Mixed Mbe

Front 1

Contracts

- Doctrine of Merger

Back 1

Under Doctrine of Merger, the contract merges into the deed, and terms of the contract are meaningless. A deed does not incorporate title terms of a contract. Any contract provisions for quality of title, express or implied, are no longer effective. **Must look to terms of deed for rights.

Front 2

Contracts

-SOF Sale of Land, whose signature?

Back 2

Evidenced by a writing signed by the party sought to be charged.

Front 3

Best Evidence Rule - Illustration

Back 3

Plaintiff testified that there was a written agreement, to prove its terms she'd have to produce the written A or explain its absence.

Front 4

Lay Opinion Testimony to ID

Back 4

permissible to identify 1) telephone voices; 2) handwriting.
any witness familiar w/ signature of person may testify as to opinion of genuineness. (w/ proper foundation)

Front 5

HYPO: If a resident brings suit against city on grounds that fee and dues discriminate against the poor in violation of the EPC (city country club)

Back 5

City wins, b/c membership privilege is not an important/significant enough deprivation. [important rights ex: marriage license]

Front 6

RAP & Executory Interest HYPO:
30 acres of property, "To my bro, his heirs and assigns, so long as the premises are used for agricultural purpose, then to my cousin, his heirs and assigns."

Back 6

Fee simple determinable language "so long as"

Landowner's interest = possibility of reverter; attempt to give executory interest void via RAP (couldn't vest within 21 years)

Front 7

Landlord Tenant Law: Licensee

Back 7

A license is a privilege to enter onto another's property. It may be revoked at any time merely by manifestation of the licensor's intent to end it.

Compare: "tenant at sufferance" is entitled to statutory notice; "month-to month tenant" benefits from right to equal notice.

Front 8

Thirteenth Amendment
- as compared to 14th
[13th- congress can prohibit private conduct; where 14th doesn't extend to private.]

Back 8

provides that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the US and gives Congress the power to adopt appropriate legislation to enforce the proscription. **Not limited to proscribing state action, Congress may adopt legislation regulating - private parties. The SC has allowed Congress to prohibit any private conduct deemed to be a "badge" or "incident" of slavery.

Front 9

Covenant Prohibiting Assignment

Back 9

Restraints on Alienation are strictly construed. Thus, a covenant prohibiting assignment does not read to include a prohibition against subleasing.

Here, situation where landlord prohibited assignment; then tenant subleased and landlord wants to sue and eject. She has no COA for ejectment nor for damages.

Front 10

Conversion v. Trespass to Chattels

Back 10

Conversion: intentional interference with plaintiff's right of possession in the chattel - that is serious enough to warrant D to pay the full value of the chattel (fair market value at the time of interference)

Trespass to Chattel: less serious interference

Front 11

Race-Notice Statute

Back 11

- Subsequent purchaser is protected only if he purchases without notice of prior conveyances and records first.

- "Shelter doctrine" - once BFP enters chain of events , he can subsequently deed the land to a party who had notice of the prior deed and that party is also accorded the status of a BFP.

Front 12

[Hypo] Gambler owed his uncle 9K due on Jan 1. On Jan 15, gambler offered to pay uncle 8K if he'd agree to accept the amount in full satisfaction of the 9K. Uncle agreed and gambler paid 8K.

What happens if Uncle sues for 1K?

Back 12

o Uncle would win b/c need consideration for modification of K.

o Payment of a smaller sum due will not be suff. consideration for a promise by a creditor to discharge a debt unless:

o the consideration is in some way new or different or
o the amount of debt is subject to an honest dispute (consideration in form of giving up right to litigate)
o Accord and satisfaction require that the amount of debt be in dispute.

Front 13

Common law - Corporation's criminal responsibilities for Employees

Back 13

At common law, a corporation is not responsible for the criminal acts of its employees.

Rationale:
- corporation had no mind, could not form requisite mens rea

Note: Rule could be changed by statute (so look for that)
- Since a

Front 14

[Hypo] Guy gave his brother a power of attorney to sell his house, "brother empowered to sell and convey all or part of the real property owned by me as of this date". Brother sold; buyer suing owner for breach of convenant b/c guy's wife still owned 1/2 that brother sold on his behalf.

