. Emily should seek an injunction barring Cora from selling the property to anyone else. C. Emily should seek an order that Cora specifically perform the contract with her. D. Emily should seek restitution of her deposit paid into escrow.

C. Emily should seek an order that Cora specifically perform the contract with her. C is the best answer as courts will order specific performance of contracts to sell real property. A is a possible remedy but inferior because it will not result in Emily's ownership of the property. D is a possible remedy but also will not result in Emily's ownership of the property. B is also a possible remedy but inferior for the same reasons.

Portia sued Ottie Autos for negligently inspecting her car resulting in an unanticipated acceleration that caused her severe injuries. Two years later after the statute of limitations had expired and after extensive discovery in the case Portia filed a motion seeking to add a claim against Ottie Autos for product liability based on a manufacturing defect. The court should: A. Deny the motion because the statute of limitations has expired. B. Deny the motion because the claim cannot be joined in the same action. C. Grant the motion as long as Ottie Autos is not prejudiced. D. Grant the motion only if Portia can demonstrate mistake.

C. Grant the motion as long as Ottie Autos is not prejudiced. C is the best answer because leave to amend is liberally granted if the defendant is not prejudiced. A is incorrect because under the relation back doctrine the amendment will relate back to the date the action was filed. B is incorrect because a plaintiff may join as many claims as she has against a defendant in a single action. D is incorrect because the plaintiff is not required to demonstrate a mistake in order to receive leave to amend.

Bart a roofer entered into a contract with Owen the owner of a commercial building to repair the roof. The contract required Bart to cooperate with the retail tenants of the building to complete the repairs in a timely manner. The warranties in the contract ran not only to Owen but also to all tenants of the commercial building. Bart failed to properly complete the roofing repairs on the building causing Mart a commercial tenant operating a retail store in the building to suffer harm as a result of water damage to its merchandise after a heavy rain. What are the rights of the parties? A. Only Owen can sue to enforce the contract with Bart. B. The court will dismiss any claims by Mart unless Mart was a party to the contract. C. Mart can sue Bart directly on the contract. D. Mart was not an intended beneficiary of the contract between Bart and Owen.

C. Mart can sue Bart directly on the contract. C is the best answer because Mart is an intended third party beneficiary based on the Kmart v. Balfour case and can sue to enforce the contract. D is wrong for that reason. A is incorrect because although Owen can also sue Owen is not the only party that can sue Bart. B is incorrect because Bart cannot defend on the basis that Mart was not a party to the contract under third party beneficiary theory Mart can sue.

Helen lives in Montana and owns a vacation home in Hawaii. When her relatives came to visit her in Montana Helen said to her nieces and nephews: If any of you clears the weeds in the garden of my house in Hawaii I'll buy you a ticket to Europe. One of Helen's nieces lives in Hawaii and when she returned to her home she went to Helen's house and started to clear the weeds. After a week Laura was still clearing the weeds. She also received an e-mail that Helen sent to all of Helen's nieces and nephews. This was the first communication Laura had had with Helen since she left Montana. The e-mail advised: I just hired someone to clear the weeds in the garden of my house in Hawaii. I revoke my offer to buy one of you a ticket to Europe. If Laura sues for breach of contract what result? A. Laura will prevail because the offer was for a unilateral contract and Laura effectively accepted by beginning performance. B. Laura will prevail because she performed work for Helen. C. Helen will prevail because her revocation of the offer was valid. D. Helen will prevail because Laura was not finished clearing the weeds when Laura received her revocation.

C. Helen will prevail because her revocation of the offer was valid. For acceptance of a unilateral contract to be effective the offeror must have notice that the offeree has begun performance or completed performance. Here Laura began the work for Helen but did not advise Helen that she had done so making Options A and B incorrect. Although indirect notice can be sufficient since Helen was not in Hawaii she could not have seen or heard that Laura had begun performance. Thus her revocation was valid and Option C is correct. Option D is not correct because Laura's completion of her obligation is not relevant to the revocation analysis since Helen did not have notice of the acceptance.

Brenda was in a big hurry and needed to stop at the dry cleaners to get her clothes and do some other errands. Brenda's six month old daughter Deb was sleeping in her car seat in the back seat of the Brenda's car. Brenda knew that if she took Deb out of the car Deb would wake up. So she decided to leave Deb in the car even though it was a very hot day. Deb was dead from the effects of the heat when Brenda returned to the car. Brenda should be charged with: A. First degree murder because her conduct was deliberate. B. Voluntary manslaughter because Brenda acted based on passion. C. Involuntary manslaughter because she had a duty to protect Deb. D. No crime because Brenda's conduct constitutes ordinary negligence.

C. Involuntary manslaughter because she had a duty to protect Deb. C is the best answer because Brenda had a duty to protect Deb from harm given their relationship as mother and daughter and breached the duty by leaving her alone in the car. Criminal negligence is a breach of the duty to protect others of foreseeable extreme risks. She can be charged with involuntary manslaughter based on criminal negligence. A is incorrect because Brenda had no intent to kill Deb. B is incorrect because there was no provocation triggering Brenda's conduct and no heat of passion. D is incorrect because Brenda had a duty to Deb and acted to expose Deb to an extreme risk.

Eliza has terminal cancer and two doctors have told her she has less than six months to live. She was also told that she will be in great pain and will gradually lose some of her ability to control bodily functions. Eliza has put all of her affairs in order and has said goodbye to everyone she loves. She asks her doctor if he can arrange for her to die with dignity surrounded by her loved ones on a given date. He tells her that is against the law. His decision: A. Violates Eliza's privacy rights B. Violates due process unless she is given a hearing C. Is constitutional D. None of the above

C. Is constitutional The correct answer is (C) because under Cruzan there is no fundamental right to die even if someone is suffering from a terminal illness. Because this is not a fundamental right the state's interest in human life easily justifies denying her request. So A and B are wrong.

The legislature in the State of Milivet passes a law that allows veterans to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress from anyone who burns the American flag or denigrates the American military. If a court struck down this law it would be because: A. Burning the American flag is a fundamental right B. The right to free speech is absolute. C. It is a content-based restriction. D. State law cannot limit free speech rights.

C. It is a content-based restriction.

Ludwig receives from Milo a marimba stolen from Nadine. To be criminally liable Ludwig must: A. Ask Milo where he got the marimba. B. Contact Nadine to determine whether the marimba is hers. C. Know that the marimba is stolen. D. Pay a very low price for the marimba.

C. Know that the marimba is stolen. C is the correct answer because Ludwig would be criminally responsible for theft or the receipt of stolen goods if he knew the true character of the item as being stolen. A and B are irrelevant to the intent required for the crime and there are no obligations to ask or contact others. Choice D is not correct because even if he did not pay anything for it he can still commit larceny.

Mariah takes off her ring and places it on her desk while she works. Mariah's co-worker Nita notices this and creates a plan to steal it. Nita walks up to Mariah's desk and admires the ring. I'd like to try it on to see how it looks Nita says I will bring it back shortly.' Later in the day Mariah asks Nita to give the ring back. Nita claims that she already returned it and says that someone else must have taken it but in fact Nita has it in her purse and takes it home when she leaves work that evening. Nita has likely committed A. Embezzlement because she took the ring at work. B. Receiving stolen property because she knew the property was not hers. C. Larceny by trick given her misrepresentations to Mariah. D. No crime because there was no concurrence of actus reus and mens rea.

C. Larceny by trick given her misrepresentations to Mariah. Choice C is correct because she has taken the property of another without permission and with a false statement that she'd return the property and another false statement that she had done so. A is incorrect Nita did not have lawful possession of the ring since she obtained it intending to steal it. D is incorrect because there is a concurrence of actus reus and mens rea given that Nita's trespass was continuing. B is incorrect because Nita did not take possession of the property knowing it was stolen.

Biff is driving by a loading dock when he notices that no one is on the dock and there are a large number of shipping cartons unattended. Biff takes an unopened carton from loading dock puts the carton in his car and drives away. This is A. Larceny by trick. B. Embezzlement. C. Larceny. D. No crime.

C. Larceny. C is correct as the facts meet the definition of larceny by taking the property of another without permission. Choice A is incorrect because there is no indication that Biff made any statements and larceny by trick would require a misrepresentation. Choice B is wrong because there is no indication that Biff was entrusted with the property. Likewise D is not correct.

Gus and Hal are rival gang members. One day they saw each other approaching on a sidewalk. Each was aware of the other's reputation for violence. Hal knew that Gus had told everyone he would kill Hal if he ever saw him on the street. Hal knew he could walk away but did not want anyone to think he was scared of Gus. Hal realized that Gus was bigger and known to carry a gun at all times. As they drew nearer to each other Gus uttered a racial slur and reached for his gun. Seeing this rather than waiting until it was too late Hal pulled out his gun and shot Gus when he was about 10 feet away killing him instantly. Under the majority view is Hal guilty of murder in Gus's death? A. Yes because Hal used excessive force and should have retreated. B. Yes because Hal was not threatened at the time he shot Gus. C. No because Hal's conduct was justified. D. No because Gus could have retreated.

C. No because Hal's conduct was justified. C is the best answer because Gus is the aggressor using deadly force when he reaches for his gun and utters the slur and Hal therefore has the right to use deadly force against the gun. A is incorrect because Hal can use deadly force when threatened with deadly force. Also there is no requirement that Hal retreat in the majority of jurisdictions. B is incorrect because Gus threatened Hal when he reached for his gun. D is incorrect because it is not relevant to the analysis.

Dave gave his mother a new television as a Christmas present. When his mother asked Dave for the warranty he told her that he did not have it because he bought the television from a friend. Later she learned that Dave had not paid for the television. Is Dave's mother guilty of receiving stolen property? A. Yes because she knew the television was stolen. B. Yes because Dave's story was suspicious C. No because she received it as a gift D. No but she is guilty of obtaining property by false pretenses

C. No because she received it as a gift C is the best answer because she did not have knowledge it was stolen when she received it. A is incorrect because the facts don't indicate she knew it was stolen when she received it. D is incorrect because although she did take title to the property she did not make any false representations in order to obtain title.

Roger is at a baseball game when he finds a woman's bracelet engraved with her name on the ground beneath his seat. He picks it up intending to return it to the Lost and Found at the stadium. Roger forgot to do so and when he arrives at home after the game he finds the bracelet in his coat pocket and decides to keep it. Is he guilty of common law larceny? A. Yes because he carried away the bracelet. B. Yes because the bracelet belonged to another. C. No because the taking was not trespassory. D. No because he did not obtain the property through fraud.

C. No because the taking was not trespassory. C is the best answer. The taking is not trespassory since Roger was in rightful possession when he first came into possession of the bracelet. D is incorrect because fraud is not an element of common larceny. A is incorrect because although he did carry it away his taking was not trespassory. B is incorrect because although the property belonged to another the taking was not trespassory.

Samantha Sister invites her 9 closest sorority sisters to live in her rented 5-bedroom house. The women are enjoying sharing rooms and saving on rent and claim that living together promotes sisterhood. Samantha receives a notice from the City of San Noway stating that the zoning ordinance prohibits more than four unrelated persons from living in the same house in order to preserve the traditional character of the neighborhood and that there is a hearing scheduled for the following week to determine whether 6 of the 10 women shall be forced to move out. Samantha attends the meeting and argues: "But they are my sisters and I want them with me all the time!" Will Samantha win if she sues the City to have the ordinance struck down? A. Yes because the women are all her sorority sisters. B. Yes because Samantha has a liberty interest in deciding who will live with her. C. No because the women are not Samantha's family members. D. No because they gave her a hearing.

C. No because the women are not Samantha's family members.

Hadley saw his neighbor Nell's dog Rover running loose several blocks from home. Hadley called Rover and Rover recognized Hadley came running. Hadley was able to collect Rover and bring her back to Nell. Nell was so grateful she promised to give Hadley $100 next week when Nell got paid. Is Nell's promise to Hadley enforceable? A. Yes because Hadley went out of his way to return Rover to Nell. B. Yes because Hadley performed a service for which Nell agreed to pay Hadley. C. No because there was no consideration for Nell's promise. D. No because the consideration given was not adequate.

C. No because there was no consideration for Nell's promise. C is the best answer because there was no bargained for exchange between Hadley and Nell since Hadley had already returned Rover when Nell made the promise to pay Hadley. D is incorrect because there is no consideration in addition courts do not inquire into the adequacy of the consideration. A and B are not correct because Hadley's conduct was gratuitous and not in consideration of any promise by Nell.

Theo an artist has agreed in writing to provide to Fun Park 50 caricatures of park guests daily for 90 days during the summer tourist season and a price of $4 per caricature for which Fun Park will charge $20 per customer. After the agreement is signed Fun Park verbally advises Theo that he may also have a $20 allowance for materials per day. Is the agreement regarding materials enforceable? A. No it is barred by the parol evidence rule. B. No it is barred by the statute of frauds. C. No due to lack of consideration. D. Yes if there was a no oral modification clause in the writing.

C. No due to lack of consideration. C is the best answer because there is no additional consideration given by Theo to Park for the additional benefit to Theo given that he has a pre-existing duty to produce the caricatures. A is incorrect because the parole evidence rule only bars prior or contemporaneous agreements not oral modifications after the original contract is signed. B is incorrect because the contract is one for services and does not fall within any of the categories for the statute of frauds. D is incorrect because if there was a no oral modification clause in the writing then most likely the agreement would not be enforceable. Pat who owns a chain of children's clothing stores enters into a contract with Dave to purchase 10000 pairs of toddler overalls in three shipments for the price of $15 for each pair of overalls. The parties' written contract did not address the packaging of the overalls. When Dave makes the first delivery to Pat the overalls are crammed into a large box unfolded and very wrinkled. In a claim by Pat against Dave will Pat be able to introduce evidence to show that the usual practice in the apparel industry is to deliver items of clothing in a pressed and folded manner? A. No because the contract between the parties did not include a provision for delivery of the goods. B. Yes because evidence showing usage of trade is admissible in this situation C. Yes because evidence showing course of dealing is admissible in this situation D. Yes because evidence showing course of performance is admissible in this situation, B. Yes because evidence showing usage of trade is admissible in this situation B is the correct answer. Usage of Trade is a practice or method of dealing having such regularity of observance in a place vocation or trade as to justify an expectation that it will be observed with respect to the transaction in question. The usual practice in the apparel industry regarding delivery would be considered usage of trade and admissible in this situation. A is wrong since courts can admit extrinsic evidence to help interpret the meaning of a contract between the parties whether or not the term is expressly stated therein. C is wrong since the evidence offered is not course of

Devin was angry with Bill another member of his street gang for cheating Devin out of the proceeds of a drug deal about a month ago. Devin decided he would burn Bill's house to the ground out of revenge. Devin did not want to get caught so Devin picked up Hal a homeless man off the street. Devin gave Hal a Molotov cocktail and dropped him off about a block away from Bill's house. Devin told Hal he would be watching and would kill Hal if Hal did not throw the Molotov cocktail into Bill's house. Hal feared for his life and did as Devin asked resulting in a fiery inferno causing Bill's death. Hal will most likely be found: A. Guilty under the felony murder rule for the murder of Bill. B. Guilty of arson. C. Not guilty because duress is a defense. D. Not guilty but only if he was intoxicated.

C. Not guilty because duress is a defense. C is the best answer because Hal acted under duress due to the imminent threat by Devin that he would be killed if he did not follow Devin's instructions. The defense of duress is a valid defense to arson. Although duress is not a valid defense to the felony murder rule it is a defense to arson and may negate the underlying felony. B is incorrect because Hal has the defense of duress available. D is incorrect for the same reason. In addition arson and murder are both general intent crimes. Voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense to a general intent crime.

