Mbe Problem Areas

Front 1

A asks B to paint black trim on his car, and B paints it all black. What to sue for?

Back 1

Trespass to chattels

Front 2

Federal government building pollutes in excess of state pollution standards.

Back 2

Supremacy clause prohibits state from imposing its regulations on the federal government.

But state may constitutionally exceed federal environmental standards

Front 3

Implied-in-fact contract

Back 3

Manifestations of assent other than oral or written language.

A person knowingly accepts offered benefits

Fact pattern: mistakenly performs services (e.g. replaces the wrong roof) while the party sits and watches

Front 4

Basis for suing because someone distributed someone's products along with yours

Back 4

Arguing that custom in the trade is only to distribute one manufacturer's product

Front 5

A becomes enraged and hits B in the face twice, B pulls out a gun and shoots A. A can be charged with

Back 5

Voluntary manslaughter, b/c B committed serious battery on A, which is sufficient provocation

Front 6

Federal law requiring that all automobiles driven on U.S. military bases be equipped with air bags would most likely be justified by

Back 6

Property Clause: the power to make all "needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the U.S."

Front 7

What sort of loyalty oath is permissible to require of a government employee?

Back 7

The employee may be required to affirm that she will oppose the violent overthrow of state or federal governments.

Must not be overbroad or vague.

Front 8

D is fired from his sales job while calling on customers in another city and fails to return the company car he used for his sales visits. What crime?

Back 8

Embezzlement

Front 9

Don takes Vic's car without permission, intending to return it the next day, but after using it for awhile, Don decides to keep it.

Back 9

Larceny (continuing trespass doctrine). Because Don took the car with a wrongful state of mind, the trespassory taking "continued" until he formed the intent to commit larceny.

Front 10

After having her car repaired at the local automotive shop, Debbie takes a spare key and drives away with the car without paying the repair bill because she thinks the shop charged her too much. What crime?

Back 10

Possibly larceny; even though Debbie has title to her car, the repair shop has a superior claim to possession b/c it has a mechanic's lien that entitles it to keep the car until the repairs are paid for.

Front 11

Donna rents a car from a rental agency using a phony driver's license, intending not to return it, and sells it to a used car dealer for cash.

Back 11

Larceny by trick; rental agency's consent was induced by misrepresentation.

Front 12

Conditions precedent and the Parol Evidence rule

Back 12

Evidence is admissible to show a condition precedent; the Parol Evidence rule does not apply b/c the existence of a condition precedent because it does not contradict the terms of the agreement; it simply says that the written contract would not become effective until the condition occurred.

Front 13

Traditional public forums

Back 13

Streets, sidewalks, public parks

NOT a courthouse or its grounds

Front 14

Nude dancing and the First amendment

Back 14

Erotica is "marginally protected" speech and can be regulated to serve important, rather than compelling, interests, such as protecting community morals and property values.

A town may revise its zoning ordinance to limit the location of adult theaters and nude dancing establishments to control the secondary effects of such businesses.

Front 15

Modifications without additional consideration under Article 2

Back 15

Acceptable, but require good faith in performance or enforcement; a "modification" without legitimate commercial reason is ineffective as a violation of good faith.

Front 16

Factors determining whether something is a nuisance

Back 16

Nuisance is substantial, unreasonable interference with another's use and enjoyment of property.

Conduct consistent with a zoning ordinance permit is highly persuasive evidence that the use is not a nuisance.

Coming to the nuisance is not a good defense.

Front 17

Excuse of the occurrence of a condition precedent

Back 17

Where the party having the benefit of the condition indicates by words or conduct that he will not insist upon it; if party indicates he is waiving a condition before it happens, and the person addressed detrimentally relies on it, this is binding estoppel.

Front 18

Rejection in option contracts

Back 18

Rejection of offer in option contract does not terminate the power to accept the offer. If the optionor detrimentally relies on the rejection, the power to accept the offer terminates at the time of reliance.

Front 19

Test-taking tip: breach versus duty in negligence cases

Back 19

if you can show no duty there is no need to reach the breach part of it, so look for that first. I've screwed this up in different ways on different questions. Duty is less squishy so easier to test on multiple choice!

Front 20

Suspension or revocation of a business license. What constitutional problem?

Back 20

Procedural due process. Business license is a valid property right, and procedural due process requires a hearing if it is suspended.

Front 21

Permissible scope of incitement statutes

Back 21

Cannot prohibit advocating the use of force or of violation of the law unless such advocacy (i) is directed to producing or inciting imminent lawless action; and (ii) is likely to produce or incite such action.

Front 22

Option contracts and acceptance

Back 22

Mailbox rule does not apply, beeatch

Front 23

Unilateral mistake and misrepresentation as ways to get out of a contract

Back 23

Unilateral mistake you only have to prove that the other party should have known there was a mistake; misrepresentation you have to prove actual knowledge of one (essentially)

Front 24

Invitation for offers, or offer?

Back 24

The broader the communicating media, e.g. publication, the more likely it is that the courts will view the communication as merely solicitation of an offer.

Front 25

Intergovernmental immunity

Back 25

State and local governments cannot tax or regulate the activities of the federal government

Front 26

What constitutes material alteration of contract for 2-207 purposes?

Back 26

"an alteration is material if it changes either party's risks or remedies."

Front 27

Larceny and burglary; double jeopardy problem?

Back 27

Not on MBE. Larceny requires asportation, and burglary requires breaking/entering.

Front 28

Traditional contributory negligence defenses, exceptions

Back 28

No defense to intentional torts or wanton and willful misconduct.

P may recover if D had the last clear chance to avoid the accident - D was able, but failed, to avoid harming P at the time of the accident.

NY is comparative negligence state

Front 29

What should P do if she is not sure whom to sue?

Back 29

Res ipsa loquitur is available in a case where a particular D had the power of control over the site of the injury.

Front 30

Standard for speech regulations: public forum

Back 30

to be valid, must be
-content neutral
-narrowly tailored to serve significant govt interest
-leave open alternative channels of communication

Front 31

Standards for speech regulation - nonpublic forum

Back 31

Valid if
-viewpoint neutral
-reasonably related to legitimate governmental interest

Front 32

Conflict between treaty and legislation by Congress

Back 32

Last in time controls; Congress may repeal a treaty

Front 33

Inchoate crimes which merge into underlying offense

Back 33

Solicitation and attempt
NOT conspiracy

Front 34

Intent to permanently deprive

Back 34

If at the time of the taking D intended to deal with the possesion in a manner that involves substantial risk of loss, this suffices as intent to permanently deprive

Front 35

Death of co-felon during commission of felony

Back 35

Majority: not liable for felony murder

Front 36

Reasonable expectation of privacy on probation

Back 36

Fourth Amendment is not violated by a statute authorizing warrantless searches of probationer's home when there are reasonable grounds to believe contraband is present

Front 37

Two persons tried together, the confession of one implicates the other. Circumstances where it can be admitted:

Back 37

all portions of the statement referring to the other D have been eliminated; confessing D takes the stand and subjects himself to cross-examination with respect to truth or falsity; and confession of nontestifying co-defendant is being used to rebut D's claim that his confession was obtained coerciely, in which case jury must be instruced as to purpose of admission

Front 38

Victim's motive to provoke in use of deadly force cases

Back 38

Irrelevant!

Front 39

Common law conspiracy (unilateral?)

Back 39

must be two guilty parties