• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/459

Click to flip

459 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
A agrees to remodel B's home pursuant to specific blueprints. The price for the job is $8,500. The blueprints do not specify the materials that A must use. Is the contract void? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if the omission of the terms describing the materials to be used cannot be implied due to lack of objective standards. B. No, because the courts may imply a missing term once the parties have agreed on the price and subject matter of the contract. C. Yes, the statute of frauds requires the materials to be disclosed. D. No, when no materials are specified, a builder may use materials that are reasonable under the circumstances
A
A large daily newspaper publishes and distributes two booklets, one regarding general advertising rates, and the other regarding advertisements that will not be accepted. These booklets state that the newspaper will refuse advertising that is "dishonest, indecent or illegal." A labor union presented an advertisement to the newspaper that urged readers not to patronize certain businesses because those businesses featured imported clothing that was manufactured by low-wage, foreign labor. The union also paid the appropriate advertising rate in accordance with general advertising rates, but the newspaper refused to print the advertising. Assume that the advertisement was not dishonest, indecent or illegal. Will the union prevail against the newspaper for breach of contract? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because the advertisement was not dishonest, indecent or illegal. B. Yes, there was a written offer to provide advertisement at a stated price, which was accepted when Plaintiff tendered a copy of its advertisement and sufficient funds. C. No, the Defendant's booklet containing its "General Advertising Rates" is only a statement of intention to sell or invitation for offers. D. No, because the union could not reasonably rely on the newspaper's offer.
C
A says to B, "If you promise to paint my house, I promise to pay you $1500." B starts to paint in A's presence. Is there a contract? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because B's conduct constitutes an implied promise to paint A's house. B. No, because A requested a promise and not an act. C. Yes, because B will be entitled to the reasonable value of her services. D. No, because no color, a material term was specified.
A
Alec wants to sell some china to Ben, but he knows that Ben often does not pay his bills. Cecil, Ben's wealthy brother, tells Alec that he (Cecil) will pay if Alec delivers the china to Ben. Alec agrees, but later fails to deliver the china. Ben sues Alec. Is Alec's promise to deliver the china supported by consideration? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Ben incurred no legal detriment. B. Yes, because Ben knew that Cecil would pay. C. Yes, because legal detriment may be given by someone other than the promisee. D. No, because the promise to deliver is only between Alec and Ben.
C
Alfred moved from Houston to Denver and contracted with Clarece Movers to move his furniture. The following provision was in the agreement: "Clarece Movers shall not be liable for damages unless written notice of claim for loss is given within 60 days of delivery of the goods." Alfred's furniture was damaged in transit while under the care of Clarece Movers. Clarece Movers was well aware of the damage. Thirty days after delivery, Alfred called Clarece Movers and gave notice of claim. Clarece movers immediately inspected the furniture. Alfred gave written notice of claim 90 days after delivery. Is Alfred barred from recovery against Clarece Movers? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Alfred did not give written notice to Clarece Movers of a claim for loss within 60 days of delivery. B. No, because Clarece Movers had notice of loss within 60 days of delivery. C. No, if Alfred would suffer an extreme forfeiture if the claim is denied. D. Yes, because written notice of claim within 60 days of delivery is a specific condition precedent to recovery.
C
Alice cannot find her $800 set of china table settings. Some months later, while at a party for connoisseurs of fine china, and after consuming an adult beverage, Alice proclaims in front of the entire group that she will gladly pay $2000 to anyone who locates and returns the china to her. Percy locates and returns the china to Alice and demands $2000. Alice refuses to pay. Percy files suit to recover the $2000. It is most likely that Percy will: ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, because Percy was a connoisseur of fine china and Alice should have reasonably known that he would be induced to benefit from this bargain. B. not prevail, because there was no meeting of the minds and Alice did not intend to enter into a contract. C. prevail, if a reasonable person would conclude from the statement Alice made that she intended to enter into a contract. D. not prevail, because Percy knew or should have known that Alice was overstating the value of the china.
C
Andrea asks Blinky, a lawyer, to prepare an estate plan. Blinky agrees, but no price is set. The reasonable value of the work is $5,000. When the work is done, Andrea is satisfied and promises to pay Blinky $7,500 for the work. Blinky wants to think about the $7,500, but before he agrees, Andrea withdraws her promise. Blinky sues Andrea on her promise to pay $7,500. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Blinky will recover $7,500 because Andrea did not know of the reasonable value when she made her promise. B. Blinky will recover $5,000, because (without consideration or mutual assent) a subsequent promise to pay for benefits received is limited to the reasonable value of the services. C. Blinky will recover nothing because there was no meeting of the minds, absent an agreement on price. D. Blinky will recover $7,500, because no consideration or mutual assent is required to support a promise to pay a fixed sum in discharge of a pre-existing liability.
D
Anne and Bob were co-owners of a small very successful restaurant. Anne was interested in opening a second location in a nearby town and asked Sam (a regular customer of the restaurant) if he would be willing to sell Anne and Bob a particular parcel of land Sam owned in the nearby town of Greenville for $100,000. Sam said "Sounds great...let's do it." However, unknown to Anne and Bob, Sam had serious doubts about selling the land and was considering developing the land himself to build and operate a restaurant. When Anne attempted to hand Sam the $100,000, Sam refused to take the money and told Anne he would not sell Anne and Bob the land. Anne and Bob sued Sam for breach of contract. Sam alleged he never intended to sell the land to Anne and Bob. At trial the following three statements were offered: (1) Bob testified that he and Anne had "no definite plan to ever open a second restaurant." (2) Sam testified that he "never really intended to sell the property to Anne and Bob." (3) Anne testified that she was very surprised when Sam so quickly agreed to sell because Sam was always joking about "how you should buy my land in Greenville and open a second restaurant there so I wouldn't have to drive so far for breakfast." Which of the statements will the court consider important to determine if a valid contract was formed? ***OPTIONS*** A. All of the statements. B. Statement 1 and 2 only. C. Statements 2 and 3 only. D. Statements 1 and 3 only.
D
Arnold writes to Becky making an offer to buy Becky's 1998 automobile for $15,000 cash on delivery. In the letter, Arnold states that he will consider the offer accepted unless he hears from Becky within 72 hours. Becky receives the unsolicited letter/offer, but ignores it and does not reply. Is there a contract? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Arnold is the master of the offer and Becky failed to reply. B. No, because the offer was unsolicited and Becky's silence would not be construed as an acceptance under the circumstances. C. Yes, if Becky likes the price. D. No, because the letter was unsolicited and does not constitute an offer.
B
Arthur calls Betty and says: "I am in a real fix and I must sell my house. I am so motivated that I would consider $100,000 for it." Immediately Betty says: "I'm sorry about your predicament. I will buy your house for $100,000." Is there a contract? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because some of the material terms are missing. B. Yes, because Arthur clearly intended to sell his house for $100,000 and Betty accepted. C. No, because Arthur never accepted Betty's offer. D. Yes, because Betty accepted by agreeing to the price terms stated by Arthur.
C
Basil Daughn owns a building that was in need of extensive repair and hired Xavier Pratt to perform the repairs. When the repairs were two-thirds done, the building and all of the building materials Pratt had used to make the repairs were destroyed by fire after the building was struck by lightning. Pratt sues Daughn. What, if anything can he recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. Pratt can recover for the value of his labor only. B. No recovery. C. Pratt can recover for the value of his labor and materials. D. Pratt can recover two-thirds of the contract price and the value of his materials.
C
Benson owned a golf course. Benson was approached by the Magson Railroad Company, that asked for a right of way across Benson's land that was adjacent to his golf course. Benson agreed to the right of way in exchange for the railroad's promise to build "a really cool railway station" at a specified spot near the golf course. The railroad was built on the right of way, but Magson did not build the station. Benson sues Magson for the station. Will Benson prevail in this lawsuit? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because this was an agreement for the transfer of an interest in real property. B. No, because the agreement was never memorialized in a writing. C. Yes, because Magson must build the station to mitigate his damages. D. Yes, because the parties agreed that Magson would build a station near the golf course in exchange for the right of way.
D
Buster's Saddle Shop calls Samson's Fine Leather and orders specific quantities of specified leather to delivered once each month for the next two years. The total price of the contract consideration was $10,000. Samson orally agreed to supply the specified leather. Two days later, Buster's Saddle Shop received a signed written confirmation of all the specified leather deliveries the parties agreed to. Six months later, Buster's Saddle Shop called Samson's Fine Leather and said they would not accept any more leather claiming that the agreement was not enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Buster's Saddle Shop has paid for all leather received in the first six months of the agreement. In an action to enforce the contract, Samson's Fine Leather will ***OPTIONS*** A. Prevail, but only to the extent of any damages suffered based on the quantity of leather that has been accepted by Buster's Saddle Shop so far. B. Prevail, for the entire amount of leather specified in their agreement. C. Not prevail, because Buster's Saddle Shop never signed any written agreement or confirmation of the agreement. D. Not prevail, because Buster's Saddle Shop has paid for all the leather received so far.
B
Buyer and Seller want to do business together, but they would like to have a relatively informal arrangement. They prepare a written "Gentlemen's Agreement," but state in the agreement that it is not binding. It also states, "This writing is only an expression of our intention to work honorably together. We have always worked well together, therefore, we do not wish to be bound by this document."When the business relationship ends there are $100,000 worth of orders pending, but not delivered by Seller. Seller refuses to ship the orders and Buyer sues. Does Buyer prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Seller had accepted the orders. B. Yes, because a "gentlemen's agreement" is not valid. C. No, because this was just a "gentlemen's agreement" and was not intended to have legal effect. D. No, because one cannot create an agreement with a clause that states the agreement is not valid.
C
Buyer needs a number of computers for himself and his family. Buyer agrees to purchase five desktop computers with definite specifications from Seller for a total price of $5,000. Under the agreement, the computers will be delivered at specific intervals and Buyer will pay a specified portion of the contract price at the time of each delivery. Buyer claims that the computers delivered on the first installment did not meet contract specifications, refuses to accept the shipment and cancels the entire contract. Seller sues for breach of contract. In this breach of contract action, Buyer's best defense would be that ***OPTIONS*** A. the non-conformity with respect to the first installment substantially impaired the value of the whole contract. B. Seller is a merchant. C. Buyer has a right to reject all or any part of the delivery because the Seller did not provide a perfect tender. D. Seller never signed the agreement.