Xavier tells Dolores that Xavier wants to rob a gas station at gun point and that he needs a gun to do so. Dolores supplies Xavier with a gun for this purpose. Dolores then has second thoughts and takes the gun back from Xavier while also telling Xavier I don't think this robbery is a good idea. Xavier gets a different gun from someone else and carries out the robbery of the gas station. Dolores is: A. Guilty because she is a co-conspirator. B. Guilty because she is an accessory before the fact. C. Not guilty because she withdrew in a way that undid the effect of her earlier assistance and encouragement. D. Not guilty because of a lack of intent.

C. Not guilty because she withdrew in a way that undid the effect of her earlier assistance and encouragement. Choice C is correct because for a proper withdrawal from a conspiracy there must be an affirmative effort to either thwart the underlying crime or to undo the effect of her involvement.

At common law which is not a category of accomplice liability: A. Principal in the First Degree B. Principal in the Second Degree C. Principal in the Third Degree D. Accessory after the fact

C. Principal in the Third Degree Choice C is correct because there is no such thing as a Third Degree Principal. Choices A B and D do exist both as individuals involved at the crime scene or after.

Ryan on vacation from Utah traveling in California was involved in an auto accident and Plato from California a pedestrian bystander was injured by flying debris. Plato was treated by Doctor also a California resident which exacerbated his condition. Plato sued both Ryan for negligence and Doctor for medical malpractice. Doctor sought a medical examination of Plato. Ryan issued a request for discovery of Plato's medical records from treatment by Doctor. Plato's attorney should: A. Object that the records from treatment are not relevant to Ryan but make Plato available for a medical examination. B. Produce the records from treatment by Doctor but object to the request for the medical examination. C. Produce the records from treatment by Doctor and make Plato available for a medical examination. D. Object that the records from treatment are not relevant to Ryan and object to the request for the medical examination.

C. Produce the records from treatment by Doctor and make Plato available for a medical examination. C is the best answer because the records are relevant to Plato's damages in the case against Ryan there is good cause for the medical examination since Plato is suing Doctor for medical malpractice. Therefore A is incorrect because the records are relevant. B is incorrect because there is good cause for the medical exam. D is incorrect because the records are relevant to Plato's damages in the case against Ryan there is good cause for the medical examination since Plato is suing Doctor for medical malpractice.

Randall agreed to sell 100000 gadgets to Brandon for $5 per gadget with all gadgets to be shipped in 45 days. Brandon intended to sell the gadgets in his hardware store operation. The parties confirmed this agreement in writing. The contract included a no oral modification clause. Prior to the shipping date Randall called Brandon to tell Brandon that his cost of production increased and the price would go up to $6 per gadget. Brandon still thought this was a good deal and agreed to the increased price. Randall confirmed the details in writing and then shipped the gadgets. Brandon then refused to pay the increased price. If Randall sues Brandon for the increase in the price who is likely to prevail? A. Brandon because he acted under duress in accepting the increased price. B. Brandon because the modification lacked consideration. C. Randall because the modification is enforceable despite lack of consideration. D. Randall if he provided consideration for the increased price

C. Randall because the modification is enforceable despite lack of consideration. C is the best answer because a modification under the UCC does not require consideration. A is incorrect because there is no indication of duress. B is incorrect because consideration is not required for a contract modification under the UCC. D is incorrect for the same reason.

Roger hired Carl to paint his home by June 1 and agreed to pay Carl $5000 for the job. Carl got very busy with other jobs so he asked Frank to do the work instead. Frank agreed to take the job and complete it by June 1 and Carl agreed to pay Frank the $5000. Unfortunately Frank failed to follow through because Frank got very busy in May and fell behind on all of his jobs. Roger has asked you to advise him of his rights. Which of the following is correct? A. Carl had no right to assign Carl's contract with Roger to Frank. B. Due to Carl's assignment of the contract to Frank Roger can sue only Frank due to Frank's failure to perform. C. Roger is a third party beneficiary of the agreement between Roger and Frank. D. Roger can sue Carl on the original contract but cannot sue Frank because Roger had no agreement with Frank.

C. Roger is a third party beneficiary of the agreement between Roger and Frank. C is the best answer because Roger was the intended beneficiary of the contract between Frank and Carl. A is incorrect because as a general rule contracts are assignable unless there is a particular skill involved. Generally construction and repair contracts are delegable. B is incorrect because Roger never agreed to excuse Carl's performance obligations under the original contract so there was no novation and Roger can also sue Carl not only Frank. D is incorrect because Roger can sue both Carl on the original contract and Frank as a third party beneficiary of the contract between Frank and Carl.

Alex was a collector of rare baseball cards and badly wanted a rare baseball card owned by Baskerville. Alex decided to contact his best friend Charlie to ask him to break into Baskerville's home and take the baseball card under the cover of darkness. During the call with Alex Charlie never indicated whether or not he would go through with Alex's request. Instead Charlie called Baskerville about it who in turn called law enforcement which lead to the arrest of Alex. Alex is guilty of A. Theft based on his discussion with Charlie. B. Larceny based on the plan to steal the baseball card from Baskerville. C. Solicitation of Charlie to commit burglary. D. Accessory after the fact based on Alex's plan to steal the baseball card.

C. Solicitation of Charlie to commit burglary. Answer choice C is correct. Under criminal law solicitation is urging another person to commit a crime. The crime of solicitation is complete as soon as the urging takes place whether the person urged commits the crime urged or not. Here Alex urged his best friend Charlie to commit the crime of burglary because he asked Charlie if he would help him steal a baseball cards from Baskerville. Therefore Alex can be charged with solicitation. Choices A B and D are wrong because the completed crimes never occurred.

A private organization is formed for the purpose of upholding male values of shooting drinking beer and playing darts and they rent out a local pool hall once a month for their meetings. A local woman thinks this sounds like the best time ever and applies for membership. When her application is denied she sues for gender discrimination. The club's strongest argument for excluding her from their meetings is: A. She throws a dart like a girl B. There is no women's restroom at the pool hall where they meet C. The club's organizational message clearly states male values which could be interpreted to exclude female members D. All of the above

C. The club's organizational message clearly states male values which could be interpreted to exclude female members

Roger agreed to paint an apartment complex owned by Abe for $20000 between June 10 and June 18. Prior to the date the painting was set to commence the entire apartment complex was destroyed in a fire. What are Roger's rights in reference to the contract with Abe? A. Roger can sue Abe for specific performance of the contract. B. Roger can sue Abe for damages based on the contract. C. The contract is discharged based on impossibility of performance. D. The contract is discharged based on the doctrine of mutual mistake.

C. The contract is discharged based on impossibility of performance. C is the best answer based on the destruction of the building rendering performance impossible. A is incorrect because the contract cannot be performed so specific performance is not an available remedy. B is incorrect because performance is excused based on impossibility. D is incorrect because there was no mutual mistake regarding the contract.

Anglo is an English-speaking county in Europe whose unit of currency is the 'dollar' worth around 85 U.S. cents. Peter who owned a glue factory in Anglo entered into a written contract with Dan while Peter was on a business trip in the U.S. the contract provided that Dan would purchase 20 tons of liquid glue from Peter for the price of Nine Thousand (9000) Dollars. After receiving the shipment Dan sent Peter an international money order of 9000 Anglo dollars. Peter wrote to Dan claiming that the agreement called for the payment in U.S. dollars but Dan refused to make any further payment. Peter brought an action against Dan in the U.S. and wanted to introduce evidence that prior to executing the written contract he and Dan orally agreed that the price in the contract was to be in U.S. dollars. If Dan objects to the evidence offered by Peter how should the court rule? A. The evidence should be excluded since the oral agreement was made prior to the writing B. The evidence should be excluded only if the written contract was prepared by Dan C. The evidence should be admitted since the evidence offered by Peter does not modify or contradict the written contract D. The evidence should be adm

C. The evidence should be admitted since the evidence offered by Peter does not modify or contradict the written contract C is the correct answer. D is incorrect because the parol evidence rule does not apply here since the evidence is offered to interpret an ambiguity in the contract the meaning of the term dollar making A and C wrong. B is wrong. Extrinsic (parol) evidence may be introduced to explain an ambiguity no matter who caused it.

Raven a film star residing in New York sued Quartz Pictures a movie studio located in California for defamation and sought both damages of $1 million and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief after Quartz employees allegedly released false information concerning Raven's most recent visit to a rehab clinic to a tabloid publication. Raven has filed her case in federal court in Southern California and Quartz made a timely demand for a jury trial. The court granted Raven's request for a preliminary injunction. At trial A. The jury should determine all factual issues and address all remedies. B. The court should address injunctive relief first and then the jury should determine damages. C. The jury should determine the facts and award damages and then the court should address injunctive relief. D. The court should determine all issues since Raven is seeking injunctive relief.

C. The jury should determine the facts and award damages and then the court should address injunctive relief. C is the best answer under the Beacon case which held that legal claims should be tried first to the jury and the court should then address equitable claims. A is incorrect because the jury does not address equitable claims. B is incorrect because the case should be tried to the jury first. D is incorrect because Quartz made a timely demand for jury trial and has a right to jury trial on legal claims under the 7th Amendment.

Donna called Martin and said I'll sell you my new couch for $1000. Which of the following is a valid acceptance? A. Sounds like a good deal. What color? B. I'd love a new couch. Would you take $750? C. Yes. Can you deliver it to my house? D. Yes but I need you to deliver it to my house.

C. Yes. Can you deliver it to my house? A valid acceptance requires a manifestation of an intent to be bound by the terms of the offer. Here Options A and B do not supply clear intent to be bound by the terms of the offer. Options C and D both provide certainty with the response Yeshowever option D adds an additional condition continuing the negotiations. Option C presents a definitive agreement with a request.

As part of a bank robbery plan Abe steals a car and drives Bob to the First National Bank. Abe remains in the car acting as lookout. Bob goes inside and demands money which he receives and leaves the bank with. Abe drives the getaway car. Which of the following is true: A. Since Bob carried out the physical act of robbery he is a principal to bank robbery. B. Since Abe merely assisted Bob but did not carry out the physical act of bank robbery he is an accomplice to bank robbery. C. Bob should be charged with attempts rather than conspiracy. D. Both A and B but not C.

D. Both A and B but not C. Choice D is correct because both Choices A and B are true while C is incorrect in stating that the crime was not in fact committed.

In 2005 West State voters passed a law that prohibited any registered sex offender from living within 2000 feet of schools or parks where children gather regardless of whether the parolee's crime involved children. These residency requirements left little available residential property and Michelle—a registered sex offender parolee—sued to have the law declared unconstitutional. Her strongest argument in federal court would be: A. The law interferes with her privileges or immunities of citizenship B. The law violates her due process rights because it is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest C. The law violates her due process rights because it lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest D. None of the above would help her

C. The law violates her due process rights because it lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest The correct answer is (C) because the strongest argument Michelle can make is that the sex offender law does not satisfy even the lowest standard of review—rational basis. She would do this by demonstrating there is no link between the law's intended goals and its effects. For example the housing restriction was intended to enable tracking of sex offenders and to prevent repeat crimes against children. However by lumping together parolees whose crimes were against only adults the link between the law and its intended effect is tenuous. Further by increasing homelessness the law makes it harder for police to track parolees and encourages parolees to sleep outside which could increase risks to public safety. Thus. A B and D are wrong.

In order to protest corporate greed and consumerism a group called Occupy Airport decides to wreak havoc in a major international airport so companies can see the effects of a day without travel. After one of the group's members yells Bomb bomb! everyone panics and stampedes out the exits. The person who yelled was arrested and is claiming a free speech defense. How will the court rule? A. The outburst was free speech as a protest B. The outburst was free speech as part of the organization's message C. The outburst was actionable for creating a clear and present danger D. None of the above

C. The outburst was actionable for creating a clear and present danger The correct answer is (C) because the speech falls within the clear and present danger exception to free speech in that it was directed at inciting or producing imminent lawlessness and was likely to produce/incite such action (Brandenburg v. Ohio). So A B and D are wrong.

A group called Children of Confederates asked the State of Southern Motor Vehicles Board to approve a specialty license plate that prominently displayed the Confederate flag. In the century and a half since the Civil War the Confederate battle flag has come to represent a symbol of Southern heritage for some. But for many others including African-Americans the flag is viewed as a symbol of fear intimidation and oppression. The State claims that applicants may decorate their cars with confederate flag bumper stickers and the like but should not be permitted to have the symbol on a license plate because it would imply state endorsement. The strongest argument in favor of requiring the State to allow the confederate flag logo on license plates is: A. To grant the application would violate equal protection to drive on public roads without having to see offensive symbols B. To deny the application would be an unconstitutional denial of due process C. To deny the application would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment D. To deny the application would be state action

C. To deny the application would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment The correct answer is (C) because the group is claiming they are being denied the opportunity to communicate a particular message because of the content of that message. D is wrong because while denying the application is state action that fact does not argue in favor of allowing the flag logo. A misstates the guarantee of Equal Protection. B is wrong because there is no substantive due process right to a license plate and there is nothing in the facts to indicate the State violated any procedural guarantee.

Dennis a logger offered to buy and remove the standing timber from the tract of land owned by Phil at a cash price 70% higher than the regionally prevailing price for comparable timber rights. Phil in desperate financial straits and knowing little about timber values signed and sent a fax to Dennis accepting the offer. However before Dennis started to remove the standing timber from Phil's land Phil's investment fortunes suddenly improved and he wants to avoid the contract with Dennis. Which of the following legal concepts affords Phil his best prospect of effective cancellation? A. Undue Influence B. Statute of Frauds C. Unconscionability. D. Duress

C. Unconscionability. C is the correct answer. The issue is whether the contract here is so one-sided and so unfair that a court should as a matter of judicial policy refuse to enforce it. The basic test is whether in the light of the general commercial background and the commercial needs of a particular trade or case the clauses involved are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the circumstances existing at the time of making the contract. It follows that courts have very rarely allowed businesspeople to claim unconscionability. Only consumers are generally successful. The principle is one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise. Here since Phil is not knowledgeable about timber rights and the contract price is so grossly excessive his best chance to void the contract is on the grounds of unconscionability. A is wrong since the doctrine of undue influence is the unfair persuasion of a party who is under the domination of the person exercising the persuasion or who by virtue of the relation between them is justified in assuming that the person would not act in a manner inconsistent with his welfare. There are no facts indicating that Phil would assume that Dennis is acting in his best interest. B is wrong since the contract for timber would not be required to be in writing since this contract is not the sale of an interest in land. D is wrong since Dennis did not make an improper threat a required element of duress.

The State of Myrtle requires everyone to have a license in order to purchase a gun and denies these licenses to convicted felons and those who have been diagnosed by a doctor with certain mental illnesses. In order to perform the required background checks to determine whether an applicant falls into either restricted category there is a three-day waiting period between applying for and obtaining a license to purchase a gun. Tommy Trigger is leaving on a hunting trip tomorrow and wants a new gun. If he sues to have the regulation struck down a court will likely: A. Strike down the regulation as not furthering any legitimate government interest B. Strike down the regulation as a violation of the Second Amendment. C. Uphold the regulation as reasonable. D. Deny the relief because Tommy does not have standing.