Q: Will Buyer prevail?

Back 14

[A] Buyer will not prevail, unless power to 'sell and convey' is construed to include the power to execute a usual form of deed used to convey real property.

There are many types of deeds that can be used to convey real property, some of which contain no covenants at all, e.g., quitclaim deeds. Thus, if the homeowner can show the power of atty didn't include the power to convey a deed containing covenants, he'll prevail.

Front 15

Constitutional impairment of Contracts

Back 15

Generally, a state may not retroactively alter a contract in which it is a party. Prohibition is not absolute, but legislation that reduces contractual burdens on the state will be strictly scrutinized.

Front 16

[Hypo] Case where reporter stopped thief b/c reporter heard cop shout "stop I'm an undercover cop and he just robbed someone".

Back 16

The reporter, acting at the officer's direction, has the same privilege as the officer to make a felony arrest i there are reasonable grounds for doing so.

Front 17

[Hypo] Ordinance required anyone soliciting for charitable contributions of any sort ot wear a local ID card issued by a local police dpt. ID cards could be obtained by providing applicant's ID and address, and further affirming that applicant was not soliciting for personal use and belonged to a recognized charitable organization.

Constitutional?

Back 17

A: Probably unconstitutional b/c violates free speech rights under 1st Amendment. SC has held: charitable appeal for funds involve a variety of speech interests protected by the 1st. In effect this ordinance prohibits all charitable solicitation absent relatively burdensome compliance w/ registration provisions; moreover limits right to solicitation to those who belong to a "recognized charitable organization".

Front 18

Builder offered to sell a racecar to buyer - and he accepted not knowing that the wife had a half-interest in the car; then signed the K. Builder called buyer and told him about wife's half interest in the car, and she wouldn't agree to original agreed 25K but wanted 40K.

Buyer sues, who wins?

Back 18

Buyer wins. The builder's unconditional promise to sell created a K even if the buyer knew of the builder's wife's interest. When a promise is unconditional, the fialure to perform according to its terms is a breach of K

By not making his promise conditional on his wife's consent to convey her interest, the builder impliedly took to obtain her consent. K, therefore enforceable.

Front 19

Defamation - actual injury requirement when defamatory statement involves a matter of public concern

Back 19

Need to show evidence of actual injury.

When a defamatory statement involves a matter of public concern, the P must provide competent evidence of actual injury (i.e., presumed damages are not permitted absent a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth).

Actual injury is not limited to out-of-pocket loss; it may include impairment of reputation, personal humiliation, and mental anguish.

Front 20

[Basic idea] Guy lost his job. Property right created by statute.

Back 20

His right to redress, guaranteed by the state through its statutory enactment, is itself a property right.

Front 21

Existence of a presumed fact submitted to jury in criminal case

Back 21

When the existence of a presumed fact submitted to jury in criminal case, the judge may instruct the jury that it -may- regard the basic facts as suff evid of the presumed fact, but that it is not -required- by law to do so.

If, as here, the presumed fact (intoxication) is an -element- of the offense, its existence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the judge should have instructed the jury that it may regard a BAC of .10 or more as suff evid of intoxication, not that it must do so. The instruction appears to relieve the prosecution of its burden of proving intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.

Front 22

First Amendment Rights (violation of)

Back 22

Substantially overbroad or vague statutes regulating 1st Am. rights are void on their face, and persons may not be prosecuted for their violation even if their conduct might otherwise be subject to valid regulation.

Conversely, statutes that reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of speech in public forums may be unconstitutional if applied in situations where the 1st amendment activity is unreasonably infringed. (see next for example)

Hint 22

Here, the statute is a valid time place, and manner of speech restriction because it is content neutral, it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant state interest and leaves open alt. channels of comm & not too vague when read as a whole.

However, as being applied to circumstances that do not provide any reasonable basis for regulation of speech.