A
Buyer, the owner of an office supplies store, orders 1,000 ribbons from Seller, a ribbon wholesaler. Due to unforeseeable circumstances outside of Seller's control and fault, Seller rightfully tells Buyer he can only deliver 500 ribbons because of impracticability. Must the Buyer accept? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because the Buyer has the right to accept the available quantity or terminate the contract. B. Yes, because the Seller's duty to ship 100% of the goods under the contract is excused by impracticability and the Seller may allocate delivery among his customers in a fair and reasonable manner. C. Yes, because the modification would be acceptable to the reasonable person. D. No, unless it will create an undue hardship on the Seller.
D
Clay Pinion learned that Robert Denson wanted to own lots A and B, so Pinion entered into a contract with the owner of lots A and B to purchase the two lots and close the land sale transaction in 14 days. Pinion then negotiated a contract with Denson whereby Denson would sell lot X to Pinion and Pinion would sell lots A and B to Denson. This deal would close in 3 weeks. When Denson learned that Pinion did not have title to lots A and B, he called off the deal. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Denson was entitled to call off the deal because Pinion's failure to have title to the lots amounted to a breach by anticipatory repudiation. B. Denson was entitled to call off the deal because it is always misrepresentation to contract to sell lots when you do not have title at the time of contracting. C. Denson was not entitled to call off the deal, because it is divisible and Denson could still sell lot X to Pinion. D. Denson was not entitled to call off the deal because Pinion's failure to have title to the lots was a curable defect.
D
Dansworth Brewing Company hired Oswald Pennyman to produce water from a variety of artesian wells for Dansworth beer. Pennyman was to be paid based upon the actual amount of artesian water produced as determined by a certificate by an expert in water analysis who would perform an analysis on the water. Pennyman provided information to the expert, who also made independent measurements. Unfortunately, the expert's computer system crashed and the data could not be recovered. The expert stated that he would be able to estimate the quantity of water, but, since his data had been lost, he would not be able to issue a certificate. Dansworth refused to pay stating that it had no obligation to do so, absent a certificate. Pennyman sues. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Pennyman prevails, as long as water was produced, the certificate is not relevant. B. Pennyman prevails, the condition requiring a certificate is excused. C. Dansworth prevails, there is no duty to pay unless the express condition precedent is satisfied. D. Dansworth prevails, it is not Dansworth's fault that the data was lost.
B
Davis, a supplier of religious items, needs to obtain an inventory of metal crosses. He contracts with Petterman to make and deliver 10,000 crosses at $1.00 per cross. Petterman manufactures and delivers half of the crosses and Davis pays $5,000. Petterman then tells Davis that the price has gone up to $1.50 per cross. Davis agrees because he needs the crosses. When Petterman delivers the crosses, what price is she entitled to be paid? ***OPTIONS*** A. At a rate of $1.00 each, because there was no consideration to support Davis' promise to pay $1.50 each. B. At a rate of $1.50 each, if the modification was requested in good faith. C. At a rate of $1.50 each, because Petterman is the master of the offer. D. At a rate of $1.00 each, because one cannot change the price after performance has begun.
B
Defendant hired Plaintiff to manufacture a certain machine to specification. Time was made of the essence in the contract and Plaintiff did not complete the project until 45 days after the contract completion date. Defendant cancelled the contract and refused to pay. Plaintiff files suit claiming Defendant made a change in the specifications that caused the delay. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Judgment for Plaintiff because he completed the project. B. Judgment for Defendant because Plaintiff could have refused the changes and completed on time. C. Judgment for the Defendant, because time was expressly made of the essence in the contract. D. Judgment for the Plaintiff, if the Defendant changed the specifications in an untimely manner and caused the delay.
D
Defendant hired Plaintiff to manufacture a certain machine to specifications. Time was made of the essence in the contract. Half way through the work Defendant told Plaintiff that he would not hold Plaintiff to the time frame so Plaintiff worked on other projects causing a delay. Later, but before the original time frame had expired, Defendant told Plaintiff "things have changed" and that Defendant needed the machine by the original deadline. If Plaintiff could not complete the job by the original deadline, would Plaintiff succeed in an action to collect the contract price from Defendant? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because a waiver of an immaterial part of a contract may be withdrawn or modified. B. Yes, because Defendant would not be permitted to reimpose the "time is of the essence" clause. C. Yes, because the modification to change the due date was not valid. D. No, because courts do not favor "time of the essence" clauses.
B
Devlon owned a house that he rented to Pygmalian. Pygmalian was a rowdy sort and continually hosted loud parties, disrupting the neighborhood, all in violation of the lease. Rather than fight Pygmalian in court to get him to leave, Devlon offered to pay Pygmalian's moving expenses if Pygmalian would vacate the premises peacefully and relocate outside of his neighborhood. Pygmalian agreed. Was Devlon's promise to pay Pygmalian's moving expenses supported by consideration? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if Pygmalian's lease has not yet expired. B. No, if either of the two promises made by Pygmalian is unenforceable. C. Yes, if either of the two promises made by Pygmalian is valid and enforceable. D. No, because Pygmalian is in violation of the lease and has to leave.
C
Dexter and Posley enter into an agreement whereby Dexter is to grow and deliver corn to Posley at a specified time, price, quantity and quality. The agreement states that "either party may terminate this agreement at any time." After more than 10 years of performance under the contract, Dexter terminates the agreement. Is Dexter justified? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, regardless of whether Dexter gave Posley reasonable notice of termination. B. Yes, because the termination provision was clear and unequivocal. C. No, because a termination clause must be set forth with specificity. D. No, unless Dexter gave Posley reasonable notice.
D
Dick wanted to sell his car, but was having no luck in so doing. Dick entered into an agreement with Pauline, whereby Pauline would procure a buyer at given terms and, if so, she would receive a commission at closing. Pauline procured a buyer, but Dick could not locate the title for his car and refused to apply for a lost title certificate from the appropriate government agency. The buyer backed out of the purchase and Pauline files suit for her commission. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Judgment for Pauline, because she obtained a purchaser for Dick's car as required by the contract and the "closing" condition was excused by Dick's refusal to apply for a lost title certificate. B. Judgment for Dick, because of the failure of an express condition precedent - the closing. C. Judgment for Pauline, if she can get the buyer to recommit to the contract. D. Judgment for Dick, because the buyer backed out of the contract.
A
Dr. Smith went to his office one evening and found that it had caught on fire. Being extremely upset, he yelled, "I will give $5,000 to anyone who will retrieve my patient files from the building, even if they are charred." Mr. Fireball, who was watching the fire, went into the building and brought out the charred remains of the patient files. Mr. Fireball sues Dr Smith. Who prevails? ***OPTIONS*** A. Smith will prevail because he never intended to be bound. B. Fireball will prevail, unless Fireball knew, or should have known, that Smith was not seriously intending to be bound by his statement. C. Smith will prevail, because he was extremely upset and lacked the necessary intent to enter into a contract. D. Fireball will prevail because he accepted Smith's offer by performing.
B
Eddy wanted to open an oil recycling shop. Due to environmental issues, the site had to be approved by the EPA. Eddy then leased a building from Oscar. The terms of the lease were for 3 years and the lease said that the premises "must be used exclusively for an oil refinery." The EPA had assured Eddy that the site was fine prior to the execution of the lease, but changed its mind after the lease was signed claiming the site was too small. The premises were completed, but Eddy did not move in. Eddy paid lease payments for 4 months and then stopped, refusing to continue to pay. Oscar sues Eddy for breach of contract. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Oscar prevails, the defense of illegality is not applicable. B. Eddy prevails, the EPA lied to Eddy so the condition precedent could not be met. C. Oscar prevails, because the EPA was obligated to continue to approve the site. D. Eddy prevails if the lack of approval by the EPA was unforeseeable.
D
Franchisor and Franchisee enter into a written franchise agreement with adequate terms, but contingent upon Franchisee obtaining suitable financing. Later, Franchisor seeks to void the contract claiming that Franchisee's agreement is illusory because Franchisee can effectively defeat the "contract" by failing to seek financing. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Judgment for Franchisor, because Franchisee's promise is illusory. B. Judgment for Franchisee, because the court will imply a promise by Franchisee to use reasonable efforts to obtain financing. C. Judgment for Franchisor, because a term to seek financing cannot be implied. D. Judgment for Franchisee, because he has not had the opportunity to seek financing.
B
Gaspar, a building contractor, wanted to bid on a large condominium project as the general contractor. He solicited and received bids from subcontractors, ran his numbers, selected the best bids and entered his bid as general contractor which was accepted. Gaspar immediately notified all of his subs that their bids had been accepted. Ten days later, Philbright, an electrical subcontractor notified Gaspar that an accounting error had been made. He had bid $425,000, but it should have been $450,000. Gaspar had accepted Philbright's bid, substantially because it was $10,000 below any other electrical bid. If Philbright brings an action to rescind his contract with Gaspar for electrical work on the condominium project, judgment should be for: ***OPTIONS*** A. Gaspar, because he was unaware of Philbright's mistake and had no reason to know of it. B. Philbright, because the error deprives him of the benefit of the bargain of his contract. C. Philbright, because his unilateral mistake deprives the parties of the mutual assent necessary for formation of a contract. D. Gaspar, because a unilateral mistake can never be the basis for rescission.
A
Gaspar, a building contractor, wanted to bid on a large condominium project as the general contractor. He solicited and received bids from subcontractors, ran his numbers, selected the best bids and entered his bid as general contractor which was accepted. Gaspar immediately notified all of his subs that their bids had been accepted. Ten days later, Philbright, an electrical subcontractor notified Gaspar that an accounting error had been made. He had bid $425,000, but it should have been $450,000. Gaspar had accepted Philbright's bid, substantially because it was $10,000 below any other electrical bid. Assume for purposes of this question only that Philbright had used an independent secretarial service to prepare and deliver his bid to Gaspar and the secretarial service had typed $240,000 rather than $450,000. If all other facts are as previously set forth, which of the following is Philbright's strongest argument for rescission? ***OPTIONS*** A. Gaspar has an adequate remedy against the secretarial service. B. The fact that Philbright was forced to submit his sub-bid before Gaspar submitted the main bid demonstrates that the Gaspar-Philbright agreement was an adhesion contract. C. Gaspar's negligence in not verifying the accuracy of all sub-bids precludes enforcement of the contract. D. Gaspar should have known that Philbright's sub-bid was erroneous because it was $195,000 lower than any other electrical sub-bid.