C. Uphold the regulation as reasonable. The correct answer is (C) because Heller and McDonald did not prohibit substantial state regulation of the personal right to bear arms such as ensuring guns do not fall into the hands of felons or mentally ill. These restrictions are reasonable under the state's police powers and 3 days is a reasonable amount of time for the state to check whether an applicant falls into one of the restricted categories. Answer A is wrong because it ignores a state's police powers. B is wrong because it overstates the holdings in Heller and McDonald. D is incorrect because Tommy does have standing.

The County of Orange wants to encourage scholars at a young age so offers Disneyland passes to the first 1200 elementary school kids to reach certain benchmarks on their reading assessments in 4th Grade. John is number 1201 in reaching his benchmarks and he is told that the County no longer is giving out passes. If John sues based on a due process theory what will happen? A) He will win because he was denied a benefit that other people received. B) He will win because the County would be interfering with his right to travel. C) He will lose because there is a rational basis for requiring the reading benchmarks to get a free pass to Disneyland. D) He will lose because the County followed the rules in granting 1200 free passes and then in denying his.

D) He will lose because the County followed the rules in granting 1200 free passes and then in denying his.

Pat was walking home from a late night in a bar holding a bottle of Foamy beer. Pat threw the bottle against a telephone pole and the bottle shattered injuring Pat's eye. Pat brings a strict products liability action against the beer bottle manufacturer claiming that the bottle was defective. Is he likely to prevail? A) Yes because his eye injury was caused by the beer bottle. B) Yes because it is foreseeable that someone would throw a beer bottle. C) Yes because there was no warning on the bottle stating that it should not be thrown. D) No since Pat cannot establish that the bottle was defective.

D) No since Pat cannot establish that the bottle was defective

Alex drives a Ferrari. One night when Alex parked his car on his street Dex broke the window of the Ferrari unlocked the door of the car hotwired it and drove off. While speeding down the road enjoying his stolen car the engine exploded and Dex was severely injured. Upon investigation it was discovered that during the manufacturing process a small part of the engine was installed improperly. If Dex asserts a strict products liability action against Ferrari he will most likely: A) Prevail if the vehicle was sold in a defective condition. B) Prevail if Alex failed to inspect the vehicle as a reasonably prudent owner would. C) Not prevail because Dex was speeding. D) Not prevail because Dex was not a foreseeable user or consumer of this vehicle.

D) Not prevail because Dex was not a foreseeable user or consumer of this vehicle.

Kate was a tax preparer who worked very hard during the tax season. Leo hired Kate to prepare his tax return for a fee of $500 to be paid once the return is completed. Leo changed his mind a week later and told Kate he wanted to do his own tax return. If Kate sues Leo for damages she can recover A. Nothing because lost profits are not recoverable. B. $500 but only if she does not obtain other work. C. Only expenses she incurred in reliance on Leo's agreement if any. D. $500 plus lost profits even if she obtains additional work under a lost volume theory.

D. $500 plus lost profits even if she obtains additional work under a lost volume theory. D is the best answer because a lost volume seller can obtain recovery of the lost sale plus lost profits even if they are able to obtain additional work. A is incorrect because lost profits are recoverable. B is incorrect because lost profits are recoverable even if she does obtain additional work. C is incorrect because expectation damages are available.

A group of Christian high school students meets outside at lunch every Wednesday to pray memorize verses from the Bible and discuss Biblical principles. The group includes several members of the popular crowd and they sometimes pass out invitations to after-school house prayer parties to other students during lunch. The group is not an official club and has no faculty advisor. This is: A. An unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government because the students meet on school property B. An unconstitutional exercise of religion because other students might feel left out C. Coercive because the popular kids are in the club D. A free exercise of the students' religion protected by the First Amendment

D. A free exercise of the students' religion protected by the First Amendment The correct answer is (D) because students are allowed to initiate non-disruptive religious prayer at school as part of their free exercise of religion. B and C are wrong. This club was completely student initiated student led and did not meet during instruction hours. There is nothing to indicate it was disruptive or was acting on behalf of the school. There is no endorsement by the school that would violate the establishment clause so A is wrong.

Which of the following is true about the crime of attempt? A. It is a specific intent to commit the crime. B. It requires an overt act in furtherance of an underlying crime. C. Once a crime is completed attempt cannot be charged. D. All of the above.

D. All of the above. Choice D is correct because Choices A B and C are also true elements of the crime of attempt.

In an e-mail on Thursday Donna offered to sell her car to Patrick for $10000. The writing was complete in all material respects. By a return e-mail Patrick responded immediately I'd like to think about it over the week-end. Donna responded with another e-mail OK. Let me know on Monday. Two days later Patrick saw someone other than Donna driving and parking what appeared to be Donna's car. After the driver got out of the car Patrick asked him: Is this your car? The drive responded Yes I bought it yesterday. Patrick examined the car and correctly concluded that the car was the same one Donna offered to sell him. Later that day Patrick called Donna by phone and said I accept your offer to sell me your car. Donna responded I'm sorry it's sold. Patrick sues Donna for breach of contract. Which of the following facts best supports Donna's claim that she is not in breach of contract? A. When Donna offered to sell Patrick her car she was only joking B. By the time Patrick attempted to accept Donna's offer she had already sold her car to someone else C. Donna in making her offer did not expressly provide that the offer would be irrevocable D. Before attempting to accept Donna's offer Patrick lea

D. Before attempting to accept Donna's offer Patrick learned that Donna had sold the car to another party D. Revocation of an offer is effective upon receipt of notice whether direct or indirect by the offeree. Even though Donna agreed to keep the offer open until Monday she was not obligated to do so. Moreover when Patrick saw the car with the buyer and confirmed that the car was the one Donna had offered to sell him he was indirectly notified that Donna had revoked her offer. Thus D is the best answer. A is wrong since contractual intent is determined by objective manifestations. Here a reasonable person would think that Donna made an offer to Patrick in her e-mail on Thursday. B is wrong since a revocation is only effective when the offeree has notice of it. C is incorrect because the term 'irrevocable' is not required for an option contract to be valid. Here since Donna is not a merchant who deals in the sale of cars an option contract requires consideration. Thus Donna was not obligated to keep her offer open until Monday.

Sylvia Rentera

a transgender rights activist, received welfare and lived in a public housing project in the City of Dirwine. She lived there for 6 years, having twice renewed her two-year lease. The housing project had a bulletin board upon which was posted: "All residents who do not receive any building or city citations and who are current on rent payments shall be offered an opportunity to renew their lease." This is not in the rental contract and is not found in any city code

Patrick was driving in a car with a couple of his friends. One of his friends suddenly stuck a gun out the window and shot at a nearby car basically just for the thrill of it. Patrick has been indicted as an accomplice. Is Patrick likely to be convicted? A. Yes Patrick's mere presence when his friend did the shooting would generally be legally enough to make him an accomplice in the crime. B. If Patrick decided to help his friend evade capture (such as by making a hasty getaway if needed) that would generally be enough to make him an accomplice even if Patrick didn't express the intent at the time. C. Yes if Patrick actually and intentionally assisted in the friend's conduct Patrick could be guilty of the offense. D. Both B and C.

D. Both B and C. D is the correct answer because Choice A is incorrect- Patrick's mere presence is not enough. Choices B and C explain the effort Patrick made to further the criminal event.

Seller contracted in writing to deliver to Buyer 10000 cartons of milk on May 1 at $1.00 a carton. Because the farmers who supplied Seller with his milk did not deliver enough milk Seller only had 9000 cartons of milk to fulfill his contract with Buyer. If Seller tenders only 9000 cartons of milk to Buyer on May 1 and Buyer refuses to accept or pay for any which is the best statement regarding their contractual relationship? A. The doctrine of impossibility of performance excuses Seller from performing the contact. B. Seller can sue Buyer since Seller substantially performed the contract. C. Buyer is obligated to give Seller time to cure. D. Buyer has a cause of action against Seller for Seller's failure to deliver 10000 cartons of milk.

D. Buyer has a cause of action against Seller for Seller's failure to deliver 10000 cartons of milk. D is the correct answer. UCC §2-508 states that where any tender or delivery by the seller is rejected because of non-conformance and the time for performance has expired the buyer may properly reject the non-conforming tender. Here Buyer properly rejected Seller's tender of the milk that was short 1000 cartons because the time for Seller's performance had expired. A is incorrect because the contract is not objectively impossible to perform. B and C are incorrect statements for the reasons stated in the explanation to answer D.

Ivan a Carolina resident was stopped by Metro Police pursuant to a new stop and frisk policy that was highly controversial. A scuffle with the Metro Police followed and Ivan suffered injuries at the hands of the police involved. Ivan sued the Metro Police for violation of his federal civil rights. Metro Police is a large urban police department in Carolina with over 9000 officers. The Carolina Peace Officers' Association (CPOA) sought to intervene in the action. The CPOA is a statewide voluntary association in the state of Carolina that has advocated in favor of the stop and frisk policy in order to protect public safety. Ivan objected to the request to intervene. What is the most likely result on the joinder issue? A. CPOA can intervene as of right because its interests will be impaired otherwise. B. The court may permit intervention only if Metro's representation is not adequate. C. CPOA cannot intervene because the court has no subject matter jurisdiction. D. CPOA cannot intervene unless it has a claim or defense related to the action.

D. CPOA cannot intervene unless it has a claim or defense related to the action. D is the best answer because the court has discretion to allow intervention where a party has a claim or defense that involves a common question of law or fact with the pending action. A is incorrect because there is no specific interest of the CPOA that would be impaired as a result of a decision in Ivan's case. B is incorrect because if Metro's representation is not adequate that would support intervention as of right not permissive intervention which is available if the intervening party has a claim or defense that shares a common question of law or fact with the action. C is incorrect because the court will have subject matter jurisdiction based on the federal question given this is a federal civil rights claim.

A local congressman helps to dedicate a new flagpole at a local elementary school. As part of his remarks he tells the kids that they have life and liberty given to them by God. This speech is: A. An unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause B. An unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection because it treated atheists differently C. An unconstitutional violation of the free exercise clause D. Constitutional as an incidental reference

D. Constitutional as an incidental reference The correct answer is (D) because where longstanding tradition exists to allow a ceremonial custom or where there is a mere incidental reference to a religious theme the practice will be upheld such as the words one nation under God in the pledge of allegiance or an occasional singing of the traditional song God Bless America at school. Thus A is wrong. B and C are wrong also because they mention irrelevant constitutional theories.

Debby hired Peter an artist to make a sculpture that could be installed in the entryway of Debby's large home. Peter was to be paid $100000 by Debby upon completion of the sculpture provided that Debby was personally satisfied with the sculpture piece. When Debby saw the completed sculpture many months later Debby told Peter that she did not like it and refused to pay. Peter asserted a claim against Debby for breach of contract. At trial several artists and art critics testified that the sculpture was a major new piece of art and worth around $1 million. In fact the sculpture had already appeared in several art magazines and had won several art awards. Assuming that Debby's dislike of the sculpture was genuine who is likely to prevail? A. Peter because Debby's dislike of the sculpture was unreasonable B. Peter because Debby did not put on evidence from other art critics who disliked the sculpture C. Debby because payment was due upon completion of the sculpture and until Debby was satisfied with the sculpture work on it was not completed D. Debby because she did not like the sculpture

D. Debby because she did not like the sculpture D is the correct answer. A contract can make performance expressly conditional on one person being satisfied. Consequently even if that person is unreasonable in their failure to be satisfied the condition will not be deemed to have occurred and the contract cannot be enforced. Here since the contract expressly stated that Debby had to be 'personally satisfied' her satisfaction with the sculpture was all that mattered. Consequently A is wrong. B is wrong because Debby did not need to rebut the testimony if she was genuinely unhappy with the sculpture. C is wrong because the work appeared to be completed when Debby viewed the sculpture and there was no provision in the contract for Peter to keep working on the sculpture until she was satisfied.

Dexter takes his motorcycle to Bob to buy a new engine. Bob installs a new engine - not designed to go above 200 MPH. The manufacturer knew

however, that some riders like to go to the extreme and take their bikes above 200 MPH, so it built in a safety margin. The next year Dexter sells the motorcycle to Paul. After purchasing the motorcycle, Paul takes it up to 220 MPH

and 2) Calvin a California resident for negligence. Contractor moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of improper joinder. The court should: A. Grant the motion because Calvin's liability is not derivative so joinder is improper. B. Grant the motion because the claims do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence. C. Deny the motion because the necessary supplemental jurisdiction exists. D. Deny the motion because the claims share a logical relation.

D. Deny the motion because the claims share a logical relation. D is the best answer because the claims involve the same occurrence and will involve much of the same evidence so joinder is proper. A is incorrect because joinder here is based on the joinder of defendants not impleader and the rules permit joinder of defendants when the claims share a common question of law or fact and arise from the same occurrence. B is incorrect on the facts. C is incorrect because supplemental jurisdiction is not relevant to this joinder claim and at any rate would not be needed because there is original jurisdiction for each claim.

Paul owns a sports club including tennis courts. Paul enters into a contract with Don wherein Don was to provide surface material for Paul's tennis courts by April 1 for a tournament to begin May 1. The contract specifies an amount to be paid if the contract is breached. Don delivers 95% of the surface material by May 1 which prevented the tournament from going forward on that date. A court will likely find that: A. Don substantially performed on the contract B. Paul is not entitled to monetary damages to compensate him for the deficiency C. Don's failure was not a substantial breach even though the tournament could not be held D. Don's failure was a material breach because the tournament could not be held

D. Don's failure was a material breach because the tournament could not be held D is the correct answer. Courts consider certain factors to help determine whether a breach is material or whether or not a breaching party has still substantially performed. These facts include among others the extent to which the non-breaching party is deprived of the benefit which the party reasonably expected and whether 'time is of the essence' making the need for prompt performance apparent. A short delay may not be deemed 'material' unless the circumstances show that the delay seriously damages the other party. Since the delay here damaged Paul by preventing the tournament from taking place Don's breach would be considered material. For this reason A and C are wrong. B is wrong because based on Don's material breach Paul would be entitled to monetary damages.

Don worked as a manager of a jewelry store in a shopping mall. He did not make enough money to buy his girlfriend Jen the type of birthday gift he really wanted to buy her so he decided to steal a diamond and sapphire bracelet and give it to Jen for her birthday. A week later Don falsified the inventory to conceal his theft. Jen loved the gift and was especially excited to see how much money Don had apparently spent on her since they had only been dating for six months. Two weeks later Don and Jen broke up. Jen asked Don if he wanted the bracelet back since it was very expensive. Don told her It didn't cost me a dime - I stole it. Jen decided to keep it so Don would not get caught. When police contacted Jen to ask about the bracelet she lied to them indicating she'd broken up with Don several months ago After Don and Jen broke up the store owner discovered Don's conduct and fired Don. The owner reported the crime to police and pressed charges. If the state charges Don he is most likely guilty of: A. Larceny because Don committed a trespassory taking B. Larceny by trick because Don falsified the inventory C. False pretenses because Don falsified the inventory D. Embezzlement because Don

D. Embezzlement because Don was the store manager D is the best answer because embezzlement is an intentional trespassory conversion of personal property of another by one entrusted with lawful possession. C is incorrect because Don did not obtain title to the property of another by means of intentionally misrepresenting facts - although he did falsify the inventory this act did not facilitate his obtaining the property but rather concealed a past crime. B is incorrect because Don did not commit any ruse or misrepresentation that allowed him to obtain the property. A is incorrect because as a manager Don had lawful possession of the jewelry in the store which was placed in his trust. When a managerial employee steals jewelry in his possession it is embezzlement not larceny.