Front 23

10 year time limit on evidence of other crimes, not applicable where:

Back 23

Where D did not take the stand, the evidence is not being offered for impeachment, and thus 10-yr time limit doesn't apply.

Evidence of other crimes is admissible against an accused in a criminal case if it is relevant to some issue other than the defendant's character or disposition to commit the crime charged.

Here, the crime charged is embezzlement, evidence that D committed embezzlement before might be admissible to establish fraudulent intent.

Front 24

Example of what doesn't count as "custodial setting" in Miranda case

Back 24

Test: to determine whether a person is in custody is an objective test.

Here, onlooker at crime scene was asked by officer to stay and talk to him. He was not constrained in a significant way, hadn't been arrested, no handcuffs, not at police station. Thus, no Miranda warnings required.

Front 25

Mutual Mistake

Back 25

A contract can be reformed to reflect the original intent of the parties where there has been a mutual mistake in the integration.

The plaintiff's negligence is not a bar to reformation. Here, both parties were unaware that the written contract did not reflect their agreement.

Front 26

[Hypo] Intentional misrepresentation by the other party that the contract was the same as the first.

Back 26

C can obtain - rescission in equity without waiting to be sued on the K. Grounds are intentional misrepresentation.

Front 27

Parole evidence rule and claim for misrepresentation

Back 27

The rule provides that a writing that constitutes a complete and final expression of the bargain may not be varied by prior or written or oral statements or contemporaneous oral statements.

--Exception: The parole evidence rule does not bar prior statements when the COA is for misrepresentation, which is attacking the validity of the agreement.

Front 28

Prima facie case in products liability

Back 28

1) strict duty owed by a commercial supplier;
2) breach of that duty;
3) actual and proximate cause;
4) damages

Front 29

Evidence: admissibility of prior identification (here, a sketch)

Back 29

Prior identification can be admissible and the sketch could be deemed a prior ID.

-However, in order to be admissible, the witness must be there to testify at trial and be subject to cross-exam.

Front 30

Prior consistent statements

Back 30

May be admissible to rebut a charge that the witness is lying or exaggerating b/c of some motive;

However, since the facts in this question do not indicate that such charges have been made against D, the statement is no more than hearsay.

Front 31

Eleventh Amendment bars - limit

Back 31

11th Amendment does not bar actions by one state government against another government.

Front 32

Larceny

Back 32

is the taking and transportation of personal property of another by trespass and with the intent to permanently deprive the person of his interest in the property.

Front 33

Delegation

Back 33

While generally all contractual duties may be delegated to a 3d person -- duties involving personal judgment and skill may not be delegated.

HERE - However, a K for paving generally would not be regarded as involving a personal subject matter; hence, contractor here could delegate.

Front 34

Land survey (vs. Plats)

Back 34

Where a survey as made and marked on the ground conflicts with the plat, the survey prevails.

The plat is only intended to be representation of the actual survey as made on the land itself.

Front 35

Direct taxes on the federal government

Back 35

invalid unless Congress has consented to such a tax.

Front 36

Partial condemnation on land (and how it related to the landlord/ tenant relationship)

Back 36

In a partial condemnation case, the L-T relationship continues, as does the tenant's obligation to pay the entire rent for the remaining lease term.

- Breach of quiet enjoyment can only be breached by actions of the landlord, not be a third party
- The L-T law traditionally refuses to recognize frustration of purpose as grounds for termination of a lease.

Front 37

Negligence - Joint Tortfeasors

Back 37

D can seek -contribution- from other defendant. The Joint tortfeasors are each jointly and severally liable for plaintiff's injuries.

As such, either may be sued for the -entire- amount of damages suffered.

No right to indemnity b/c he is actively negligent in causing the plaintiff's injuries.

Front 38

Leading questions

Back 38

permissible with "hostile witness"

no rule permitted leading questions with "disinterested witness"

Front 39

Attempted murder

Back 39

All attempts require the specific intent to commit the crime.

The D can't be convicted of attempted murder in this case (where he threw a highly toxic bomb in without intent to kill). Must have had intent to kill; despite the fact that a D may be guilty of CL murder on the showing that D acted with a high degree of recklessness.