D
Handy entered into a contract with Fleet, promising to maintain and repair Fleet's cars used by Fleet's sales force. According to the express terms of the agreement, Fleet's obligation to pay Handy was made expressly conditional upon Handy's promise to "perform to the satisfaction of an independent automotive consultant selected by Fleet as evidenced by said consultants written certification." Handy performed the work and obtained an appropriate written certificate from the independent consultant selected by Fleet. Handy presented the certificate and demanded payment but Fleet refused to pay. Handy brought suit against Fleet for breach of contract. At trial Fleet offered proof that Handy's work had not been performed in a workmanlike manner. Is this evidence admissible? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, the evidence fails to address whether the consultant was satisfied. B. Yes, because the contract is ambiguous. C. Yes, if offered to show that the consultant may have acted dishonestly or in bad faith. D. No, because Handy obtained the certificate pursuant to the terms of the contract.
C
Harry and Sandra have been happily married since 1866. Harry needs to go to England to write a play and before he leaves, in order to maintain domestic tranquility, he agrees to pay Sandra $5000 per week for her support. They both agree that Sandra has financial needs and that she has always worked hard at maintaining the house. Has an enforceable contract been formed? ***OPTIONS*** A. No. There is a presumption that the parties did not intend to create a contract. B. Yes, because the parties agreed that Sandra has financial needs and Harry agreed to pay. C. Yes, if Harry has the ability to pay. D. No, because Harry has no obligation to support his wife.
A
Homestore, a hardware store located in City, decided to place an advertisement in the local City newspaper stating "Homestore offers it's entire stock of $20 per gallon latex one-coat paint for the amazing low price of $10 per gallon. Limit two gallons per customer. Offer limited to painting contractors residing in City." Homestore's research estimated that there were less than five painting contractors residing in City. Unknown the Homestore, there were twenty-five painting contractors residing in City. The day after the advertisement ran in the City newspaper, twenty City resident painting contractors all appeared at Homestore and tendered $20 dollars, each seeking to purchase two gallons of latex one-coat paint. Homestore refused to accept money from any of the painting contractors. If one of the painting contractors tendering the $20 brings suit against Homestore seeking to enforce his right to purchase two gallons of the latex one-coat paint, the painting contractor should ***OPTIONS*** A. not prevail, because the painting contractor's tender of $20 was the offer. B. not prevail, Homestore's offer, if any, was for a bilateral contract and was never accepted by return promise from the painting contractor. C. prevail, because Homestore's advertisement was an offer and the painting contractor's tender was a reasonable means of acceptance of the offer. D. prevail, because the price term was specific.
C
I invite Donald to a very important professional baseball game on next Tuesday and Donald agrees to come. When he shows up, I am not there. Does Donald have a cause of action against me? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, a binding contract was entered into when Donald agreed to accept my offer. B. Yes, because the ballgame was very important and thus its loss of value caused a detriment to Donald. C. No, because Donald must mitigate his damages. D. No, no binding contract exists because only a social obligation was intended.
D
Jeff does fine carpentry work. Mutt and Jeff enter into a contract whereby Jeff will perform carpentry for Mutt and Mutt will pay $10,000 to Jeff upon completion of the work. Jeff finishes the work and Mutt is so pleased he tells Jeff that he will pay Jeff an additional $1,000. Is Mutt obligated by contract to pay the extra $1,000? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Mutt's promise to pay the additional $1,000 was not supported by consideration. B. No, because Jeff did not ask for the extra $1,000 prior to completion. C. Yes, because Jeff performed at a level in excess of Mutt's expectations and Mutt promised to pay the additional sum. D. Yes, because Jeff could reasonably believe that Mutt would pay as agreed.
A
Jill says to Dave, "If you ride your bike from San Diego to New York City by September, I promise to pay you $10,000." Dave promises to ride. Is there a contract? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because this is a bilateral contract. B. No, because the terms of the offer may not be reasonable. C. Yes, because Dave promised to ride his bike as agreed in response to Jill's offer. D. No, because Dave did not accept Jill's offer.
D
John had read many newspaper and Internet news articles suggesting that the fillings commonly used by dentists to fill teeth contained dangerously high levels of mercury. John decided that he would have all his fillings removed and replaced with another safer alternative. He consulted with Dr. Decay, his dentist, and requested removal of all his fillings. Dr. Decay stated that he was not comfortable performing the oral procedure, but that he would make sure that Dr. Abcess would perform the oral procedure. In Dr. Decay's informed medical opinion, removal of John's fillings is not medically required. If Dr. Decay fails to retain Dr. Abcess to perform the oral procedure, will John have an action for breach of contract against Dr. Decay? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, a doctor is not liable in breach of contract for breach of an implied promise to perform medical responsibilities, and such a breach is only compensable in a tort action for malpractice. B. Yes, because retaining Dr. Abcess was an express condition of the agreement. C. No, unless John reasonably concluded that Dr. Decay expressly promised him that Dr. Abcess would perform the procedure. D. No, because Dr. Decay told John that he was not comfortable performing the procedure.
C
Marcus is employed as a computer services technician with AB West. Box Data, Inc. approaches Marcus and orally offers Marcus a job to perform the same services for one year. As a part of the oral contract for services, the parties agree that Marcus will commence his services for Box Data as soon as he can negotiate his termination with AB West in a professional manner. Is the contract within the Statute of Frauds? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because the contract was for one year, less two weeks. B. Yes, unless Marcus can negotiate his termination with AB West in a professional manner within one day of making the agreement with Box Data. C. No, because Marcus could die before the end of one year. D. Yes, because the contract was for services.
B
Marie orally agreed to transfer her real property ("A") to Jean. The deed, however, described a different piece of real property ("B") not owned by Marie. Marie died and her heirs refused to transfer parcel A to Jean. Jean sued for reformation of the deed alleging she and Marie were unaware of the mistake in the legal title. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Marie's heirs prevail because, a mistaken belief by one party alone does not provide grounds for reformation. B. Jean prevails because the deed does not accurately reflect the agreement of the parties. C. Marie's heirs prevail because Jean should have known of the mistake. D. Jean prevails because Marie should have known of the mistake.
B
Marie read the following statement in a Stargell's catalog: "Lots available for $20,000. First come, first served. Appear in person, complete application and tender funds." The catalog also stated the physical location of the real estate. Marie went to the physical location, completed the application and tendered $20,000 in cash that was accepted by Stargell. Subsequently, Stargell mailed Marie a cashier's check for $20,000 with a note stating that Marie's application was "rejected." At trial, Marie proved that Stargell's had lots available, but only sold to prominent people who endorse Stargell's company. Does Marie prevail on a claim for breach of contract? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Stargell accepted Marie's offer to purchase the lot according to the terms expressed in Stargell's catalog. B. Yes, because Stargell cannot base acceptance on the basis of status and willingness to endorse. C. No, because the conditions expressed in the catalog did not constitute an offer which Marie could accept. D. No, because a reasonable person should know that she cannot rely on statements in a catalog.
A
O was the owner of vacant land in another state. When he visited the land, he found that S had built a house on the empty lot. When O tried to enter the house, S told O that if O stayed there, O would be contractually obligated to pay for the house. Is S correct? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because O's conduct of using the house would constitute an acceptance of S's offer. B. No, because O had no opportunity to reject the house. C. Yes, because one who benefits from the service of another must pay the reasonable value of the service. D. No, because S was a trespasser and cannot gain any value from being there.
B
Original fact pattern: Harry and Sandra have been happily married since 1866. Harry needs to go to England to write a play and before he leaves, in order to maintain domestic tranquility, he agrees to pay Sandra $5000 per week for her support. They both agree that Sandra has financial needs and that she has always worked hard at maintaining the house. Would the result be different, in the preceding question, if Harry and Sandra had written their agreement and had also stated that they intended for the agreement to be "legal and binding?" ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because it was in writing. B. Yes, because they expressly stated that the agreement was "legal and binding." C. No, if the court should determine for public policy reasons that the agreement should not be enforced. D. No, because Sandra would not reasonably believe that Harry would have to pay.
C
Otterman accepts Bussy's bid to construct an office building for a price of $1,750,000. Since it is important to Otterman to occupy the building by December 1, the parties put the following clause in the agreement: "Otterman will pay Bussy an additional $40,000 on December 15, provided that the building is completed on or before December 1." Bussy completes the building on December 1. Otterman pays Bussy $1,750,000 on December 2, but states, "I will not pay you the $40,000 bonus for completing the building on or before December 1." The contract provision that states Bussy will receive a $40,000 bonus if the building is completed on or before December 1 can most accurately be characterized as: ***OPTIONS*** A. An obligation, breach of which will entitle Otterman to damages. B. An express condition precedent to Otterman's obligation to pay an additional $40,000. C. A concurrent condition to Otterman's obligation to pay an additional $40,000. D. A constructive condition precedent to Otterman's obligation to pay an additional $40,000.
B
Otterman accepts Bussy's bid to construct an office building for a price of $1,750,000. Since it is important to Otterman to occupy the building by December 1, the parties put the following clause in the agreement: "Otterman will pay Bussy an additional $40,000 on December 15, provided that the building is completed on or before December 1." Bussy completes the building on December 1. Otterman pays Bussy $1,750,000 on December 2, but states, "I will not pay you the $40,000 bonus for completing the building on or before December 1." When may Bussy bring an action for breach of Otterman's obligation to pay the additional $40,000? ***OPTIONS*** A. Any time after the December 2 repudiation. B. Any time after the December 1 completion. C. After December 15, if Otterman doesn't pay the additional $40,000. D. Never, Bussy waived the right to the $40,000 by accepting the $1,750,000 from Otterman.
C
Over coffee, Eddie and Jackie orally agree that Jackie will locate a specifically described car for Eddie at a price of $22,000. This specific agreement is reduced to writing, but before leaving the coffee shop, both parties agree that they need to redraft the contract to change the type of car and the price. They agree to meet later to make these changes in a second writing. Does the first writing constitute an integration? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because both parties intended to be bound by both writings. B. No, because there was no consideration for the second writing. C. Yes, because the first writing was signed by the parties and included the terms of their agreement. D. No, because the first writing was not intended to be the final embodiment of their agreement.