Elvin sued Mack claiming that Mack made false statements accusing Elvin of blackmail and extortion. Elvin alleged that Mack Wanda who is Mack's wife and Bart who is Mack's brother all heard the alleged slanderous statements. Mack moved for summary judgment. In support of the motion Mack denied making the alleged statements and Wanda and Bart each submitted affidavits in which they denied hearing any of the alleged statements. Elvin opposed the motion with an affidavit of his own stating that although he was not present he believed that Wanda and Bart had heard the statements. How should the court rule? A. Deny the motion because there is a genuine issue of material fact. B. Deny the motion to allow Elvin to cross-examine Mack and Wanda at trial. C. Delay ruling on the motion so that Elvin can take the depositions of Wanda and Bart. D. Grant the motion because there is no genuine issue of material fact.

D. Grant the motion because there is no genuine issue of material fact. D is the best answer as Elvin has failed to raise any issue of material fact and did not request any delay for purposes of further discovery. A is incorrect because Elvin's evidence does not show that there are any witnesses to testify based on personal knowledge in support of his claims. B is incorrect because Elvin has the opportunity to take the testimony of Wanda and Bart under oath but did not do so and did not request a delay for that purpose. C is incorrect because Elvin did not make that request.

Jill agreed to provide construction services for some interior cabinetry for Hanna's new home for $20000. Before she started the contract Jill became very busy with more lucrative contracts and assigned the contract to her sister Jan who was also a contractor. Hanna was a little concerned when she saw Jan involved rather than Jill but thought she would wait and see how everything went. Unfortunately it went badly and Jan failed to complete the cabinetry when communications broke down after numerous disagreements concerning the design and materials. What are Hanna's rights? A. Jill is relieved of any obligations to Hanna based on a novation. B. Hanna can only sue Jill for breach of contract. C. Hanna can only sue Jan for breach of contract. D. Hanna can sue both Jill and Jan for breach of contract.

D. Hanna can sue both Jill and Jan for breach of contract. D is the best answer because although Jill delegated her duties to Jan Hanna's silence or even acquiescence does not effectuate a novation and therefore Jill is not released from her obligations under the contract. A is incorrect because there is no novation given that Hanna never expressly agreed to look exclusively to Jan for the performance of Hanna's agreement with Jill. B is incorrect because there is no novation so Jill remains liable and Hanna can sue Jan as well because by accepting the contract Jan agreed to perform Jill's duties. C is incorrect because Jill remains liable to Hanna in the absence of a novation.

Linda entered into a contact with Mark to remodel her home including the addition of a new bedroom and adjacent bathroom. Mark completed the remodel just before Linda was throwing a large wedding shower for her best friend with 50 women invited to her home. During the event the sewer backed up spilling out into the front lawn and creating a horrible smell. Linda was humiliated and suffered a nervous breakdown when her event was ruined. She had the place repaired and sued Mark for breach of contract. What can she recover? I. The cost of repairs to the home. II. Damages for emotional distress. III. Punitive damages to punish Mark. A. All of the above. B. I and II. C. I and III. D. I only.

D. I only. D is the best answer because cost of repair is generally recoverable but damages for emotional distress are not available for a breach of contract except in extraordinary situations which are foreseeable and for which damages can be proved with certainty. Based on the Erlich case which is factually similar damages for emotional distress would not be available here. In addition punitive damages for breach of contract are generally not available unless the conduct is also a tort and then only if the conduct involved meets the requirements for recovery of punitive damages- that is wanton willful reckless or malicious. Here there are not facts to indicate that the work was done in an intentionally poor manner. In addition Linda would have to add tort claims to her lawsuit in order to recover those damages here she has alleged only breach of contract. Accordingly A B and C are incorrect.

Nan was having dinner with her boss Owen. Owen went to use the restroom when Nan saw that his watch had fallen onto the floor. Nan had admired the watch on Owen many times and thought the watch would look nice on her husband so she picked it up and slipped it into her purse. After Owen came back she changed her mind and decided to give Owen's watch back to him telling him she found it on the floor and did not know whether or not it was his. Nan is guilty of: A. Robbery. B. Embezzlement. C. False pretenses. D. Larceny.

D. Larceny. The best answer is D. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property. When Nan took the watch without Owen's consent she committed larceny. At that time she had the required intent though this later changed. A is incorrect because though she committed larceny she did not gain possession of the watch through force or fear. C is incorrect because Nan did not make a false statement in order to gain possession of the watch she lied after she had already obtained the watch. B is also incorrect because she did not come into possession of the watch as a result of her employment relationship with Owen.

Ron entered into an agreement with Linen Supply to supply 100 clean and pressed cloth napkins per week to his restaurant for $100 per week to be picked up and replaced at the end of the week for use in operating the restaurant for a period of one year. In the first three months of the contract Linen Supply delivered 100 cloth napkins each week. The following week the delivery was short by five napkins. Ron called Linen Supply who promised to bring five extra napkins the following week which satisfied Ron. What are the rights of the parties? A. Linen Supply is in material breach. B. Linen Supply has violated the perfect tender rule. C. Ron can declare the contract in breach and sue for damages. D. Linen Supply substantially performed and can cure.

D. Linen Supply substantially performed and can cure. D is the best answer because this contract is not a contract for sale of goods and the standard of performance is substantial performance and a minor breach is subject to cure where cure is likely. A is incorrect because the breach is not likely material give it is only a one week delay of five napkins. B is incorrect because the perfect tender rule applies to a sale of goods and this is not a sales contract. C is incorrect because the Ron seems to have agreed to permit cure of the short delivery the following week.

John asked Doris to spend a weekend with him at his apartment and promised her they would get married on the following Monday. Doris agreed and also promised John that she would not tell anyone of their plans. Unknown to Doris John had no intention of marrying her. After Doris came to his apartment John told Doris he was going for cigarettes and left. John then called Mike and told him to call Doris' father and tell him that he had his daughter and would kill her if he did not receive $100000. Mike was arrested on Sunday afternoon when he went to pick up the $100000. Doris was still at the apartment and knew nothing of John's attempt to get the money or Mike's role. John is guilty of A. Kidnapping. B. Attempted conspiracy to commit kidnapping. C. Kidnapping or attempted kidnapping but not both. D. Neither kidnapping nor attempted kidnapping.

D. Neither kidnapping nor attempted kidnapping. Answer choice D is correct. Kidnapping is the false imprisonment and asportation of a person against that person's will. John cannot be guilty of kidnapping because he did not transport Doris against her will or without her consent. Instead she willingly visited John's apartment and was free to leave at any time. John is also not guilty of attempted kidnapping because he did not have the specific intent to commit kidnapping.

Jack and Kim are suspected of having conducted a series of bank robberies. Pat an undercover police agent invited Jack and Kim over for drinks. Pat mentioned that a particular neighborhood bank had some very low security. After a few beers Jack suggested it might be a good target for a robbery and said he and Kim had hit another similar bank in the same area a few months ago. Pat agreed to help Jack and Kim with the robbery by acting as a lookout. Kim planned everything down to the minute. Jack was arrested when he enter the bank at the agreed time for the robbery. Kim was running late and had not yet arrived in time for the getaway. If Jack is charged with attempted robbery can he assert the defense of entrapment? A. Yes because Pat brought up the bank first. B. Yes because Jack and Kim were not predisposed to commit the robbery. C. No because Pat was a government agent. D. No because Pat did not suggest the robbery.

D. No because Pat did not suggest the robbery. D is the best answer. Entrapment requires that the government agent originate the crime and induce the defendants to commit it and that the defendants were not predisposed to do so. A is incorrect because the comment made by Pat did not constitute inducement. B is incorrect because they were predisposed having committed a similar prior robbery. C is incorrect because the fact that Pat was a government agent is not determinative of the defense of entrapment and based on just that fact Jack and Kim are not barred from asserting the defense of entrapment.

Tom a college student ordered a new model 400A tablet computer from Pearson Computers for $1000 filling out a purchase order for the device. Pearson acknowledged the order with a form including a detailed disclaimer of warranty. When Tom received the device it was defective. Is the disclaimer provision applicable to the dispute between Tom and Pearson? A. Yes the additional term becomes part of the contract because Tom did not object. B. Yes the additional term becomes part of the contract because it is not material. C. No because the acceptance was not a mirror image of the offer. D. No because Tom is not a merchant.

D. No because Tom is not a merchant D is the best answer under 2-207 which requires that both parties be merchants in order for the additional term to automatically become part of the contract if it is not material and no objection is made. Here even though the acknowledgment/acceptance differed from the purchase order because of the addition of a term (the disclaimer) the acknowledgment formed a contract. Since Tom was not a merchant the additional term does not become part of the contract unless Tom assents to it. A is incorrect because the lack of objection on the part of Tom would only result in the term becoming part of the contract is Tom was a merchant. B is incorrect because the term probably is material and in addition Tom is not a merchant. C is incorrect because the mirror image rule applies in common law transactions but this is a sale of goods.

Sam received an anonymous email stating that his wife Wendy was having an affair with Ron a family friend. Enraged Sam drove to Ron's house with a loaded gun. The garage light was on and Sam saw the shadow of a person moving within the garage. Sam decided to fire his gun into the bedroom next to the garage just to scare Ron. In fact Ron was inside the garage and Ron's 15 year old son Junior was in bedroom next to the garage. Junior was hit after Sam fired three shots into the bedroom. Assuming that Junior recovers did Sam commit attempted murder? A. Yes attempted murder of Junior B. Yes attempted murder of Ron C. Yes attempted murder of Junior and Ron D. No because he did not intend to kill anyone.

D. No because he did not intend to kill anyone. D is the best answer because attempt requires intent to commit murder and an act in furtherance beyond preparation. Here Sam did not intend to kill either Ron or Junior. Because of this A B and C are incorrect.

Roger is at a baseball game when he finds a woman's bracelet engraved with her name on the ground beneath his seat. He picks it up intending to return it to the Lost and Found at the stadium. Roger forgot to do so and when he arrives at home after the game he finds the bracelet in his coat pocket. Nervous he decides to give the bracelet to his sister as a gift. Is Roger's sister guilty of a crime? A. Yes she is guilty of receiving stolen property. B. Yes she is guilty of larceny by trick. C. No unless Roger offered it to her for sale. D. No because the bracelet is not considered stolen property.

D. No because the bracelet is not considered stolen property D is the best answer because the bracelet is not stolen since there was no larceny. A is incorrect for this reason. B is incorrect as well as the sister did not engage in misrepresentation or trick to obtain the bracelet. C is incorrect because whether Roger offered it to her for sale is irrelevant.

After an increase in robberies in the area by the so-called baseball bandit Bank hired a new security service for its branch. The security guard Gus did not wear a uniform but dressed like a customer. Gus carried a gun as he milled around the bank premises throughout the day. The baseball bandit indeed entered the bank and pointed a gun at one of the tellers demanding money. Gus shot the baseball bandit killing him. Gus can be convicted of: A. Felony murder based on robbery. B. Voluntary manslaughter because he acted in the heat of passion. C. No crime because he used reasonable force to protect property. D. No crime because he used reasonable force to protect against a dangerous felony.

D. No crime because he used reasonable force to protect against a dangerous felony. D is the best answer here because deadly force is appropriate to protect against a threat to human life. A is incorrect because Gus was not committing robbery when he shot at the baseball bandit. B is incorrect because there is no indication he lost self-control due to a provocation. C is incorrect because deadly force cannot be used to protect against loss of property.

Dean and Vaughn were good friends. On occasion Dean who did not own a car borrowed Vaughn's car to run errands. Dean went to the home of his friend Vaughn one morning to borrow Vaughn's car. Vaughn was not at home so Dean went into the garage where he found the keys in the car and took the car. Vaughn came home to find his car missing and called police who caught Dean with Vaughn's car. Dean said he intended to return it in the morning. Dean is guilty of A. Larceny because he took the car from the home intentionally. B. Common law burglary because he entered Vaughn's home. C. Obtaining property by false pretenses D. No crime.

D. No crime. D is the best answer because Dean had no intent to permanently deprive Vaughn of his car at the time that he borrowed it. A incorrect due to lack of intent. B is incorrect due to lack of intent and because Dean entered the home in the day time. C is incorrect because no misrepresentation was made and Dean did not obtain title to the property.

The government is concerned that a national news periodical the New Ark Tymes is publishing information that has been leaked by rogue government employees and is useful to enemies of the United States. Part of the information has already been published but publication of the most damaging information is pending. Which of the following is true? A. The government can obtain a gag order from the court ordering the information not be published. B. The government can obtain an injunction prohibiting the New Ark Tymes from publishing the information. C. The government can require that the New Ark Tymes obtain a special permit prior to running any story containing information harmful to the United States. D. None of the above.

D. None of the above. D is the best answer because prior restraints of speech by media violate the First Amendment including injunctions gag orders and requirements that permits be obtained in advance of publication.

On the orders of their corporate employer Della and Efron employees of Fabulous Fashionista a clothing store switch trademarks on clothing that comes into the store to be sold to consumers. This is A. Embezzlement. B. Larceny. C. False pretenses. D. None of the above.

D. None of the above. D is the correct answer because this conduct does not meet the elements of any of the crimes listed in A B and C. In fact this meets the elements for the crime of forgery in that an item is purposefully described as something which it is not.

Jake is a dishwasher at a fine dining restaurant. Late one evening he takes home several dishes to give to his mother as a gift. If Jake is charged with A. Embezzlement he should be found B. Guilty because he has stolen from his employer C. Guilty because he had lawful possession of the dishes through his employment D. Not guilty because he had lawful possession of the dishes through his employment

D. Not guilty because he only had custody of the dishes not lawful possession Choice D is correct because the crime of embezzlement requires that the defendant have been entrusted with lawful possession of the item stolen. Jake did not have lawful possession but rather had custody. C is incorrect because although Jake would not be guilty that would not be because he had lawful possession - he had only custody. A in incorrect because the element of entrustment with lawful possession is not met so he would not be convicted of embezzlement. B is incorrect for the same reason.

Dan decided to steal a car intending to sell it to a chop shop. One day he saw Mary park her car outside of a grocery store feed the parking meter and run into the nearby store. Dan saw the car in good condition and thought it was worth maybe $5000. Because he knew how to hotwire the particular type of car he stole it and drove off. Mary had left her baby in the back in a car seat sleeping. As Don drove off he had no idea that the baby was in the back seat. Mary panicked when she came out of the store to see her car and baby were missing. She called police who quickly located the car and her baby who was unharmed. If Dan is charged with kidnapping a court will find him: A. Guilty because he confined and moved the baby without consent. B. Guilty because the asportation of the baby occurred in connection with a serious felony. C. Not guilty because his primary goal was to steal the car. D. Not guilty because he was not aware of the baby being in the car.

D. Not guilty because he was not aware of the baby being in the car. D is the best answer because kidnapping is the intentional asportation and confinement of a person against their will by force or threat without lawful authority. Don lacked intent since he did not know the baby was in the car when he took it. A is incorrect because there is a lack of intent. B is incorrect due to the lack of intent. C is incorrect as it does not matter what his primary goal was when evaluating the crime of kidnapping.

Beth agreed with Local High to provide 10 uniforms for the high school cheer team in the team colors of lime green and tangerine for $1000. Beth owed Saul $500 and told him about the agreement with Local High. Beth arranged for Local High to pay Saul $500 of the uniform contract and included a provision in her contract with Local High to this effect. When Beth delivered the uniforms to Local High the school rejected them because she had used mint green for them rather than lime green and refused to pay. If Saul sues Local he will A. Prevail because he is an intended creditor beneficiary of the contract with Local. B. Prevail because Beth directed Local to pay Saul. C. Not prevail because he was an incidental beneficiary. D. Not prevail because Local can assert Beth's breach as a defense.

D. Not prevail because Local can assert Beth's breach as a defense. D is the best answer here because Saul is an intended beneficiary and he may sue the promisor Local on the contract but Local will have the same defenses it would have against Beth the promisee. The breach of contract here will be a valid defense to Saul's claim. A is incorrect because even though he is an intended beneficiary Saul's claim remains subject to the defenses Local could assert against Beth. C is incorrect because Saul is not an incidental beneficiary but is an intended beneficiary.

Jill from Oregon and Ken a California resident got into an automobile accident injuring both of them seriously and also damaging both of their cars. Jill sued Ken alleging that his negligence caused the accident and seeking damages exceeding $200000. Ken filed a counterclaim for personal injury. He did not seek recovery for the damages to his car. The merits of all claims were resolved through a trial of the action. About six months later Ken filed a second action seeking recovery for the damages to his car arising out of the same accident. Which of the following are correct? I. Ken's claim in the second case was a compulsory counterclaim in the first case. II. II. Ken's claim in the second case is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. III. III. Ken's claim in the second case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. A. All of the above. B. Only I and II. C. Only II and III. D. Only I and III.

D. Only I and III. D is the best answer because a claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence is a compulsory counterclaim and is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it could have been litigated in the first case and a party cannot split his claim into two parts

Alex was the owner of a lot and building that contained two residential apartments. Alex lived in the upstairs apartment and rented the downstairs apartment to a tenant on a month-to-month basis. Bob was interested in buying the property from Alex. After negotiations Alex and Bob entered into a written contract that provided that Alex would sell the apartment building to Bob for $150000 and that delivery of title was to take place on or before July 1. Alex promised that at the time title was delivered the upstairs apartment would be vacant and the downstairs apartment would be vacant within three months thereafter. Bob promised to pay $140000 upon delivery of title and the balance of $10000 three months later. The agreement provided that Bob's obligation to pay $10000 three months after delivery of title shall be voided if the downstairs apartment has not been vacated by that time. Which of the following concerning the order of performance is the LEAST accurate? A. Alex's delivery of title on or before July 1 and Bob's obligation to pay $140000 are concurrent obligations B. Vacancy of the upstairs apartment is a condition precedent to Bob's obligation to pay $140000 upon delivery of ti

D. Payment by Bob of $10000 is a condition subsequent to Alex's obligation to have the downstairs apartment vacated within three months after delivery of title D is the correct answer. A condition subsequent discharges a duty that is already in existence. The language of the agreement makes it clear that Alex's promise to have the downstairs apartment vacated was to be performed prior to payment by Bob. Since it could not be undone once it was performed there can be no condition subsequent to it. Therefore D is not accurate. A B and C are accurate statements since performances that are exchanged simultaneously are usually found to be concurrently conditioned on each other.

Seller owned a restaurant located in San Francisco which Seller wished to sell in order to move to Southern California. Seller agreed to sell his restaurant to Buyer provided that Buyer could find a purchaser for his current restaurant for at least $50000 cash. Buyer made no effort to find a purchaser for his restaurant but the evidence indicates that if Buyer had made such an effort Buyer could have found a purchaser for his restaurant for $75000. If Buyer does not go through with the purchase of Seller's restaurant in San Francisco and Seller sues Buyer for failure to perform who is likely to prevail? A. Buyer will prevail because the condition did not occur. B. Buyer will prevail because Buyer had no obligation to find a purchaser for his business. C. Seller will prevail because the sale of Buyer's restaurant was not a condition of the Buyer's purchase. D. Seller will prevail because the condition is excused by Buyer's lack of good faith efforts

D. Seller will prevail because the condition is excused by Buyer's lack of good faith efforts D is the best answer because the condition was excused by the lack of effort by Buyer. A is incorrect because Buyer has a good faith duty to try to make the condition occur before the condition is excused. B is incorrect because the Buyer has a duty to make a good faith effort to sell his restaurant. C is incorrect because the sale of Buyer's restaurant was a condition of the purchase of Seller's restaurant.

An 18-year-old high school senior living in the State of Francis gets pregnant. A state law requires that women under 21 years of age must obtain permission from their parents before having access to an abortion. She is not sure what her options are and she comes into your law office for guidance. You should tell her that: A. She has a fundamental right to privacy that includes a right to an abortion without obtaining her parents' consent. B. She has a fundamental right to privacy that includes a right to an abortion without obtaining her parents' consent but only in the first trimester. C. The state law requiring that a woman under 21 years of age obtain permission from her parents prior to having access to an abortion constitutes an undue burden on a woman's fundamental right to privacy which includes the right to an abortion. D. She has no fundamental right to privacy that includes a right to an abortion and therefore states may freely regulate access to abortion.

D. She has no fundamental right to privacy that includes a right to an abortion and therefore states may freely regulate access to abortion. The correct answer is (D) after Dobbs. After Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) overturning Roe v. Wade (1971) there is no right to privacy that includes a right to an abortion and states may freely regulate access to abortion. A and B are incorrect because there is no fundamental right to privacy that includes a right to an abortion. C is incorrect because undue burden is the old standard under Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Ramon sets fire to his house. At common law the crime of arson could be committed only if a person burned down: A. A commercial building. B. An unoccupied building C. His or her own house D. The house of another person.

D. The house of another person Choice D is correct because at common law unlike modern statutes the crime of arson required that the building be a dwelling of another. Choices A, B, and C were not available until modern times. Pinckney broke into his neighbor's garage to steal some gasoline by siphoning it out of the car. When Pinckney lit a match to check the level of the gasoline the fumes ignited and caused an explosion. The ensuing fire consumed the garage. Pinckney has been convicted under a statute that prescribes punishment for anyone who intentionally or knowingly sets fire to a building. If there is an appeal the conviction should be: A. Affirmed because Pinckney's wrongful intention to steal would be transferred to the act of setting the fire. B. Affirmed because Pinckney acted with criminal intent and a guilty mind thus satisfying the requirement of mens rea. C. Reversed because Pinckney did not act with the mens rea specified in the statute. D. Reversed because conviction under this statute would require that Pinckney's reckless conduct caused the fire., C. Reversed because Pinckney did not act with the mens rea specified in the statute. C is the correct answer because arson requires the specific intent to burn the dwelling of another. Here Pinckney's specific intent was to steal gasoline and the burning occurred by accident.

Dexter a property owner made an agreement with Paul to complete the grading and excavation of a hillside upon which Dexter's home was to be constructed. The contract price was $50000. After the project began Paul discovered that embedded deep in the ground of the property were massive amounts of rock. After extensive negotiations Dexter and Paul agreed that Dexter would pay an additional $25000 for the additional work required to excavate the property. After the work was completed Dexter refused to make the extra $25000 payment and Paul asserted an action for breach of contract. A. How is the court likely to rule? B. The modification is unenforceable due to lack of consideration. C. The modification is unenforceable because it was not in writing. D. The modification is unenforceable because Paul acted in bad faith.

D. The modification is enforceable due to unforeseen circumstances. D is the correct answer. This is a modification under the common law which is supported by new consideration the extra work required to excavate the property. Therefore the modification is enforceable due to the unforeseen circumstances of embedded rock being undertaken in good faith. Consequently C is wrong. A is wrong since there is new consideration the extra work required to excavate the property. B is wrong since the Statute of Frauds does not require this service contract to be in writing.

Amy owns a computer store and Techno manufactures computers. Techno offers to sell 20 new computers to Amy for $350 each and Amy accepts. Before signing the written agreement Amy tells the Techno representative that she wants to be able to exchange any unsold computers whenever an upgraded model becomes available. The Techno representative orally agrees. However the final written agreement states that Amy cannot exchange the computers for upgraded models under any circumstances. Amy sells 15 of the computers when a new upgraded model from Techno becomes available. Amy tries to exchange the remaining five computers but Techno refuses because this was not part of their agreement. If Amy sues Techno and tries to introduce evidence of the Techno representative's oral statement agreeing to an exchange how will the court rule? A. The oral statement is admissible because it supplements the writing. B. The oral statement is admissible to interpret the writing because it is ambiguous. C. The oral statement is not admissible because the writing is fully integrated. D. The oral statement is not admissible because it contradicts the writing.

D. The oral statement is not admissible because it contradicts the writing. D is the correct answer under UCC 2-202. Under UCC 2-202 terms that are set forth in a writing intended by the parties to be a final expression of their agreement with respect to these terms may not be contradicted by evidence any prior agreement but may be explained or supplemented by course of performance course of dealing or usage of trade. The oral agreement here contradicts the written contract regarding the right to exchange laptops and is therefore inadmissible. A is wrong because the oral statement contradicts rather than supplements the writing. B is wrong because there is no ambiguity in these facts. C is wrong because although the agreement may be fully integrated the statement does not come in because it contradicts the writing.

Danno is a political candidate campaigning for public office. Where ever he appears large crowds gather primarily because of his controversial views. Although many in the crowds support him others have expressed their anger in response to Danno's speeches laying out his political ideas. His speeches sometimes include profanity. He sometimes describes policies that would adversely impact certain religious groups. Which of the following is correct? A. Because some of the audience members are angry in response to Danno's ideas Danno is engaging in unprotected fighting words. B. If Danno uses profanity in his speeches his speech is unprotected by the First Amendment. C. If Danno makes any remarks in his speech that are addressed to any particular religious group then his speech can be banned as hate speech. D. The police must control the angry crowd members rather than restraining Danno from speaking.

D. The police must control the angry crowd members rather than restraining Danno from speaking. D is the best answer. The speech is not hate speech because any ban on content of speech based on the speech addressing religion would be impermissibly content based so C is incorrect. B is incorrect because the use of profanity may not be banned and offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment. A is incorrect because the mere identity of the speaker engaging in otherwise lawful acts does not tun the speaker's speech into fighting words based on the response of the crowd.

A public school receives complaints that the black students do not feel represented by the elected student council concerning the school's upcoming prom. The Black Students' Association president Joe claims that all of BSA's suggested music was vetoed in favor of whiter songs like Van Halen or Led Zeppelin. Furthermore BSA's request to have a lighted dance floor was laughed at. The school issues a survey in which 85% of students respond that they favor two separate proms. If the school agrees that two separate proms can be put on with the same budget on the same night this would be: A. Constitutional because the idea was student-led and students-approved B. Constitutional because there is no fundamental right to go to prom C. Constitutional because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest D. Unconstitutional because the very fact of separating school children by race make the separation unequal.

D. Unconstitutional because the very fact of separating school children by race make the separation unequal. The correct answer is (D) because the Equal Protection Clause prohibits school-sanctioned separation of schoolchildren by race whether or not the children like or dislike the idea. So A is wrong. Note that if the children held a private party outside of school there would be no state action so that would be allowed. So B is wrong. C is wrong because there is no legitimate state interest in separating kids by race for a school-sponsored event.

On May 1 Jaime the owner of several resorts received from Mattress Company a letter offering to sell Jaime 1000 specially designed mattresses. Mattress Company's letter stated that the offer would remain open until May 20 but that Jaime's acceptance must be received on or before that date. On May 16 Jaime sent by mail a letter of acceptance. On May 17 Mattress Company sent a fax to Jaime notifying Jamie that it was revoking the offer. Jaime read the letter on May 17. Mattress Company received Jaime's letter on May 21. As of May 22 which of the following is a correct statement? A. The fax revoking the offer was effective upon receipt. B. The offer was revocable at any time for lack of consideration. C. The mail was the only authorized means of revocation. D. Under the terms of Mattress Company's offer Jaime's attempted acceptance was ineffective.

D. Under the terms of Mattress Company's offer Jaime's attempted acceptance was ineffective.

A woman goes into a clinic for an abortion during her 5th week of pregnancy and is told that her state has passed a law that requires a one-day waiting period and counseling about alternative options for any woman who desires to obtain an abortion. The woman has to take an additional day off from work unpaid and arrange for child care for an extra day for her children. If she sues to have the law declared unconstitutional a court will: A. Strike it down because it limits a fundamental right B. Strike it down because the woman is still in her first trimester of pregnancy C. Uphold the law unless it poses an undue burden on the woman's right to choose D. Uphold the law because there currently is no fundamental right to an abortion.

D. Uphold the law because there currently is no fundamental right to an abortion. The correct answer is D because the SCOTUS held in the Dobbs case that there is no fundamental right to an abortion and there are currently no restrictions on state power to regulate abortion.

Assume Janet is subject to an illegal search and seizure by state police. She consults you to see if she can sue for a violation of her 4th Amendment constitutional rights. Assuming the search and seizure was illegal you tell her: A. No because the violation was by state police which does not trigger federal constitutional rights. B. No because the police are immune from lawsuits by citizens. C. Yes because she has the right to sue anyone she likes. D. Yes because the doctrine of incorporation applies 4th Amendment guarantees to the states.

D. Yes because the doctrine of incorporation applies 4th Amendment guarantees to the states.

Monica disliked her neighbor Raquel. Raquel had a very nice home wonderful children a large diamond ring and traveled with her husband extensively. The fact that Raquel was happy and that Monica was unhappy with her life cause Monica to become very depressed. While checking her mail Monica found an advertisement for a private security company that could handle all sorts of problems. Upon speaking with a representative of that company named Tim she decided to ask Tim to follow Raquel and dig up any negative information he could find and to hurt Raquel real bad maybe through staging a car accident or something. Tim did follow Raquel and upon seeing her exit a bar severely drunk decided to ram her vehicle drag her out of the car and photograph the incident. As a result of her car being struck Raquel lost control of her vehicle and flipped over killing her instantly. Should Monica be convicted of any crime? A. No because she did not intend the outcome of Tim's actions. B. No because Monica did not commit an overt act. C. No because Raquel's death was not a foreseeable outcome. D. Yes because there was an agreement between Tim and Monica to harm Monica.

D. Yes because there was an agreement between Tim and Monica to harm Monica. D is the correct answer. A frequently-tested scenario involves a principal who commits not only the offense that the accomplice has assisted or encouraged but other offenses as well. The accomplice will be liable for these additional crimes if: (1) the additional offenses are the natural and probable consequences of the conduct that the defendant did intend to assist (even though D did not intend these additional offenses)

Paul sues Devin for damages arising out of a vehicle collision. In defense

Devin pleads that the suit has been compromised by a settlement agreement. In his answer, Paul denies this claim. Devin moves for summary judgment and attaches a copy of the settlement agreement and an affidavit by Devin authenticating the signatures. Paul does not respond. The court should: A) Grant the summary judgment motion because there is no genuine issue of material fact. B) Grant the summary judgment motion because the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the moving party. C) Deny the summary judgment motion because there is an issue of credibility. D) Deny the summary judgment motion to give Paul another chance to respond., A) Grant the summary judgment motion because there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Plato sued Diego for personal injury based on an automobile accident. The action went to trial and Plato prevailed. Three months later

Diego, very upset, consulted a new lawyer regarding whether he could bring a claim against Plato arising out of the same automobile accident. The best advice is that: A) Diego may bring his claim against Plato as long as there is a good faith basis in fact and law for the claim. B) Diego may bring his claim as it will relate back to the filing of Plato's case against Diego. C) Diego's claim against Plato can be asserted unless it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. D) Diego cannot bring his claim against Plato as he should have asserted it at the time Plato sued him., D) Diego cannot bring his claim against Plato as he should have asserted it at the time Plato sued him.