D
Owner ordered concrete from Supplier agreeing to pay "$60 per yard" for a patio at Owner's home. The written contract stated the dimensions of the patio as 20 feet by 20 feet square. Supplier got too busy with larger jobs and failed to perform. Owner filed suit for breach of contract and Supplier defended stating that the terms were not definite in that there was no way to measure Owner's damages because the number of yards of concrete was not specified. Owner offered into evidence competent testimony that it is well accepted in the building trade that a cubic yard equals 3'x 3' x 3'. The court should find that the evidence is: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not admissible, because it is parol evidence. B. Admissible, because Supplier breached in bad faith. C. Not admissible, because the evidence could be disputed. D. Admissible, because trade usage or custom is relevant to supply a missing contract term.
D
P sold his car to D "provided that the car is road worthy." D did not pay P. At trial there is conflicting evidence as to whether the car was road worthy. Who has the burden of proof on this issue? ***OPTIONS*** A. P, because a plaintiff always bears the burden of proof. B. D, regardless of whether the condition that the car is road worthy is construed as a condition subsequent or condition precedent. C. P, if the condition that the car is road worthy is construed as a condition subsequent. D. D, if the condition that the car is road worthy is construed as a condition subsequent.
D
Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written agreement stating that Defendant would sell Plaintiff a car with an air conditioner to be added prior to the sale. The agreement also contained a promise by Plaintiff to pay $8,000 when the car was ready. The Plaintiff subsequently paid the $8,000. Plaintiff also alleges that both parties orally agreed at the time of entering the contract that, "Defendant would clean the car and install new tires on the car prior to delivery of the car to Plaintiff." Later Plaintiff sues seeking return of the $8000, alleging that Defendant failed to clean the car and to install new tires. Is a cause of action stated? Is a cause of action stated? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if the promise to clean the car and install new tires is a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the agreement. B. No, because evidence of a prior oral agreement that contradicts the terms of a written contract is not admissible. C. No, because the purchase price was paid with prior opportunity to determine if the conditions have been met. D. Yes, because the Defendant did not comply with the terms of the agreement.
A
Priscilla had gall bladder surgery and Dr. Dimple negligently injured her adrenal gland during the surgery. As a result, Priscilla needed immediate, emergency surgery. The two surgeries and the damage caused by Dr. Dimple left Priscilla in severe pain. While Priscilla was recovering the next day, the administrator of the hospital visited Priscilla and pressured her for several hours until, exhausted, highly nervous and hysterical, she signed a release absolving the hospital and doctor of liability for $5,000, well below the amount she could have obtained. Priscilla sued Dimple and the hospital and was awarded damages of $500,000. On appeal, what result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Judgement overturned, the release was a valid contract. B. Judgment overturned, there was no confidential relationship between Priscilla and the hospital administrator. C. Judgment affirmed, a jury could properly find that Priscilla's consent was obtained by undue influence. D. Judgment affirmed, Priscilla lacked the capacity to enter into the release.
C
Pursuant to an agreement between the two parties, Defendant assembled and sold a sophisticated computer to Plaintiff. After Defendant had completed the computer, Plaintiff's computer consultant approved the computer, causing Plaintiff to accept it. Thereafter, the computer would not function properly. Defendant tried to repair the computer, but failed. There was evidence that the computer contained an irreparable defect. Plaintiff sues for damages. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Judgment for Plaintiff, even after acceptance a party may bring suit for material breach of contract. B. Judgment for Defendant, Plaintiff's formal acceptance coupled with Defendant's attempt to cure satisfied the condition precedent to Plaintiff's obligation to pay. C. Judgment for Defendant, because Plaintiff relied on his own consultant. D. Judgment for Plaintiff, because there was a mutual mistake.
A
Retailer placed a notice in a trade journal stating that it had men shoes in various sizes available for sale at a price of $75 per pair. When Customer went to Retailer's store to purchase a pair of men's shoes at the advertised price, Retailer refused to sell Customer the shoes for $75. If Customer brings an action in court, which of the factors listed below will the court LEAST LIKELY consider as important when determining whether Retailer's notice in the trade journal constitutes a valid offer? ***OPTIONS*** A. Whether the quantity and quality of the shoes was stated in the notice. B. Whether the language used in the notice is promissory in nature. C. Whether Retailer intended the notice to be an offer to sell shoes to Customer. D. Whether Customer reasonably believed that Retailer's notice was an offer.
C
Review the following conversation: Kathy: "Jerry, will you consider buying my cabin in Aspen? If you will make me an offer, I will consider it." Jerry: "Okay, $5.00." Kathy: "No, that is not enough." Jerry: "Will you accept $85,000?" Kathy: "I won't sell it for less than $95,000." Jerry: "I accept." Was there a contract? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Jerry accepted Kathy's offer to sell the property for $95,000. B. No, because Kathy never offered to sell the property for $95,000. C. No, because Kathy did not have a reasonable time within which to revoke. D. Yes, Kathy intended to sell the house for $95,000.
B
Sanders Pizza, Inc. a large national chain and Henry's Gardens enter into a written contract within the one-year provision of the Statute of Frauds. At the time the contract was signed, neither party realized that a clerical mistake was made changing the price per tomato from $.03 to $.30. The parties had intended the price to be $.03. How does this error affect the rights of the parties? ***OPTIONS*** A. The writing will be reformed because of the extreme amount of the difference in price. B. The writing will be reformed because it did not express the bargain between the parties. C. The writing will not be reformed because courts rarely reform where a mistake is involved. D. The writing will not be reformed because a court will not attempt to substitute its own judgment as to what the parties would have agreed to had the parties known the facts.
B
Sarah agrees, over the phone, to sell her pig ranch to Barney for $800,000. Barney pays Sarah the $800,000, but Sarah refuses to transfer title to the ranch to Barney, claiming the defense of the Statute of Frauds. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Barney will be entitled to compel specific performance of the contract. B. Barney will be entitled to restitution of the purchase price, but not specific performance of the contract. C. Barney will be entitled to specific performance, but only has to pay the fair market value of the property. D. Barney will be entitled to specific performance because he paid the full purchase price.
B
Sarah manufactures and sells novelty dolls. Bernhardt is a retail novelty store owner who specializes in dolls. Sarah and Bernhardt enter into a written agreement wherein Bernhardt agrees to buy from Sarah 600 of Sarah's novelty dolls at a specific price. One particular clause in the agreement states that Bernhardt has the right to purchase an additional 400 dolls at any time during the time period covered by the agreement. Bernhardt orders an additional 400 dolls, but Sarah does not deliver them. What are the rights of the parties? ***OPTIONS*** A. Bernhardt has the right to purchase 400 additional dolls from Sarah under the terms of the contract. B. Bernhardt has no right to purchase the 400 additional dolls from Sarah. C. Sarah does not have to deliver the 400 additional dolls unless she and Bernhardt agree on a separate consideration. D. Sarah has to deliver the 400 additional dolls, but a new price must be established.
A
Simon Pauly contracted with Aaron Dorff whereby Dorff was to supply bread to Pauly for his restaurant. Dorff was not aware that this bread was used as a part of a holy festival which Pauly catered during July and August of each year. Dorff was unable to make timely delivery of the bread causing Pauly to cancel his service with the festival. Dorff was also unaware that Pauly had no other customers during July and August because of the size of the festival and the economic advantage of catering to the festival. Pauly had to lay off employees and shut down for two months. Pauly sues for lost profits he would have made during this period. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Dorff prevails because Dorff had no reason to foresee this loss of profits suffered by Pauly as a result of later delivery. B. Pauly prevails because Dorff was late. C. Pauly prevails because Pauly has suffered damages as a result of Dorff's breach of contract. D. Dorff prevails because Pauly should not have exclusively catered to the festival.
A
Sir Henry Magazine derives a great deal of income from the sale of advertising. It publishes a "rate sheet" as well as an "Advertising Guidelines" brochure. The Advertising Guidelines brochure states, "Sir Henry reserves the right to refuse to print advertising for untruthful copy." A nonprofit political action group presented an advertisement stating that a local political figure had used political contributions for personal use. The group paid the advertising rate in accordance with the rate sheet, but the magazine refused to print the advertising even though it admitted the advertisement was truthful. Will the political action group prevail against the magazine? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because the advertisement was truthful. B. Yes, there was a written offer to provide advertisement at a stated price, which was accepted when the political action group tendered a copy of its advertisement and sufficient funds. C. No, the magazine's rate sheet is only a statement of intention to sell or invitation for offers. D. No, because the political action group could not reasonably rely on the magazine's offer.
C
The City of Lakewood issued an invitation to bid to general contractors for certain road maintenance services. Raymond submitted his bid pursuant to the invitation and was the lowest bidder. Lakewood agreed to award the contract to Raymond, but later changed its mind and awarded the contract to Stella, the next lowest bidder. If Raymond sues Lakewood, will he prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, so long as Raymond completes his performance in a workmanlike manner. B. No, Raymond's bid was merely an offer and no contract was formed. C. No, because the city does not have to take the lowest bidder. D. Yes, a contract was formed when the city agreed to award the contract to Raymond.
D
Who prevails? ***OPTIONS*** A. Ricky will prevail because Ricky fulfilled the conditions of the offer and was not paid the amount specified in the ad. B. Ricky will prevail because the ad was for an employment opportunity and not for speed in job performance. C. Ricky will not prevail because the ad was not an offer. D. Ricky will not prevail because he quit the job. "
A
When Darlene bought some mountain property, she constructed a road on her property, but next to the border of adjacent land owned by Ms. Painter. Darlene asked Ms. Painter if she would be interested in sharing the cost of construction and maintenance in exchange for use of the road. They agreed. By the terms of their written agreement, Ms. Painter was allowed to terminate the agreement at will. Everything went fine for a number of years and both Darlene and Ms. Painter paid one-half of the road maintenance expense until Darlene refused to allow Ms. Painter to use the road. Ms. Painter sues Darlene for breach of contract and Darlene claims, as her defense, mutuality of agreement. What result? ***OPTIONS*** A. Darlene will prevail, because Ms. Painter had no legal obligation under the contract. B. Ms. Painter will prevail, because the court would imply that reasonable notice be given prior to termination. C. Darlene will prevail, because there was no time specified in the agreement. D. Ms. Painter will prevail, because there was no time specified in the agreement.
B
Widget Company manufactures widgets and had a number of customers who used its products. Widget wanted to compete with some of its customers, but believed that its customers would be displeased and might cease doing business with Widget. In order to keep this new business activity secret, Widget set up a subsidiary company to distribute its products and formalized its agreement with Paul in writing which stated that Paul agreed to purchase all shares of the subsidiary for $10,000 and Widget agreed to sell the shares at that price. Widget and Paul had an oral, side agreement that the stock purchase agreement would not be carried out. The parties carried on business for many years without a transfer of the shares or payment of the money. For all appearances, Paul was the sole owner of the distribution business. However, Paul always acted as a loyal employee of Widget. Widget decided to end its arrangement with Paul and to let it be known to the trade that it was operating the distribution business. Paul tendered $10,000 to Widget and demanded that Widget transfer the shares of stock pursuant to the written agreement. Widget refused and sued Paul for a declaratory judgment to the effect that the written agreement is not binding. Will Widget succeed? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Widget and Paul entered into a detailed formal written agreement and the parties conducted themselves in a manner such that a reasonable person would conclude that Paul was the owner of the shares. B. No, because an oral agreement that contradicts a written agreement is not valid. C. Yes, because Widget and Paul never intended to enter into an agreement. D. Yes, because it was Widget's product from the start.
C
Fetterman entered into a lease agreement with Connie's Construction Company on April 1, 1993. The term of the lease was until March 31, 2013. The lease provided for payments of $100,000 commencing on April 1, 1993, and continuing on the 1st day of April at five-year intervals. The lease agreement also provided that Fetterman would receive the first payment, but thereafter, payments were to be paid to Fetterman's wife, Debbie. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the lease, Fetterman had power to change the beneficiary of future rent payments and to assign the agreement. In May of 1994, while experiencing financial difficulties, Connie's Construction Company, contracted with Arnie's Construction Company, wherein the parties agreed that Connie's would provide certain construction services for Arnie's and Arnie's would perform Connie's duties pursuant to the lease agreement with Fetterman. In July of 1994, Fetterman borrowed $300,000 from his son, Steven. On January 15, 1995, Fetterman took Debbie off of the lease agreement as a beneficiary and put his son, Steven on instead in exchange for Steven's promise to cancel the $300,000 loan. Steven, wrote a letter thanking his father and he also sent notes to Connie's and Arnie's advising them of the beneficiary change and his present address. He also stated that "in light of my father's decision, I have terminated my job with the water department and am going to pursue my dream of becoming a famous painter." In June 1996, Fetterman borrowed $15,000 from his bank and assigned the lease agreement as security. Connie's business made a strong comeback in 1997, enabling Connie's and Arnie's to terminate their contract. At all times, Connie's remained in possession of the premises, but in April of 1998, Connie's failed to make the $100,000 payment. Fetterman failed to pay the $15,000 to the bank. The bank sued Connie's for $15,000. Steven intervened claiming that the bank had no right to any sum under the lease agreement. Who prevails? ***OPTIONS*** A. The bank, it is entitled to the $15,000, because consideration was given for the assignment. B. Steven, because he was named beneficiary before Fetterman made the assignment, and the beneficiary, being first in time, prevails over the assignee. C. The bank, it is entitled to the $15,000, because Fetterman reserved power to change the beneficiary and to assign the agreement. D. Steven, because he is a donee beneficiary and the promisee cannot modify or rescind any part of a donee beneficiary's right.
C
Fetterman entered into a lease agreement with Connie's Construction Company on April 1, 1993. The term of the lease was until March 31, 2013. The lease provided for payments of $100,000 commencing on April 1, 1993, and continuing on the 1st day of April at five-year intervals. The lease agreement also provided that Fetterman would receive the first payment, but thereafter, payments were to be paid to Fetterman's wife, Debbie. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the lease, Fetterman had power to change the beneficiary of future rent payments and to assign the agreement. In May of 1994, while experiencing financial difficulties, Connie's Construction Company, contracted with Arnie's Construction Company, wherein the parties agreed that Connie's would provide certain construction services for Arnie's and Arnie's would perform Connie's duties pursuant to the lease agreement with Fetterman. In July of 1994, Fetterman borrowed $300,000 from his son, Steven. On January 15, 1995, Fetterman took Debbie off of the lease agreement as a beneficiary and put his son, Steven on instead in exchange for Steven's promise to cancel the $300,000 loan. Steven, wrote a letter thanking his father and he also sent notes to Connie's and Arnie's advising them of the beneficiary change and his present address. He also stated that "in light of my father's decision, I have terminated my job with the water department and am going to pursue my dream of becoming a famous painter." In June 1996, Fetterman borrowed $15,000 from his bank and assigned the lease agreement as security. Connie's business made a strong comeback in 1997, enabling Connie's and Arnie's to terminate their contract. At all times, Connie's remained in possession of the premises, but in April of 1998, Connie's failed to make the $100,000 payment. Fetterman failed to pay the $15,000 to the bank. If Steven sued Connie's Construction Company to collect the $100,000, who will win? ***OPTIONS*** A. Steven wins because he is subrogated to Connie's right against Arnie's. B. Steven loses because he should have sued Arnie's Construction Company before proceeding against Connie's Construction Company. C. Steven loses because he should have sued Connie's Construction Company and Arnie's Construction Company jointly. D. Steven wins because he has a right against Connie's and Arnie's and he may elect to bring suit against Connie's.
D
Fetterman entered into a lease agreement with Connie's Construction Company on April 1, 1993. The term of the lease was until March 31, 2013. The lease provided for payments of $100,000 commencing on April 1, 1993, and continuing on the 1st day of April at five-year intervals. The lease agreement also provided that Fetterman would receive the first payment, but thereafter, payments were to be paid to Fetterman's wife, Debbie. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the lease, Fetterman had power to change the beneficiary of future rent payments and to assign the agreement. In May of 1994, while experiencing financial difficulties, Connie's Construction Company, contracted with Arnie's Construction Company, wherein the parties agreed that Connie's would provide certain construction services for Arnie's and Arnie's would perform Connie's duties pursuant to the lease agreement with Fetterman. In July of 1994, Fetterman borrowed $300,000 from his son, Steven. On January 15, 1995, Fetterman took Debbie off of the lease agreement as a beneficiary and put his son, Steven on instead in exchange for Steven's promise to cancel the $300,000 loan. Steven, wrote a letter thanking his father and he also sent notes to Connie's and Arnie's advising them of the beneficiary change and his present address. He also stated that "in light of my father's decision, I have terminated my job with the water department and am going to pursue my dream of becoming a famous painter." In June 1996, Fetterman borrowed $15,000 from his bank and assigned the lease agreement as security. Connie's business made a strong comeback in 1997, enabling Connie's and Arnie's to terminate their contract. At all times, Connie's remained in possession of the premises, but in April of 1998, Connie's failed to make the $100,000 payment. Fetterman failed to pay the $15,000 to the bank. If Steven sued Arnie's Construction Company for the payment, how should the court rule? ***OPTIONS*** A. Against Steven, because the change of beneficiary clause in the lease agreement prevented Steven's right under contract between the two concrete companies from vesting prior to time rent became due and the two companies rescinded their contract. B. Against Steven, because Steven is an incidental beneficiary of the contract between the two concrete companies. C. For Steven, because Steven is a donee beneficiary of Arnie's promise and assent is presumed. D. For Steven, because Steven is a creditor beneficiary of Arnie's promise, notice was given to Steven and he assented and changed his position in reliance.
D
Barry owned an office building that was substantially damaged by fire. Barry wants to hire Watson to make the necessary repairs and is told by Watson that he (Watson) does not have good credit due to a family illness and would therefore have trouble obtaining credit. Barry and Watson agree upon and include a clause in the construction contract that states that Barry "promises to pay anyone who provides goods and materials to Watson for use in the repair of the building." The contract also provided that the parties' duties were "non-assignable." Watson paid for all of the materials he ordered except for the last $1,000 of lumber. Watson sent a letter to the supplier and told him that he was unable to pay the bill at the present time. He also included a copy of the contract with the letter to advise the supplier, for the first time regarding the terms of his agreement. Watson asked Barry to pay the supplier and Barry refused citing a business turndown and a severe illness in his own family. Barry told Watson that he was selling the building to Carla and wanted a release from the contract. Watson felt sorry for Barry and sent him a letter releasing him from the contract and agreeing to complete the repairs for Carla. Watson sent a copy of this letter to the supplier. Watson completed the work and then Barry paid the total contract price (but not the $1,000 to the supplier). Watson ran out of money before he paid the supplier. In an action by the supplier against Barry, on the Barry-Watson contract, Barry's best argument in his defense is that: ***OPTIONS*** A. The non-assignment clause in Barry-Watson contract is void as against public policy. B. The supplier has not materially changed its position in reliance upon the Barry-Watson contract. C. Third parties cannot acquire valid claims under this type of contract. D. Barry relied to his detriment on Watson's letter of release.
B
Cindy, an owner of a day-care center, called Simon and ordered 100 gross of diapers from Simon at a price of $90 per gross. Five gross were to be delivered immediately and five gross were to be delivered each month for 20 months, payable upon delivery. Simon delivered the first 5 gross the next day and Cindy paid. At the time of delivery, however, Cindy gave Simon a handwritten note that said: "Simon, $90 per gross is too much to pay for diapers. I'll take the first 5 gross, but I won't take the remaining 95 gross." Signed, Cindy. Simon sues Cindy, alleging that Cindy promised to buy 100 gross of diapers from him. In defense, Cindy pleads the Statute of Frauds. How should the court rule on this issue? ***OPTIONS*** A. For Cindy, because the handwritten note sent by Cindy was a repudiation, rather than a memorandum, of the oral agreement. B. For Simon, because the handwritten note sent by Cindy constitutes a writing sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. C. For Cindy, because the handwritten note sent by Cindy does not satisfy the Statute of Frauds. D. For Simon, because Cindy received and accepted part of the goods.