Fritz owned a 30-acre parcel of undeveloped land in a suburb. The land was located between a new high school and a housing subdivision. Many students took a short cut through Fritz's property to reach the school. One Saturday morning

Fritz had a construction crew dig a 10-foot-deep hole for the foundation of a new building. Because Fritz knew that students sometimes walked across his land, he posted a warning sign near the hole. Elmer, a high school senior, walked across Fritz's property to get to school the next day. He almost ran into the sign which was posted directly in front of the hole. Still after walking past the sign, Elmer was not paying attention and fell into the hole, breaking both of his legs. If Elmer sues Fritz for negligence, the likely result will be: A. Elmer will prevail because Fritz failed to satisfy his duty to warn B. Elmer will prevail because Fritz did not owe him a duty to warn. C. Fritz will prevail because he posted a warning. D. Fritz will prevail because he owes no duty to Elmer., C. Fritz will prevail because he posted a warning.

however

Jan discovered the jury looked up several aspects of the case on the internet in order to reach the verdict. Jan also believes that the jury's damages award is excessive. Prior to appealing how should Jan proceed? A) File a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and seek a new trial. B) File a motion for new trial and seek remittitur. C) File a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and seek remittitur. D) File a motion for new trial, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and seek remittitur., B) File a motion for new trial and seek remittitur.

A conservative coalition organized a meeting of all their members at a park across the street from the White House. One of their leaders

Jay Craycroft, gave a speech that included the following: "President Obama should resign. We need to take back the White House and take back America. We need to start a revolution that recognizes the Bible, not Obama, as our rulebook." Craycroft's speech is: A. Intended to incite imminent lawless action. B. Likely to incite imminent lawless action. C. Both A and B. D. Protected free speech., D. Protected free speech.

Nurse Nancy took a photo of a celebrity patient

Lady Baba, while she was sleeping in her hospital bed and sold it to a tabloid. She sold it to the tabloid Snitch for $500. Snitch published it with the caption Drug Overdose! when in fact Lady Baba had been admitted for exhaustion. Based on the story her recording company cancelled a lucrative contract with her. Lady Baba has a viable claim against Nancy for: I.Intrusion upon seclusion II.Public disclosure of private facts III.False Light A. All of the above. B. I and II only. C. II and III only. D. I and III only., B. I and II only.

A private golf club in Atlanta is formed for the stated purpose of promoting comradery and economic success among men through golf and social functions. The most profitable business in town is owned by a woman

Lisa Glass, and she applies for membership at the golf club. She receives a letter in the mail that states her application for membership has been denied since she is a woman but the club hopes she attends their monthly Guest Dinners where women are welcome to dine with members in the clubhouse. Can Ms. Glass sue the golf club? A. Yes because the discrimination was intentional. B. Yes because gender discrimination will be subject to intermediate scrutiny. C. Yes, but only if she golfs. D. No because it is a private club., D. No because it is a private club.

A private golf club in Atlanta is formed for the stated purpose of promoting comradery and economic success among men through golf and social functions. The most profitable business in town is owned by a woman

Lisa Glass, and she applies for membership at the golf club. She receives a letter in the mail that states her application for membership has been denied since she is a woman, but the club hopes she attends their monthly Guest Dinners where women are welcome to dine with members in the clubhouse. Can Ms. Glass sue the golf club? A. Yes because the discrimination was intentional. B. Yes because gender discrimination will be subject to intermediate scrutiny. C. Yes, but only if she golfs. D. No because it is a private club., D. No because it is a private club.

A state university requires a reading comprehension test in order to be admitted and uses these tests to place students in remedial freshman or advanced English class. The reading comprehension test includes several long passages followed by questions. Most of the reading passages are about American history. A black student

Moses Morton, is denied admission based solely on the reading comprehension test. He does some research and discovers that while 70% of white applicants score 70% or higher on the test, only 20% of similarly situated black applicants score 70% or higher. Moses sues the state university claiming that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibits state action that has a discriminatory effect on applicants. How will the court rule? A. Equal protection does not bar state action that has a racially discriminatory effect with no discriminatory intent. B. Moses will win because the statistics clearly show that the test had a discriminatory effect. C. The case will be dismissed for no state action. D. None of the above., A. Equal protection does not bar state action that has a racially discriminatory effect with no discriminatory intent.

Mother was on an airplane that had to make an emergency landing near a volcano due to the airline's negligence in fueling. The volcano unexpectedly erupted. While running from the lava

Mother tripped and fell, suffering additional injuries when another passenger, a medical doctor, tried to help her. If Mother sues the passenger, who will prevail? A. Mother because a doctor has a duty to rescue others. B. Mother because the other passenger is liable for any injury to Mother while rescuing her. C. The other passenger unless he acted with gross negligence in assisting Mother. D. The other passenger because he had no duty to rescue Mother, he was not liable for causing her injuries., C. The other passenger unless he acted with gross negligence in assisting Mother.

Dex owns a lion and a dog. The lion tackled a neighbor

Paul, once, and the dog bit Paul on another occasion. If Paul sues Dex for injuries caused by both the lion and the dog, will he prevail? A. Yes, Paul will prevail on his strict liability claims for injuries caused by the lion and the dog. B. Yes, but Paul will prevail only on his strict liability claim for injury caused by the lion. C. Yes, but Paul will prevail only on his strict liability claim for injury caused by the dog. D. No, Paul will not prevail on either claim for strict liability., B. Yes, but Paul will prevail only on his strict liability claim for injury caused by the lion.

Dave is speeding down the freeway in his brand new Corvette. While following all applicable traffic laws

Paula pulls out in front of him and suddenly slams on her brakes when she sees a skunk in the road. Dave does not have enough time to react and slams into the back of Paula's car. Paula sues Dave, asserting a theory of strict liability claiming that Dave was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity while driving. Is Paula is likely to prevail? A) Yes since all of the risks of driving on a freeway cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care. B) Yes since Dave's driving created a high degree of risk of causing harm to other drivers. C) No since the activity of driving on a freeway is quite common. D) No since Paula pulled out in front of Dave's car., C) No since the activity of driving on a freeway is quite common.

While shopping at Store

Peter grabs an electronic toothbrush and puts it into his shopping basket. As he does so, the toothbrush malfunctions and explodes, causing him serious injury. Peter sues Store and Oral-F, the manufacturer of the toothbrush. Who will Peter likely prevail against A) Oral-F and Store but store may seek indemnity from Oral-F. B) Oral-F is liable but Store is not liable to Peter. C) Store is liable but Oral-F is not liable to Peter. D) Neither Oral-F nor Store are liable to Peter., A) Oral-F and Store but store may seek indemnity from Oral-F.

Polly purchases a chair from a department store. Subsequently

Polly stands on the chair to hang a picture. Due to a defect, the chair collapses, seriously injuring her. Polly brings a product liability action against the department store, claiming her injury was caused by a defect in the chair. The store defends the products liability action by claiming that Polly misused the chair by standing rather than sitting on it. Who is likely to prevail? A) Polly because the chair is defective. B) Polly because her misuse of the chair was foreseeable. C) The store since chairs are designed for sitting, not standing. D) The store since Polly misused the chair by standing on it to hang a picture., B) Polly because her misuse of the chair was foreseeable.

In California

Proposition Y appears on the ballot making same-sex sodomy a crime punishable by 10 years in prison, defined as the mouth of one person touching the sex organs of another and prohibiting any sodomites from voting, holding public office, or repealing this law. The provision says it is self-executing and cannot be repealed except by constitutional amendment. A court would likely strike down this law because: A. It discriminates against a group traditionally held to be a discrete and insular minority. B. The law lacks rational relation to any legitimate government purpose. C. Propositions cannot take away people's rights. D. None of the above., B. The law lacks rational relation to any legitimate government purpose.

A public school allows community groups to use its rooms after school. Past groups include the Girl Scouts

Rotary Club, and Ecological Club. An after-school Bible club applies to use a classroom right after school. The school should: A. Deny the request as use of the room would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion. B. Grant the request, applying the policy in a neutral manner to avoid preventing the Club's free exercise of religion. C. Deny the request because it is for a non-curricular purpose. D. None of the above., B. Grant the request, applying the policy in a neutral manner to avoid preventing the Club's free exercise of religion.

Devin's dog Trixie has always been very friendly with children. When Devin's sister brought her 10-year-old son Sam to visit

Sam and Trixie played in the yard for an hour. After Devin and his sister went inside, Sam came running into the house screaming that Trixie attacked him. Sam's arm was bleeding badly, and they rushed him to the hospital emergency room for treatment. Devin was shocked at Trixie's behavior. If Devin's sister sued Devin on behalf of Sam based on strict liability, Sam's best argument would be that: A) Devin knew that Trixie's breed of dog was potentially dangerous. B) Trixie had bitten another person on a prior occasion. C) Devin failed to use reasonable care in training Trixie. D) Sam failed to use reasonable care in playing with Trixie., B) Trixie had bitten another person on a prior occasion.

In 1956

Silo Cement Company constructed a plant for manufacturing ready-mix concrete in Lakeville. At that time, Silo was using bagged cement which caused little or no dust. In 1970, Peter bought a home approximately 1800 feet from the Silo plant. One year ago, Silo stopped using bagged cement and began to receive cement in bulk shipments. Since then, at least five truckloads of cement have passed Peter's house daily. Cement blows off the trucks and into Peter's house. When the cement arrives at the Silo plant, it is blown by forced air from the trucks into the storage bin. As a consequence, cement dust fills the air surrounding the plant to a distance of 2000 feet. Peter's house is the only residence within 2000 feet of the plant. If Peter asserts a claim against Silo based on nuisance, will Peter likely prevail? A. Yes unless using bagged cement would substantially increase Silo's costs. B. Yes if the cement dust interfered unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of Peter's property. C. No because Silo is not required to change its industrial methods to accommodate the needs of one individual. D. No if Silo's methods are in conformity with those in general use in the industry., B. Yes if the cement dust interfered unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of Peter's property.

After a field trip to Liberty University's Creation Hall museum

a public school district requires that creationism be taught in all biology courses. Evolution is permitted to be taught as an alternative theory provided that Creationism receives equal treatment. This policy: A. Is constitutional because equal treatment is given to religion and non-religion. B. Is constitutional because it protects students' freedom from secular indoctrination. C. Is unconstitutional because teaching creationism would have the primary effect of advancing religion. D. Is unconstitutional because religious theories cannot be taught in public schools., C. Is unconstitutional because teaching creationism would have the primary effect of advancing religion.

The Milwaukee

Wisconsin police force decides to require a certain accounting requirement for all new officers. A detective overhears the Chief of Police explaining to a colleague that black people do not know accounting so the new requirement will keep out the right people if you know what I mean. Suzy Johnson, an African American applicant, fails the accounting test and is denied a spot on the force for that reason alone. In her subsequent lawsuit, she presents evidence of discriminatory intent to exclude African Americans. What would be the next step in the litigation? A. She would win without any further steps. B. The burden of proof would shift to the police force to show that the test and action would have been taken anyway regardless of any discriminatory intent. C. The government would win because she did not pass the accounting test. D. None of the above., B. The burden of proof would shift to the police force to show that the test and action would have been taken anyway regardless of any discriminatory intent.

Pam

a California resident, was injured by a defective can opener that sliced her finger causing permanent damages. She filed a product liability claim against Retailer, a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Delaware, for $100,000. Retailer sued Manufacturer, a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York, for indemnity. Pam then brought a product liability claim against Manufacturer for $100,000. Manufacturer asserted a claim against Retailer for negligence arising out of Retailer's handling of the product seeking $100,000. Which of the following is accurate? A) All claims are permissible pursuant to applicable joinder rules and the court has subject matter jurisdiction. B) Retailer's claim against Manufacturer is properly joined but the court has no subject matter jurisdiction for the claim. C) Pam's claim against Manufacturer was not properly joined. D) Manufacturer's claim against Retailer is not properly joined., A) All claims are permissible pursuant to applicable joinder rules and the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

The Cauliflorya Department of Corrections has a policy of placing each new or transferred inmate with a cellmate of the same race in a reception center pending a regular housing assignment. The CDC contended that the policy was necessary to prevent violence caused by racial prison gangs. Will Johnson

a black man, challenged the racial classification on equal protection grounds. What standard of review should be applied by the court? A. Rational Basis. B. Strict Scrutiny. C. Intermediate Scrutiny. D. Laissez-faire., B. Strict Scrutiny.

A coffee shop franchise tells its employees that if they criticize the company they will be fired. John

a college student who works for the coffee shop, posts on social media that the company is racist, sexist, and that he has infiltrated their ranks in order to take down corporate America. If he sues to have his firing declared unconstitutional, a court will: A. Find for the company because John issued a threat to corporate America. B. Find for the company because there was no state action. C. Find for John because the company policy was content-based. D. None of the above., B. Find for the company because there was no state action.

Bob works as a police detective. He has received numerous awards and given TV interviews. He decides to retire and leaves the force to play golf. One day he is watching television and he comes across LA Law

a docu-drama about the detective trade in LA. After the initial credits, Bob sees the following: "Based on the trials and tribulations of detective Bob's life while serving on the LAPD police force. Please be aware that this is a stylized documentary and things may appear in a manner slightly different than they actually occurred." Bob watches the show and becomes angry as the plot includes a sordid inter-office affair with a dispatcher that never occurred in his real life. If Bob brings an action against the broadcasting company for invasion of privacy, who will likely prevail? A. Bob since they used his name for a commercial purpose. B. Bob since his retirement and the associated right to seclusion has been upset. C. Bob as he was portrayed in a false light. D. The broadcasting company as the show when taken as a whole was complimentary to Bob's life., C. Bob as he was portrayed in a false light.

Matt

a famous movie actor, was featured in a Bad Bull Beer advertisement without his authorization. The ad showed him drinking Bad Bull Beer, and the label was visible. If Matt did not authorize the advertisement, he can sue Bad Bull Beer for: A. Defamation if the advertisement harmed Matt's reputation. B. False light if Matt is not really a beer drinker. C. Misappropriation even if the photo was an accurate depiction. D. Intrusion upon seclusion if Matt was with his family at the beach., C. Misappropriation even if the photo was an accurate depiction.

If the Arkansas legislature passes a law that no abortions will be performed on women without signed consent from the presumptive father

a federal court would likely rule that this law was: A. Constitutional because it does not discriminate based on marriage. B. Constitutional because it permits women to obtain first-trimester abortions provided that they receive signed consent from the man. C. Unconstitutional for posing an undue burden on a woman's fundamental reproductive choice as applied. D. Unconstitutional because there is an absolute unlimited right to get an abortion., C. Unconstitutional for posing an undue burden on a woman's fundamental reproductive choice as applied.

Alan

a football player, got onto the school bus to travel back to the school after a high school football game. Alan saw Evan, a team member, and started a fight with him on the bus over a girl. After Alan threw a punch at Evan, Evan kicked Alan, injuring Alan's leg badly. When the bus arrived back at the school, the bus driver locked the doors of the bus and refused to let Alan off until he apologized to Evan for starting the fight. Does Alan have a claim against the bus driver for false imprisonment? A. Yes because Alan was detained in a confined area. B. Yes if the confinement was for a substantial period of time. C. No because the bus driver had a privilege to detain Alan. D. No if Alan violated the transit rules., A. Yes because Alan was detained in a confined area.

The County of Francis has a fair every summer that attracts tens of thousands of people. The Fair rents out booths on a non-discriminatory basis to community groups who wish to educate the public or sell merchandise. A group of Jehovah's Witnesses

a local religious group, believe it is God's will that they evangelize. They do not wish to rent a booth but desire to walk amongst the fairgoers and sell literature/seek donations. The Fair Commission denies their request stating that if they allow Jehovah's Witnesses this privilege then they would have to allow everyone the same privilege. If the case ends up in court, the court will: A. Allow the Jehovah's Witnesses an exception to the general rule based on religious freedom. B. Allow the Jehovah's Witnesses an exception because the booth policy constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. C. Uphold the booth policy since the fair is a limited public forum. D. Uphold the booth policy since it is on private property., C. Uphold the booth policy since the fair is a limited public forum.

The County of Francis has a fair every summer that attracts tens of thousands of people. The Fair rents out booths on a non-discriminatory basis to community groups who wish to educate the public or sell merchandise. A group of Jehovah's Witnesses

a local religious group, believe it is God's will that they evangelize. They do not wish to rent a booth but desire to walk amongst the fairgoers and sell literature/seek donations. The Fair Commission denies their request, stating that if they allow Jehovah's Witnesses this privilege then they would have to allow everyone the same privilege. If the case ends up in court, the court will: A. Allow the Jehovah's Witnesses an exception to the general rule based on religious freedom. B. Allow the Jehovah's Witnesses an exception because the booth policy constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. C. Uphold the booth policy since the fair is a limited public forum. D. Uphold the booth policy since it is on private property., C. Uphold the booth policy since the fair is a limited public forum.

Defendant tire manufacturer is sued by Plaintiff

a mechanic who suffered a head injury in a shop when the tire exploded as a result of a defect. The evidence from the Manager at the scene was that the tire was a whitewall. Plaintiff testified the tire was a blackwall. Defendant only manufactures whitewall tires. After this evidence, Defendant moves for a directed verdict. How should the court rule? A) Deny the motion because there is a conflict in the evidence. B) Deny the motion because Plaintiff is more credible than the Manager. C) Grant the motion based on plaintiff's testimony. D) Grant the motion because no reasonable jury could believe the Manager., A) Deny the motion because there is a conflict in the evidence.

The City of St. Francis desired to promote peace and public order so passed the following ordinance: "Whoever places on public or private property a burning cross or Nazi swastika commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Sloane McFey is making a documentary about mid-century life in Mississippi. Her camera crew is about to shoot a scene in which members of the KKK attempt to intimidate a black family which includes burning a cross on the set. Just as Sloane lights the cross on fire

a police officer walks by and upon seeing the burning cross arrests Sloane for disorderly conduct. Sloane's strongest argument to challenge the ordinance in court would be: A. It is overbroad. B. It is hate speech. C. It is a time, place, and manner restriction. D. None of the above., A. It is overbroad.

Art and Bill were involved in an argument over Gemma

a woman in their college class that both Art and Bill liked. Art said, "If you don't stay away from her, I'm going to kick you in the behind." Bill picked up a baseball near where he was standing and threw it at Art, shouting, "No one tells me what to do! I'll show you!" Art ducked, and the baseball did not hit him and instead hit Carla, who happened to be walking by. Carla fell to the ground and screamed and suffered a bruise on the side of her head. What intentional torts have been committed? A. Both Art and Bill committed assault. B. Bill committed assault only. C. Bill committed assault and battery. D. None., C. Bill committed assault and battery.

Pat alleges he suffered injury when Don drove his vehicle through a red light and struck Pat's car. Don moves for summary judgment on the basis of his own affidavit and those of five clergymen who witnessed the accident

all of whom say Pat went through the light. In response, Pat counters with an affidavit from an alcoholic with three convictions for driving under the influence who also saw the accident, indicating that Pat's version of the facts is correct. How should the court rule? A) The court should grant the motion because the evidence from the alcoholic is not admissible. B) The court should grant the motion because the evidence from the clergymen is more credible than the evidence from the alcoholic. C) The court should deny the motion because an issue of credibility exists. D) The court should deny the motion because the evidence from the clergymen is not admissible., C) The court should deny the motion because an issue of credibility exists.

RadBikes is a manufacturer of dirt bikes. Bikeco

an independent retailer, sells a number of dirt bikes from RadBikes' line. Patty purchased a RadBikes dirt bike from Bikeco. She took her bike out for a spin, and as soon as she started riding, the wheels fell off. Patty was thrown from the bike and she landed on the pavement suffering serious injuries. Accident investigators determined two bolts were inadvertently missing from the bike which led to the accident. What will be the likely outcome if Patty sues Radbikes? A) Patty will recover because the accident was the result of a manufacturing defect. B) Patty will not recover unless she can prove RadBikes was negligent. C) Patty will recover because the accident was the result of design defect. D) Patty will not recover because she had no contract with RadBikes., A) Patty will recover because the accident was the result of a manufacturing defect.

the engine explodes

and Paul is severely injured. He sues Dexter for his injuries based on strict products liability. Who is likely to prevail? A) Paul assuming the engine was defective when Dexter sold the bike to Paul B) Paul because he suffered an injury caused by the motorcycle's engine. C) Dexter because he is a private seller. D) Dexter because Paul misused the engine by speeding above its limit., C) Dexter because he is a private seller.

Debbie is jogging when a chartered bus swerves onto the sidewalk where she is jogging and heads straight for her. The bus driver is so preoccupied with the passengers in the bus that he did not realize that the bus has gone off the road. Debbie tried her best to get out of the way in time

and at the last minute, she jumped into her neighbor Pam's yard. Once she landed on the ground, Debbie realized that she was lying in a patch of Pam's prize-winning pumpkins and had essentially killed an entire section of the pumpkin patch. Pam asserts an action against Debbie for damages to her pumpkins. How will the court likely rule? A. Debbie is liable as she had no privilege to enter Pam's yard. B. Debbie is liable because she failed to act with due care. C. Debbie was privileged to enter Pam's land, therefore she is not liable. D. Debbie is liable for the damaged pumpkins., C. Debbie was privileged to enter Pam's land, therefore she is not liable.

Alice McGraw is 78 years old. She fails three successive driving tests

and her driver's license is revoked according to state law that requires three successive failed driver's tests before someone's license can be revoked. She requests a preliminary hearing in order to present evidence that she was very depressed on those dates but is better now, but her request is denied. If she sues claiming a denial of due process because she should have been entitled to a pre-termination hearing, then: A. She will win because there is no rational basis for denying her request for such a hearing. B. She will win because a driver's license is a property interest. C. She will lose because the state followed the procedures set forth in its statutes. D. She will lose because she is too old to drive., C. She will lose because the state followed the procedures set forth in its statutes.

A state law holds that nail polish services shall only be offered by a licensed esthetician or else the business will be fined $500 per infraction. Joyful Nails is fined $6000 after a state raid discovers 6 ladies getting nail polish changes and 6 more under the drying machines

and none of the workers are licensed estheticians. The business owner sues to strike down the law. He will win if the court finds that: A. There is no rational basis for the law. B. Adequate notice was given. C. States can regulate economics in any way they like. D. None of the above., A. There is no rational basis for the law.

everyone has a constitutional right not to vaccinate their child and to enroll their child in public school. B. Equal protection demands that all parents receive the same option to be exempt from vaccine laws regardless of the reason. C. The state can force the couple to vaccinate their child to further the compelling interest of keeping kids safe and healthy at school

but where a religious exemption is granted, the state cannot discriminate based on the stated religion. D. None of the above., C. The state can force the couple to vaccinate their child to further the compelling interest of keeping kids safe and healthy at school, but where a religious exemption is granted, the state cannot discriminate based on the stated religion.

Mother was on an airplane that had to make an emergency landing near a volcano due to the airline's negligence in fueling. The volcano erupted

causing injuries to Mother. If Mother sues the airline for her injuries, who will likely prevail? A. Mother because the airline's failure to refuel properly was negligent. B. Mother because the airline should not have landed near the volcano. C. The airline because Mother's injuries were not foreseeable. D. The airline because it satisfied its duty of reasonable care to Mother., C. The airline because Mother's injuries were not foreseeable.

Art was seriously injured when a metal object fell from the sky into his backyard where he was playing with his dog. It was determined that the object was a part of an AeroFlight airplane that had not been properly installed by the manufacturer

causing it to come loose in flight. Art was hospitalized, and Doctor performed surgery negligently, resulting in Art going into a coma for several weeks. Art sues AeroFlight and Doctor. Which of the following are correct under the modern view A. Art can recover only from AeroFlight based on the defective product. B. Art can recover only from the Doctor based on the Doctor's fault. C. AeroFlight and Doctor are jointly and severally liable for all harm caused to Art. D. Doctor and AeroFlight are each liable based on comparative fault., D. Doctor and AeroFlight are each liable based on comparative fault.

California passes a law that all state kitchen workers at the Sacramento Café (located inside the same building as the state legislature and run by the government) must wear hair nets to keep dirt or other hair debris from dropping into the food. Employees of the café may not have hair so long that it cannot fit inside a hair net. Ronald Rasta challenges the rule on the basis that his dreadlocks are too long to fit wrapped inside a hair net

claiming his ability to make a personal choice about grooming is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed. If Ronald hires you as his attorney, what standard of review will you tell him a court is likely to apply to his claim? A. Strict Scrutiny. B. Intermediate Scrutiny. C. Rational Basis. D. The court would dismiss his suit for lack of standing., C. Rational Basis.

Farmer Fred had an underground gasoline storage tank that developed a leak

contaminating the water well of his neighbor, Organic Jane. If Jane sues Fred, which of the following is true? A. Strict liability will apply since the use of underground tanks is not of common usage and inappropriate to the area. B. Strict liability will not apply since the use of underground tanks is common. C. Farmer Fred will not be liable since his underground storage tank worked well and did not contaminate Jane's water well for several years. D. Farmer Fred will not be liable since he did not intend to contaminate Jane's water well., A. Strict liability will apply since the use of underground tanks is not of common usage and inappropriate to the area.

Denise

during a job interview, falsely claimed that Pam received help from another person in writing a published article. This false claim led to Pam losing a lucrative contract. Pam sues Denise for slander. Will Pam likely prevail? A. Pam since Denise's statement to Michael was false. B. Pam since in making the statement Denise showed reckless disregard for the truth of her statement. C. Denise because Michael directly asked for Denise's opinion in this matter. D. Denise unless special damages are proved by Pam., A. Pam since Denise's statement to Michael was false.

A new Hawaiian State University is started in Hawaii. The school wants to attract a racially diverse freshman class

especially those ethnic groups who are underrepresented in the islands, so it sets aside 10% of the entering class's spaces for students with African American heritage and 20% for Hispanic applicants. An Asian applicant is denied admission and discovers her Hispanic friend—who has lower test scores and grades—was admitted. Will the Hawaiian school's quota system pass constitutional muster? A. Yes because African Americans and Hispanics are underrepresented in Hawaii compared to the United States as a whole. B. Yes because there is no fundamental right in being admitted to a certain college. C. No because racial quota systems violate Equal Protection. D. No because there was no state action., C. No because racial quota systems violate Equal Protection.

Dave loves computers. In his free time

he hunts for computer parts and then builds computers to sell to friends and family. One of his friends, Phil, approaches Dave and asks if he can buy one of Dave's computers that he made from scratch. Dave agrees and sells the computer to Phil. Phil then uses the computer for his small business. A few months after buying the computer, Phil uses the computer and is severely injured when it catches fire. Phil realizes that the accident was caused when one of wires came out of the computer and came into contact with a metal bolt, causing a fire. If Phil sues the manufacturer of the wire used in the computer based on strict products liability, he will probably: A) Lose because the computer had been rebuilt by Dave. B) Lose because there was no privity between Phil and the manufacturer of the wire. C) Recover as long as the wire was new when it was put into the computer. D) Recover because the computer was put into the stream of commerce by the manufacturer., A) Lose because the computer had been rebuilt by Dave.

Don is a marine biologist. To aid in his study of black piranha fish

he installed a large tank in the backyard of his property in a suburban neighborhood. A black piranha is known to be one of the deadliest fish in the world due to its large razor-sharp teeth. Due to a problem with the tank's filtration system, it started to emit a strong and offensive odor. Pam, Don's next-door neighbor, came over to Don's property to find out the source of the odor. Don took Pam into the backyard to show her the fish tank. While Pam was standing next to the tank, the two piranha fish splashed water out of the tank, drenching Pam. Pam, who had a cold, developed pneumonia. If Pam asserts a claim against Don based on strict liability, she will likely: A) Recover because Pam drank the water. B) Recover because the possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable for damages the animal causes to other people. C) Not recover because the dangerous aspect of the black piranha did not cause the harm. D) Not recover because Pam stood next to the tank., C) Not recover because the dangerous aspect of the black piranha did not cause the harm.

Durabrand Power Tools makes a stamping machine for metal fabricators. The machine does not have a guard to protect the operator's hands from entering the stamping area of the machine. Whenever the hand of an operator makes contact with the stamping area of the machine

it is likely that the operator will suffer serious injury to his hand from the stamping mechanism. Such a guard could be included, but it might reduce the speed of production. On the bed of the machine directly in front of the operator is a warning label in large red letters: WARNING: KEEP HANDS FROM STAMPING AREA TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY OR AMPUTATION! Paul, an operator who was using the machine, is distracted by a coworker. Paul turns his head, and his hand drifts into the stamping area. Paul suffers severe injury to his hand. If Paul asserts a products liability claim against Durabrand based on a failure to warn, will Paul succeed? A) Yes if the warning was an insufficient response to the danger posed by the machine. B) Yes, Durabrand should have known that a stronger warning was required. C) No, the warning was adequate since placement of a guard might have slowed production. D) No, Durabrand provided a warning., A) Yes if the warning was an insufficient response to the danger posed by the machine.

she had no life

liberty, or property interest that was denied to her by state action.

she had no life

liberty, or property interest that was denied to her by state action. D. She should not want to work with those jerks anyway., C. No

The State of Newart establishes 100-foot buffer zones outside all clinics that perform abortions and no one except clinic employees

people entering the clinic, or passersby may travel within those zones. A local church counselor who aims to talk women out of having abortions challenges the law on First Amendment grounds. A court will find: A. The law will be struck down because in excluding only protestors it is not viewpoint-neutral. B. The law is a valid viewpoint-neutral restriction on the place of speech. C. The law is valid because trying to stop someone from having an abortion is an act, not speech. D. The law is valid because abortion protestors have shot doctors and a buffer zone is necessary for public safety., A. The law will be struck down because in excluding only protestors it is not viewpoint-neutral.

Donna needed to remove a tree stump from the backyard of her home in a suburban neighborhood. She bought some dynamite

set it in holes under the tree stump, and blasted away. Donna had been trained to use dynamite in the Marine Corps and was an expert in its use. When she was engaged in blasting the tree stump out, her neighbor Pam complained. The shock waves from the blasting had cracked the foundation of Pam's house. If Pam asserts an action against Donna, which of the following is true? A) Since Donna exercised due care in removing the stump, she will not be liable. B) Since the use of dynamite is common for blasting, strict liability will not apply. C) Since blasting is common for stump removal, strict liability will not apply. D) Since blasting is uncommon and creates a high risk that cannot be mitigated, strict liability will apply., D) Since blasting is uncommon and creates a high risk that cannot be mitigated, strict liability will apply.