B
Barry owned an office building that was substantially damaged by fire. Barry wants to hire Watson to make the necessary repairs and is told by Watson that he (Watson) does not have good credit due to a family illness and would therefore have trouble obtaining credit. Barry and Watson agree upon and include a clause in the construction contract that states that Barry "promises to pay anyone who provides goods and materials to Watson for use in the repair of the building." The contract also provided that the parties' duties were "non-assignable." Watson paid for all of the materials he ordered except for the last $1,000 of lumber. Watson sent a letter to the supplier and told him that he was unable to pay the bill at the present time. He also included a copy of the contract with the letter to advise the supplier, for the first time regarding the terms of his agreement. Watson asked Barry to pay the supplier and Barry refused citing a business turndown and a severe illness in his own family. Barry told Watson that he was selling the building to Carla and wanted a release from the contract. Watson felt sorry for Barry and sent him a letter releasing him from the contract and agreeing to complete the repairs for Carla. Watson sent a copy of this letter to the supplier. Watson completed the work and then Barry paid the total contract price (but not the $1,000 to the supplier). Watson ran out of money before he paid the supplier. The supplier sues Barry. Its best theory of recovery is that the supplier ***OPTIONS*** A. is a donee beneficiary of the Barry-Watson contract. B. is a creditor beneficiary of the Barry-Watson contract. C. has a claim based upon an implied-in-fact contract with Watson. D. provided essential goods and services to Watson.
C
Barry owned an office building that was substantially damaged by fire. Barry wants to hire Watson to make the necessary repairs and is told by Watson that he (Watson) does not have good credit due to a family illness and would therefore have trouble obtaining credit. Barry and Watson agree upon and include a clause in the construction contract that states that Barry "promises to pay anyone who provides goods and materials to Watson for use in the repair of the building." The contract also provided that the parties' duties were "non-assignable." Watson paid for all of the materials he ordered except for the last $1,000 of lumber. Watson sent a letter to the supplier and told him that he was unable to pay the bill at the present time. He also included a copy of the contract with the letter to advise the supplier, for the first time regarding the terms of his agreement. Watson asked Barry to pay the supplier and Barry refused citing a business turndown and a severe illness in his own family. Barry told Watson that he was selling the building to Carla and wanted a release from the contract. Watson felt sorry for Barry and sent him a letter releasing him from the contract and agreeing to complete the repairs for Carla. Watson sent a copy of this letter to the supplier. Watson completed the work and then Barry paid the total contract price (but not the $1,000 to the supplier). Watson ran out of money before he paid the supplier. If the supplier files suit against Barry upon the Barry-Watson contract and Barry attempts to raise Watson's release as a defense, the supplier's best argument is that: ***OPTIONS*** A. The release was ineffective, because the supplier had impliedly assented to the Barry-Watson contract. B. Barry's contract duties were too personal to be effectively delegated to Carla. C. The release was ineffective, because Watson would thereby be unjustly enriched. D. There was no consideration for Watson's release of Barry.
A
If Daisy is prosecuted for attempting to violate the Sunday law, her most effective argument in defense will be that: ***OPTIONS*** A. she was unaware that the law had been amended. B. her arrest was illegal, rendering any subsequent conviction unconstitutional. C. if she had no reasonable notice of the amendment, her conviction would violate due process of law. D. she cannot be convicted of a crime for having an evil mind. "
D
Able pointed a gun at his friend Victor in jest, and shot and killed him. In a prosecution for murder, Able will most likely be found not guilty if ***OPTIONS*** A. Able did not intend to produce the death of Victor. B. Able did not know that the gun was loaded. C. Able believed that the gun was not loaded. D. Able believed that the gun was not loaded, and his belief was a reasonable one.
D
Bill and Jim decided to go out with their rifles into a field and practice target shooting. They had been to the lot many times in the past and enjoyed target shooting there. One Saturday afternoon, the two men went to the same field with their rifles, set up some cans and bottles on tree limbs and rocks in the field to serve as targets. As they were setting up the targets Bill noticed that a new office building was under construction in the lot directly behind their targets. Bill mentioned this to Jim, but Jim assured Bill that "no one would be working on the building on Saturday" so it was safe to shoot at the targets they had set up. Bill took aim at the targets and fired off several rounds of ammunition. One of the bullets Bill fired missed the target and stuck and killed a homeless man who was sleeping inside the unfinished office building. Bill is most likely guilty of ***OPTIONS*** A. murder, because Bill was aware of the existence of the building and he fired the shot that killed the homeless man inside. B. voluntary manslaughter, because Bill killed the homeless man by mistake. C. involuntary manslaughter, because Bill's negligence caused the death of the homeless man. D. no crime, because negligence is not enough to justify any murder or manslaughter charge.
C
Dan is guilty of ***OPTIONS*** A. No crime. B. Manslaughter, because a suicide attempt made with bystanders nearby is generally considered reckless conduct sufficient for involuntary manslaughter. C. Depraved heart murder, because his attempt to kill himself created a very high risk of serious injury or death to anyone who might attempt to prevent it. D. Intent to kill murder, since his intent to kill himself is transferred to Vic. "
B
If Dan is arrested and tried for murder and Dan asserts the defense of insanity, he is most likely to be found not guilty if the jurisdiction has adopted ***OPTIONS*** A. The M'Naghten rule. B. The Model Penal Code. C. The Felony Murder Rule. D. The doctrine of self-defense. "
B
If Darryl is prosecuted for the murder of Payne, he should be: ***OPTIONS*** A. acquitted, since plugging the machine back into the wall outlet or calling a doctor would not have saved Payne's life, but would only have prolonged it. B. acquitted, since Darryl was under no legal duty to take affirmative action to save the life of Payne. C. convicted, because as a nurse assigned to Payne's care, Darryl had an affirmative duty to save Payne from a life-threatening danger known to Darryl. D. convicted, because Darryl desired or knew to a substantial certainty that his inaction would result in Payne's death. "
D
The most serious offense with which Defendant may be properly convicted is ***OPTIONS*** A. murder. B. voluntary manslaughter. C. involuntary manslaughter. D. none of the above. "
D
If Deft is charged with the murder of Vick, his best defense will be ***OPTIONS*** A. that he shot Vick in the heat of passion. B. that he had no time to premeditate the killing. C. that the surgeon caused Vick's death. D. that Vick would have eventually died from brain tumor anyway. "
A
Deft is guilty of ***OPTIONS*** A. murder. B. voluntary manslaughter. C. involuntary manslaughter. D. no crime, because Deft was only negligent. "
A
The jury should be instructed that Deft is ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, no matter what he thought was in the package because there is strict liability for border crossing offenses. B. guilty, if Deft knew that the package contained heroin and intended to transport it. C. guilty, if Deft knew that the package contained illegal drugs, but not necessarily heroin. D. guilty, because Deft should have known that the package contained some type of contraband. "
B
If Dell asserts this intoxication defense, the jury should be instructed to find that ***OPTIONS*** A. Dell is not liable for Flo's death, because alcohol destroys the ability to form the intent necessary for the crime. B. Dell is not liable for Flo's death, because his intoxication was so great that he did not realize the nature and quality of his act. C. Dell's intoxication will not totally relieve him of criminal liability, but it could be sufficient to negate his ability to premeditate or deliberate, thus reducing his criminal liability to second degree murder from first. D. Dell's intoxication will have no mitigating effect, because he was voluntarily intoxicated. "
C
If Dell is prosecuted for the murder of Vespa, he should be found ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because if Vespa had not died in the automobile accident, Dell's explosive device would surely have killed Vespa. B. guilty, because Dell did everything necessary to kill Vespa and Vespa did die when Dell intended. C. guilty, because Dell's conduct demonstrates sufficient premeditation and deliberation. D. not guilty, because Dell did not cause Vespa's death. "
D
If Elkin is prosecuted for conspiracy, he will most likely be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, because he had a change of heart and effectively communicated his renunciation of intent to commit the murder to Elkin before Elkin arrived at Galt's location. B. Not guilty, because the gun could not be fired. C. Guilty, his change of heart and phone call statements to Dent were no defense because Elkin did not thwart the success of the conspiracy. D. Guilty, his change of heart and phone call statements to Dent were no defense because Elkin and Dent agreed to commit an illegal act. "
D
In a prosecution for murder, Desmond's guilt or innocence will turn on whether: ***OPTIONS*** A. The doctrine of transferred intent can be applied to Desmond's initial striking of Victoria. B. Desmond was the initial aggressor. C. Victoria's use of a knife was excessive. D. Desmond's hands are deadly weapons. "
C
Of what crime is Devon guilty? ***OPTIONS*** A. Murder. B. Voluntary manslaughter. C. Involuntary manslaughter. D. Battery. "
A
The jury should be instructed that ***OPTIONS*** A. Dini was privileged to use deadly force if necessary to protect her dwelling. B. Dini was privileged to use deadly force if necessary to prevent the theft of her patio furniture. C. Dini was not privileged to use deadly force unless she did in fact issue a warning to the intruder. D. Dini was not privileged to use deadly force to prevent the intruder's escape. "
D
If Don is charged with felony murder for the death of Bill, Don will be ***OPTIONS*** A. convicted, because by forcing Bill to wear the ""Security System"" overalls, Don demonstrated an intent to kill. B. convicted, because Don's actions caused the death of another during the commission of a robbery. C. acquitted, because Don neither intended to kill Bill nor was he responsible for the actions of the police. D. acquitted, because the robbery was over once Don had obtained the money, changed into the clothing of the bank president and was making his escape. "
B
At common law, Dutton is guilty of which of the following crimes? ***OPTIONS*** A. No crime, because Frieda died as a result of her terminal medical condition. B. Manslaughter, because Dutton did not act with malice. C. Manslaughter, because Dutton acted while suffering from extreme emotional distress. D. Murder, because Dutton acted with the intent to kill and his act caused Frieda's death. "
D
If Marv is prosecuted for the murder of Victoria and evidence is presented that the bruises Marv observed were inflicted by Victoria's mother, Marv should be found ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because Marv failed to report the incident to the authorities as required by state law. B. guilty, if Marv was not aware of the law requiring him to report evidence of child abuse to the authorities. C. not guilty, Marv lacked the necessary mental state required to support a murder conviction. D. not guilty, because Marv's failure to report the incident to the authorities was not the proximate cause of death. "