Suzanne Crumpet applies for a job as a paralegal at the City Attorney's Office. She sails through the interview lauding her paralegal certification and decade of experience. As she leaves the building

she accidentally overhears her interviewers remarking: "She would have been great. Too bad she's so fat." Suzanne does not get the job and hears from a friend that a skinny younger woman with less experience got the job. Suzanne comes into your law office and wants to know if she can bring a claim for a violation of her 14th Amendment due process rights. You tell her: A. Yes

it was the tradition and custom of that particular housing project. Sylvia was in good standing on all accounts and went to renew her lease just before it expired. She was told that the new office manager did not want her kind there and that she would need to live somewhere else and that no hearing was necessary. Sylvia sues. Can Sylvia bring a due process claim as part of her lawsuit against the City? A. Yes

she has a property interest in the apartment that entitled her to a hearing, and there was state action. B. No, she has a property interest in the apartment but there was no state action. C. No because there is no federal protection for transgender status. D. No because she only lived there for 6 years., A. Yes, she has a property interest in the apartment that entitled her to a hearing, and there was state action.

Carnival Company runs an amusement park in the State of Adams. Cynthia decided to take her children to the park. She asked her neighbor if her six-year-old daughter Monica could go with them. The neighbor agreed

so Cynthia, her children, and Monica went to the park. After they arrived, Cynthia went to buy cotton candy and temporarily lost sight of Monica. Monica was attracted by a ride that had colorful cars spinning at a high rate of speed. The ride was surrounded by a fence, but the ride attendant had left the gate open. Monica walked through the gate, approached the ride, and was struck by one of the cars. She suffered serious injuries. If Monica's representative sues Cynthia, who will prevail? A. Monica because Cynthia breached her duty of care. B. Monica because Cynthia had a duty to warn Monica. C. Cynthia because she had no duty to rescue Monica. D. Cynthia because she was not Monica's mother., A. Monica because Cynthia breached her duty of care.

The New York Times newspaper wants to publish a report that details methods of torture that were used at Guantanamo Bay before 2008 and calling on President Obama to fulfill his promise to shut down the prison there. The Obama administration sues for an injunction arguing that decisions made by George W. Bush were in his capacity as commander in chief and should be subject to executive privilege for national security reasons. The strongest argument for allowing the newspaper to publish the report is: A. The First Amendment gives citizens the right to know about all decisions made by an elected official. B. A free press includes the right to publish things that make the government look bad as long as future operations are not put at risk. C. The Obama administration does not torture people

so the American people have no right to know about the prior administration. D. None of the above., B. A free press includes the right to publish things that make the government look bad as long as future operations are not put at risk.

Dave runs an Animal Park located in a remote area where vacationers often go to enjoy peaceful camping trips on summer vacation. Dave's Animal Park has an excellent reputation for providing high-quality care to all of the wild animals housed on its property. The park had a habitat with Bengal Tigers

some of which became particularly ornery in the summer heat. Pete and his family were camping on a campground located several hundred feet outside of the fencing that surrounded the Animal Park. One day during the camping trip, the temperature soared to 100 degrees. At night, one of the tigers became very agitated and managed to break through the security fencing and roamed into the campground. The tiger approached Pete, who managed to cry out for help alerting Dave that the tiger had escaped. Dave captured the tiger but not before Pete received severe cuts and bruises from wrestling with the tiger. If Pete asserts a claim against Dave and the Animal Park for his injuries he will likely: A) Not recover because Dave took great care in maintaining the Animal Park B) Not recover because Dave is not liable for injuries caused by his animals when they escape. C) Recover but only if Dave did not properly maintain the security fencing. D) Recover for all of the harm done by the tiger., D) Recover for all of the harm done by the tiger.

Barb is a babysitter for Parents. Each day Parents provide her a detailed list of instructions covering picking up the children from school

take them to events, feed them dinner, and put them to bed. When picking up the children from school one day, Barb got into an automobile accident with Pam, injuring Pam after Barb failed to check for traffic prior to merging into traffic and did not see Pam coming along beside her. If Pam sues Barb and Parents, which of the following are correct? A) Barb and Parents are liable because Barb is an employee of Family. B) Barb is liable but Parents are not because Barb is an independent contractor. C) Neither Barb nor Parents are liable because Barb's conduct was not intentional. D) Parents are liable to Pam based on vicarious liability, but Barb is not liable to Pam., A) Barb and Parents are liable because Barb is an employee of Family.

Based on studies that show eyesight and reflexes tend to decline after age 60 in most people

the FAA issues a rule that all airline pilots are required to retire at age 62. Three 61-year-old men file a lawsuit alleging that the policy violates Equal Protection and offering medical records to demonstrate they are in perfect health. You clerk for the federal judge in this case who asks your opinion. What do you say? A. The judge should apply a rational basis review and the policy should be upheld. B. The judge should apply a rational basis review and the policy should be struck down. C. The judge should apply strict scrutiny and the policy should be upheld. D. The judge should apply strict scrutiny and the policy should be struck down., A. The judge should apply a rational basis review and the policy should be upheld.

Dexter is an accountant. He also is a boat-lover who as a hobby rehabs old boats in his spare time and sells them. Paul sees Dexter's ad for a rehabbed Z26 MusterCraft. Paul goes over to the local marina to look at Dexter's Mustercraft. He decides to buy the boat from Dexter and says I'll take it! Dexter draws up the paperwork and completes the sale. Later that day Paul goes out on the lake with his newly purchased boat. While driving at a normal speed

the boat's engine starts to run faster and faster and Paul is unable to turn the engine off. Paul jumps off the boat into the water and is severely injured. Paul sues Dexter for breach of implied warranty. Who is likely to prevail? A) Paul since the boat was not fit for its ordinary purpose. B) Paul since he relied on Dexter's expertise in rehabbing boats. C) Dexter since he is not in the regular business of selling boats. D) Dexter since he did not provide an express warranty that the boat's engine would work., C) Dexter since he is not in the regular business of selling boats.

Cars Go manufactures hybrid cars. Phyllis purchased a hybrid car from Cars Go. The first time that she drove the car

the brakes gave out, and Phyllis crashed into another car, causing her to suffer serious injuries. Accident investigators determined that a critical component of the braking system was missing and that the accident resulted from this defect. Which of the following statements, if true, would constitute Cars Go's best defense to a strict products liability action by Phyllis? A) Cars are inherently dangerous so Phyllis assumed the risk when she drove the car. B) Phyllis tampered with the brake system before she drove the car. C) Phyllis had never driven a hybrid car before. D) Cars Go has been rated as the safest car in the world three years in a row., B) Phyllis tampered with the brake system before she drove the car.

Acme Gravel Company was blasting for new gravel. Acme spent the afternoon blasting rock from the side of a mountain. A few miles away Peter maintained a mink farm. Unfortunately

the female minks are very nervous animals. After about an hour of blasting, several of the mother minks began to kill their young babies. Although Peter discovered what was happening and managed to save some of the animals, he did, however, suffer a substantial loss. If Peter sues the Acme Gravel Company for the loss which of the following is correct? A) Peter will lose since the harm was caused by the nervousness of the minks and not the blasting of Acme. B) Peter will lose since blasting is not an abnormally dangerous activity that gives rise to strict liability. C) Peter will win since blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity giving rise to strict liability. D) Peter will win since the harm was caused by the blasting., A) Peter will lose since the harm was caused by the nervousness of the minks and not the blasting of Acme.

Golfo manufactures golf clubs. The clubs have rubberized grips that golfers hold onto to swing them. Bruce bought a set of clubs and took them when he went golfing with his golfing partner Pat. While swinging a club

the grip came loose, and the club sailed through the air, striking Pat in the forehead. On Bruce's particular golf club, Golfo had used a faulty glue that loses its adhesion after just a few months. If Pat asserts a strict products liability action against Golfo, will she likely prevail? A) Yes since the golf club was defectively designed. B) Yes since under strict liability theory Pat as a bystander is a proper plaintiff. C) No since Pat did not purchase the golf club. D) No since Pat was not a user of the golf club., B) Yes since under strict liability theory Pat as a bystander is a proper plaintiff.

The State of Washington is fed up with all of the undocumented Canadian immigrants coming to the United States and enrolling their kids in Washington state schools. Concerned about the resources needed to include these kids in state-funded schools

the legislature passes a law that no child shall be enrolled in school without proof of citizenship. This law would: A. Pass constitutional muster because there is no fundamental right to a good education. B. Pass constitutional muster because non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights. C. Be struck down as harmful to a discrete group of children and not rationally related to a substantial government interest. D. Be struck down as a violation of substantive due process., C. Be struck down as harmful to a discrete group of children and not rationally related to a substantial government interest.

Drink Inc. has just discovered a way to make a new artificial sweetener that they hope will become the next big product to be labeled as a safe sweetener used in various diet sodas. However

the manufacturing process requires the use of Polyexlyte, a highly poisonous chemical. Because it is so poisonous, Drink stores it off-site in a large tank. One morning, a security guard and Drink employee who was monitoring the storage facility of Polyexlyte dropped one of the storage tanks, causing a small leak in the tank. The leak allowed the Polyexlyte to seep into the water supply and poisoned Phil, a downstream neighbor who drank some of the water. If Phil sues Drink, will Phil likely succeed in arguing that strict liability applies? A) Yes because Phil drank the water. B) Yes because storing a poisonous substance is an abnormally dangerous activity that cannot be carried out safely even with the exercise of great care. C) No because it was unlikely that anyone would shoot a hole in the tank, causing the poison to seep into the water supply. D) No because storing a poisonous substance is not an abnormally dangerous activity., B) Yes because storing a poisonous substance is an abnormally dangerous activity that cannot be carried out safely even with the exercise of great care.

Donna and Phyllis were standing next to each other on the subway. Without notice

the subway car comes to a screeching stop due to a dog wandering on the tracks and they both lost their balance. Phyllis is wearing 8-inch platform heels and is about to fall when Donna grabs Phyllis by the waist to stop her fall. Phyllis sues Donna for battery. Is she likely to recover? A. Yes if Donna intended to put her arm around Phyllis' waist. B. Yes, this was a touching without consent or permission. C. No assuming Donna put her arm around Phyllis' waist by accident. D. No, this was socially acceptable conduct by Donna., D. No, this was socially acceptable conduct by Donna.

Joe Jones University was founded to educate the mind and spirit according to the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. According to its beliefs

the university did not admit any black students until 1971 and had a policy that forbid students from interracial dating, precluding white students from bringing a mixed race date to any school function. As such, the IRS revoked the school's tax-exempt status. A student at Joe Jones University, Wendy White, has a mixed race boyfriend and wants to challenge the policy based on the 14th Amendment. A court would: A. Rule in favor of Wendy on substantive due process grounds. B. Rule in favor of Wendy on equal protection grounds. C. Rule in favor of Wendy on privileges and immunities grounds. D. Dismiss the case for lack of state action., D. Dismiss the case for lack of state action.

A Texas law required every African hair braiding school to operate as a barber college including providing at least 2000 square feet at least ten reclining barber chairs — which hair-braiders do not use — and at least five sinks even though state law prohibits hair braiders from providing services that would use sinks. Otherwise

there could be no lessons in hair-braiding. A famous hair-braider to celebrities opened a salon started teaching braiding and African culture to her apprentices and was shut down by authorities for not complying with the above standards. If she sued to have the law struck down under a due process theory her strongest argument would be: A) There is no rational basis for this economic regulation. B) This economic regulation is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. C) She was properly charged/granted an appropriate hearing. D) None of the above

instead

they requested an exemption based on their personal religious beliefs against immunization. How would a court rule? A. The state must allow the couple their exemption

A fraternity at a public university wants to advertise its biggest party of the year. In order to attract more attention to the event

this year's party committee distributes flyers that depict people having sex in various positions. The school states that the flyers violate its anti-obscenity policy, orders the fraternity to cease distribution of the flyers on campus, and fines the fraternity $5000. If the fraternity sues, a court will: A. Uphold the university's anti-obscenity policy as long as it is content-neutral. B. Uphold the university's anti-obscenity policy because the pictures were probably offensive. C. Protect the fraternity's right to distribute flyers because even offensive expression is protected under the First Amendment. D. Protect the fraternity's right to distribute flyers because it is a private club., A. Uphold the university's anti-obscenity policy as long as it is content-neutral.

On February 1

two contractors filed a complaint in federal court alleging that a contractor negligently constructed their home causing them injuries. On February 15 of the same year, the contractor filed and served a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that under applicable state law, the contractor is immune. On March 15, the homeowners sought to amend their complaint to allege that the contractor was reckless in constructing their home, a claim to which the contractor would not be immune. If the contractor objects to the amendment, how should the court rule? A) The court's permission is not required for the amendment. B) The court should not grant permission for the amendment. C) The amendment should not be permitted due to prejudice against the contractor. D) The amendment should be permitted by the court., D) The amendment should be permitted by the court.

The City of St. Francis desired to promote peace and public order so passed the following ordinance: "Whoever places on public or private property a burning cross or Nazi swastika commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Sloane McFey is making a documentary about mid-century life in Mississippi. Her camera crew is about to shoot a scene in which members of the KKK attempt to intimidate a black family

which includes burning a cross on the set. Just as Sloane lights the cross on fire, a police officer walks by and upon seeing the burning cross arrests Sloane for disorderly conduct. Sloane's strongest argument to challenge the ordinance in court would be: A. It is overbroad. B. It is hate speech. C. It is a time, place, and manner restriction. D. None of the above., A. It is overbroad.

Pete the neighborhood troublemaker was swimming in Cindy's pool when she found him there. Pete jumped over the fence into Dustin's adjoining property

where Dustin had a pet python that began strangling Pete. Pete suffered serious injuries but was rescued. If Pete sues Dustin for his injuries, he will likely: A. Lose as long as Dustin has posted signs stating "Beware of Attack Python." B. Lose since Pete was a trespasser on Dustin's property. C. Win because Dustin is liable for any damages to a trespasser on his property. D. Win since Dustin cannot use a dangerous animal like a python to protect only his property., D. Win since Dustin cannot use a dangerous animal like a python to protect only his property.

A twelve-year old boy suddenly ran out into the street chasing a basketball in the path of a car being driven by Dan. Since Dan was speeding in violation of a city vehicle code he was unable to stop in time to avoid hitting the boy. The boy suffered an injured leg in the accident. The jurisdiction applies the all-or-nothing rule of contributory negligence. If the boy asserts a claim against Dan for the injuries to his leg

which of the following would be Dan's most effective argument in defense? A. Dan had a clean driving record with no infractions. B. Dan's violation of the city's vehicle code was not the proximate cause of the boy's injury. C. Dan was only driving 5 miles above the speed limit. D. The boy was negligent for running out into the street to chase a basketball., D. The boy was negligent for running out into the street to chase a basketball.

The State of Cognitio is concerned about its declining test scores. The legislature passed a law that all children must be educated in its public schools unless a parent objects on religious grounds. Violators will be subject to criminal penalties. Sarah Stillwater objects to the new Common Core standards being adopted in public schools and pulls out her second-grader Ronnie to homeschool him full time. If she sues in federal court to have the law overturned on a due process theory

which standard of review will the court likely apply? A. Rational basis. B. Intermediate Scrutiny. C. Strict Scrutiny. D. The court would dismiss her case for lack of standing., C. Strict Scrutiny.

Pamela was injured in a car accident caused by Dillon

who ran a red light. She suffered a broken arm and couldn't work for six weeks, incurring medical expenses. If Pamela sues Dillon for negligence, she can recover: I. Compensatory damages for lost earnings II. Medical expenses III. Punitive damages against Dillon A. All of the above. B. I and II only. C. II and III only. D. I and III only., B. I and II only.