C
Officer is guilty of ***OPTIONS*** A. murder. B. voluntary manslaughter. C. involuntary manslaughter. D. no crime. "
D
Rose should be found ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because this is a public welfare offense. B. guilty, because she should have inquired whether the signs had been thrown away. C. not guilty, but only if the jury finds she reasonably believed the signs were thrown away. D. not guilty, if the jury finds she honestly believed the signs had been thrown away. "
D
If Dent is charged with attempted murder, the fact that he could not have fired the gun ***OPTIONS*** A. prevents him from being found guilty, since he was unable to complete the last act required to fulfill his intended goal. B. does not prevent him from being found guilty, if a reasonable person would have believed that the gun could be fired. C. does not prevent him from being found guilty, if Dent actually believed that the gun could be fired. D. is immaterial, since Dent could have beaten Galt to death with the gun. "
C
Under which of the following circumstances, if accepted as accurate by the jury, would a verdict of first degree murder be proper in the murder trial of Tom? ***OPTIONS*** A. Tom had falsely reported to Bill's wife that Bill had contracted a deadly and contagious sexually transmitted disease and Bill, upon hearing this, exclaimed, ""I will kill whoever said this horrible lie about me!"" B. Tom had waited for Bill to arrive at the bus stop, intending to frighten him with the weapon in retaliation for Bill's refusal to respond to Tom's repeated requests for a job interview at Bill's company. C. Two days earlier, Bill had seriously embarrassed Tom in front of a group of business partners who laughed heartily at Tom's expense and Tom had publicly threatened Bill that he would ""get even."" D. Tom had been drinking heavily and had shot at Bill in anger. "
C
If Dot is arrested and prosecuted for violation of this statute, she should be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because she knowingly possessed zylomin tablets. B. guilty, because she acquired the zylomin when she purchased the desk. C. not guilty, because she thought she was acting within the law on the advice of her pharmacist. D. not guilty, because she did not knowingly acquire the zylomin tablets. "
A
If the police arrest Donald and he confesses to stealing the money from the cash register, he can be convicted of theft and ***OPTIONS*** A. conspiracy only B. murder only C. conspiracy or murder, but not both D. conspiracy and murder "
D
Vic's best argument for a dismissal is: ***OPTIONS*** A. As a minor, Vic cannot be prosecuted for any crime. B. Vic cannot be charged as an accessory until a principal has been convicted of committing the charged crime. C. He did not assist Davis in committing the crime. D. He did not assist Davis in committing the crime. "
D
On a charge of battery of Vick, Jack is: ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because he knew Arthur was attempting to physically beat Vick and he shouted encouraging words to Arthur. B. guilty, because he desired that Arthur would succeed in battering Vick, and aided and abetted this by his presence. C. not guilty, because refusing to come to the aid of a crime victim is not sufficient to constitute aiding and abetting. D. not guilty, because he did not participate in the battery, nor assist in its commission. "
A
On a charge of battery of Vick, Mike is: ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because he had a duty to aid Vick, and did not do so. B. guilty, because he was content that Arthur should batter Vick so that he could enjoy watching. C. not guilty, because he had no purpose to assist Arthur. D. D not guilty, because he did not know with certainty whether Arthur would batter Vick. "
C
If charged with larceny of the bicycle, Dee will most likely be found ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because she took the bicycle without permission and had no intent to return it to the place where she found it. B. guilty, because her actions led to the permanent deprivation of the bicycle. C. not guilty, because she did not ride the bicycle far enough away from where she took it. D. not guilty, if her plan to call the owner upon reaching the theater did not create a substantial risk of permanent loss. "
D
In a jurisdiction that recognizes larceny, larceny by trick, embezzlement and false pretenses as separate crimes, Victoria is guilty of ***OPTIONS*** A. larceny. B. larceny by trick. C. embezzlement. D. false pretenses. "
B
During defendant's trial victim testifies that she was working as a clerk at a convenient store. While she was in the back room stocking shelves she heard a noise and saw the back of Defendant leaving the store. She indicated that it was a long night and she was feeling sleepy because she was taking medication for a cold. When she checked the register all the money was gone. She called the police and they reviewed the store surveillance tape. The tape was also entered into evidence at the trial. The tape showed the defendant bursting through the door with a semi-automatic handgun drawn and pointed toward the register area. When he sees no one behind the counter he puts the gun in his belt and quickly removes all the cash from the register. What is defendant likely to be convicted of? ***OPTIONS*** A. Robber B. Larceny C. Robbery or larceny D. Both robbery and larceny.
B
Moose should be convicted of: ***OPTIONS*** A. No crime B. Receiving stolen property C. Larceny D. Larceny by trick "
A
Marcy is guilty of which of the following crimes? ***OPTIONS*** A. Deceit B. Larceny C. Conversion D. False pretenses "
D
With reference to the free drinks that Alex gives to his friends while working, what offense has been committed? ***OPTIONS*** A. Larceny B. Larceny by trick C. Embezzlement D. False Pretenses "
A
On the charge of burglary the likely outcome is? ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, because he committed no crime while he was inside. B. Not guilty, because he felt he had a valid claim to the property. C. Not guilty, because he was acting under coercion. D. Guilty "
D
Donald is guilty of: ***OPTIONS*** A. Burglary, but not larceny. B. Larceny, but not burglary. C. Burglary and larceny. D. Neither burglary nor larceny. "
C
Cole is guilty of common law arson because: ***OPTIONS*** A. The risk of fire was a foreseeable consequence of his actions. B. He intended to light the fire in the barbecue. C. He should have known that the wooden patio cover would catch on fire. D. He was aware that the sparks were being blown in the direction of and were landing on his neighbor's wooden patio cover, yet he did nothing to prevent the patio cover from catching on fire. "
D
If Al is tried on a manslaughter charge, he should be ***OPTIONS*** A. Convicted, unless the child was trespassing on the dock. B. Convicted, because he recklessly caused the child's death. C. Acquitted, because his intoxicated state prevented him from being aware of the high risk his behavior created. D. Acquitted, because, in his intoxicated state, he honestly believed that he could jump the boat over the dock. "
B
What is Charlie's best defense to a charge of felony murder? ***OPTIONS*** A. The killing was not a natural and probable consequence of the plan to rob the armored car company. B. The robbery which Charlie planned to help commit was completed by the time the killing occurred. C. Charlie cannot be liable for the death of a co-felon. D. The act of killing Baker was not committed in furtherance of the crime Charlie planned to commit with Able and Baker. "
D
In which of the following situations would the defendant be most likely to avoid criminal liability? ***OPTIONS*** A. The defendant leaves his business office late one evening and sees a person attempting to enter the building by climbing through a first-floor window. The defendant shoots and kills this person to prevent him from entering the building. B. The defendant witnesses two men attempting to force a struggling woman into the backseat of a car. He pulls out a gun and shoots both men, killing one and wounding the other. In fact, the two men were undercover police officers and the car was an unmarked police car. Having just revealed their true identities to the woman following a successful undercover operation, the officers were in the process of arresting her. C. The defendant and his neighbor have had a long-running feud about a variety of issues. During the last of a string of arguments, the defendant and his neighbor come to blows. The neighbor throws a punch which breaks the defendant's jaw. The defendant goes into his house to get a gun. The defendant shoots his neighbor as the neighbor turns to return to his own house. D. Defendant's wife tells him that his brother-in-law has been sexually abusing his 10-year-old daughter. Immediately thereafter, defendant shoots and kills his brother-in-law.
B
The jurisdiction in question has adopted the American Law Institute or Model Penal Code test for the insanity defense. Desdemona is arrested and prosecuted for arson and felony murder. If Desdemona seeks acquittal based on insanity, she should argue that, at the time of her actions: ***OPTIONS*** A. A mental disease caused a defect of reason such that she lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of or understand the nature and quality of her actions. B. A mental disease or defect caused her to lack substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions or conform her actions to the law. C. A mental disease or defect caused her to believe that her conduct was morally right. D. A mental disease or defect prevented her from being able to conform her actions to the law or control her conduct. "
B
Should Vincent be convicted of soliciting Leonardo to commit a crime? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Vincent commanded that Bruno's legs be broken. B. Yes, because Leonardo was responding to Vincent's order when he broke Bruno's legs. C. No, because Vincent intended to solicit Raphael to commit a crime against Bruno. D. No, unless Leonardo's belief that Vincent was speaking to him was reasonable under the circumstances. "
C
Monica and Gilbert should be convicted of: ***OPTIONS*** A. Solicitation, conspiracy to murder Monroe and the murder of Lucretia. B. Conspiracy to murder Monroe and the murder of Lucretia. C. Conspiracy to murder Monroe and Lucretia. D. Conspiracy to murder Monroe. "
B
If he is arrested, Meany should be convicted of: ***OPTIONS*** A. Larceny, conspiracy and attempted robbery. B. Larceny and attempted robbery C. Larceny and conspiracy. D. Larceny only. "
A
In which of the following situations is the defendant least likely to be found guilty of criminal attempt to commit a crime? ***OPTIONS*** A. Defendant hotwires a car and proceeds to drive away. About a block from the location where Defendant stole the car, he loses control of the vehicle and hits a fire hydrant. He is arrested shortly thereafter. Defendant is charged with larceny. B. Defendant wants to murder her husband to collect on a $500,000 insurance policy she took out on her husband's life. Her husband has told her that he has an extreme allergy to nuts. If he eats nuts, his throat closes up and he is unable to breathe. One night, Defendant grinds up a handful of walnuts and puts them in the spaghetti sauce she and her husband are having for dinner. Her husband eats the spaghetti sauce, but nothing happens. As it turns out, Defendant's husband is only allergic to peanuts. C. Defendant is an actor on a movie set. Defendant discovers that one of his co-stars is having an affair with his wife. Immediately thereafter, Defendant grabs a knife off of a nearby table and attacks his co-star with it. The knife turns out to be a prop with a collapsible blade. D. Defendant's car has just given its last gasp and defendant needs some other mode of transportation. He sees a group of bicycles parked on the sidewalk in front of city hall. Thinking he is committing a crime, Defendant takes one of the bicycles and rides away. In fact, the bicycles are parked in front of city hall because the city is initiating a new anti-pollution program. The city is providing, on a first-come, first-serve basis, free reconditioned bicycles to city residents who are willing to use the bicycles for transportation instead of their cars.
D
If Delilah is prosecuted for rape, should she be convicted? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because, by being present when Dorian raped the jogger and by intending that the crime be committed, she aided and abetted Dorian. B. Yes, because she aided and encouraged Dorian with intent that he commit rape. C. No, because a woman cannot be convicted as an accomplice to a rape if she cannot be convicted as principal. D. No, because Delilah may not be convicted as an accomplice solely because she was present and encouraged Dorian to commit the rape, regardless of her intent. "
B
If Maud is tried on the accessory-after-the-fact charge, she should: ***OPTIONS*** A. Be convicted only if Maud assisted Harold with intent to prevent Harold's arrest. B. Be convicted only if Maud knew that a warrant had been issued for Harold's arrest. C. Not be convicted because Maud did not assist Harold in committing the crime, nor was she aware of Harold's actions until after the crime was completed. D. Not be convicted because Maud can not be found guilty unless Harold has been convicted on the embezzlement charge. "
A
If tried on this charge, Farmer Brown should be: ***OPTIONS*** A. Convicted, unless he also obtained and relied on advice of a private attorney. B. Convicted, because he should have been aware that the government agency's advice was erroneous. C. Acquitted, because he lacked the mental state required for criminal liability. D. Acquitted, because he acted on the advice of a government agency. "
C
If Tiffany is prosecuted for felony murder, she will probably be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, because duress is a defense to arson. B. Not guilty, because Tiffany may claim necessity as a defense. C. Guilty, because duress is never a defense to murder. D. Guilty, pursuant to the Felony Murder Rule. "
A
Will B prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, A is not the owner of the structure which is encroaching on B's land. B. No, unless A had knowledge that his garage was encroaching on B's land during construction. C. Yes, regardless of whether A knew or had reason to know of the encroachment. D. Yes, unless Davis was aware of the encroachment at the time of purchase. "
C
If the jurisdiction in which both parties live and where the accident occurred had adopted the pure form of comparative negligence, how should the court rule when Able sues Baker for injuries sustained in the collision? ***OPTIONS*** A. Judgment for Baker, because Able was negligent. B. Judgment for Able, and Able may recover for all of his injuries because Baker was negligent. C. Judgment for Able, but only if Baker's fault in causing the accident was greater than Able's. D. Judgment for Able, and Able may recover for all his injuries but his judgment will be reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of his fault. "
D
If Baker seeks to recover a portion of the $100,000 judgment from Able, will Baker succeed? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Baker's negligence was a substantial factor which led to his injury. B. No, because Charlie's negligence exceeded Baker's C. Yes, because Able's negligence exceeded Baker's. D. Yes, because Able's negligence was a substantial factor which caused Baker's injuries. "
D
Bob subsequently files a lawsuit against Alan and asserts a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bob's claim will most likely ***OPTIONS*** A. succeed, because Bob received medical treatment for injuries caused by Alan's conduct. B. fail, because workplace "hazing" is an accepted employment activity. C. succeed, because Alan intended to subject Bob to ridicule and humiliation. D. fail, if Alan's conduct was not "extreme and outrageous." "
D
If Doctor brings a suit claiming that Alan's conduct amounts to intentional infliction of emotional distress, which of the following (if proven by Doctor) best support Doctor's claim? ***OPTIONS*** A. Alan's conduct caused Doctor to suffer emotional distress. B. The signs constitute extreme and outrageous behavior. C. Doctor suffered personal injury. D. Alan was only expressing his opinion rather than a statement of fact. "
B
In a suit brought by Ann and Vern seeking damages, Larry is liable for: ***OPTIONS*** A. both the assault of Ann and battery of Vern. B. only the battery of Ann. C. only the assault of Ann. D. only the battery of Vern; Larry is not liable to Ann because Ann suffered no harm. "
A
Assuming that the state in which the restroom is located and the action is tried retains the common law landowner/occupier rules which are based on the status of the plaintiff, which of the following would be the best possible status designation which Biker should reasonably expect to achieve if he seeks to recover damages from the state? ***OPTIONS*** A. Business invitee. B. Licensee. C. Public invitee. D. Frequent trespasser. "
C
If Bill subsequently pays the $100,000 judgment to the police officer, Bill may recover from Joe ***OPTIONS*** A. $100,000 based on full indemnity, because Joe committed an intentional criminal act. B. $50,000 based on contribution, because Bill was negligent and both defendants were jointly and severally liable. C. An equitable amount, based on whatever the court determines is fair under the circumstances. D. Nothing, because but for Bill's act of leaving the gun in the car, the officer would not have been shot. "
A
In this action, Butcher will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because the truck was sold in a defective condition. B. recover, unless Dealer was unaware of Butcher's intended use of the truck. C. not recover, Dealer did not manufacture the truck. D. not recover, Butcher did not experience anything other than economic loss. "
D
If P sues D for the damage caused to P's rose bushes, P will ***OPTIONS*** A. not recover, D's entry on P's land was excused by the doctrine of necessity. B. not recover, D's entry was involuntary and resulted from an unforeseen act of God. C. recover, D entered the land of P for his own private benefit even though it was necessary to avoid a greater evil. D. recover, but only for nominal damages because D's entry was excused by necessity. "
C
If Nabor asserts a claim for damages against Dad, will Nabor prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Son did not intend the knife to strike Nabor. B. No, unless Son is found to be liable to Nabor. C. Yes, because a parent is liable for the actions of his or her child. D. Yes, if Dad did not reasonably monitor Son's use of the knife. "
D
III. Dale did not intend to strike Ferguson, only to frighten Ferguson. ***OPTIONS*** A. I and III B. I and II C. I, II and III D. None of the above "
D
If Perry brings an action for damages, will Perry be successful? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Davis caused Perry to suffer injury. B. Yes, if as a result of his prior hallucinations, Davis was negligent when he chose to walk in a crowd. C. No, Davis was unaware of his actions because of the hallucination. D. No, if Davis suffered from a mental illness. "
B
If Pedestrian brings suit against Dennis seeking damages for injuries sustained in the fall, Pedestrian will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, because his fall was caused by Dennis' dog B. prevail, because an animal owner is absolutely responsible for all injuries caused by the animal. C. not prevail, a dog is a domestic animal. D. not prevail, because the dog was well-trained and unexpectedly ignored Dennis on this occasion"
D
If Rocky asserts an action against Dick seeking damages, Rocky will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, because he was injured while attempting to rescue Dick. B. prevail, if Dick was negligent. C. not prevail, because Rocky had a duty to rescue Dick. D. not prevail, because Rocky assumed the risk of injury when he voluntarily chose to rescue Dick. "
B
Will Prude recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, unless a reasonable person would have determined that Dilly was joking. B. Yes, for false imprisonment and battery. C. No, unless Prude suffered severe emotional distress. D. No, because Dilly did not intend to cause Prude to suffer any harm. "
B
III. Donna did not intend to strike Hillary, only to frighten Hillary. ***OPTIONS*** A. I and III B. I and II C. I, II and III D. None of the above "
D
If Peter asserts a claim against Doris to recover damages for his injuries, basing his claim on Doris' violation of the statute, will Peter prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, Peter assumed the risk when he chose to remain in Doris' car with the key in the ignition and the engine running. B. No, the purpose of the statute was not to protect against injuries occurring in this manner. C. Yes, Doris is liable under the doctrine of negligence per se. D. Yes, because Doris negligently left the car in a position of peril. "
B
If Rider brings suit against Dorman for the injuries suffered by his horse, Rider will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, but only if it is established that using barbed wire fencing adjacent to a frequently-used public trail amounts to reckless conduct on Dorman's part. B. prevail, if Dorman failed to use reasonable care to warn of the dangers presented by the fence. C. not prevail, because Rider was a trespasser. D. not prevail, a landowner has no duty to warn persons not on his land about dangers arising from natural conditions on the property. "
B
If Potter brings an action against Dribble for battery, Potter will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, if Dribble intended to push Potter. B. recover, if Dribble intended Potter to suffer a harmful and offensive touching. C. not recover, unless Dribble intentionally tried to push Potter using force in excess of that which Potter and the other players consented to by participating in the game. D. not recover, because by continuing to play as the level of physical contact increased, Potter had given consent to be touched. "
D
If Phil brings an action against Dunbar for battery, which of the following would provide the best defense for Dunbar? ***OPTIONS*** A. Dunbar did not know that he was hitting a person. B. Dunbar thought the bear was about to attack him. C. By wearing a bear costume into the woods, Phil was consenting to being touched. D. Phil was not seriously hurt by the blow to the head. "
A
Which of the following will provide the best defense for Garage and the attendant in this suit? ***OPTIONS*** A. Paul was injured by Fran, not by the defendants. B. Fran's intoxicated condition was the cause of the accident and neither defendant was responsible for furnishing Fran with the alcohol. C. Neither Garage nor the attendant owed any duty of care to Paul to refuse Fran's request for her car keys. D. Neither Garage nor the attendant created any foreseeable risk of harm to third parties when they allowed Fran to drive out of the garage. "
C
If the boy brings an action seeking damages from Grocer, he will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because Grocer used excessive force. B. recover, because the pattern of past break-ins establishes that the boy was a foreseeable trespasser. C. not recover, Grocer was permitted to use force to prevent the commission of a crime. D. not recover, no duty of care is owed to criminal trespassers. "
A
The best theory for Wif to assert in order to recover damages from Therapist would be ***OPTIONS*** A. assault. B. battery. C. invasion of privacy. D. intentional infliction of emotional distress. "
D
If Pell brings a negligence action against Mom, Pell will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, if Johnny was negligent. B. prevail, if Mom did not reasonably supervise Johnny's conduct. C. prevail, because parents are liable for the torts committed by their children. D. prevail, if Johnny intended to strike Pell. "
B
IV. Host must have suffered some type of physical injury. ***OPTIONS*** A. I and II. B. II and III. C. I and III. D. II and IV. "
B
If Piddle brings a lawsuit against Niteclub to recover damages, Piddle will ***OPTIONS*** A. not recover, because the warning signs were clearly visible. B. not recover, because the car thief is the proximate cause of the harm suffered by Piddle. C. recover, Niteclub will be responsible for any harm suffered by invitees while on the premises. D. recover, if Niteclub failed to take reasonable steps to protect against the harm suffered by Piddle. "
D
If Baker seeks to recover a portion of the $100,000 judgment from Charlie, how much will Baker be entitled to recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. 100000 B. 90000 C. 45000 D. Nothing. "
B
If Dunbar sues Doris for assault, Dunbar will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because Doris intended to shoot Dunbar. B. recover, because Doris should have been reasonably certain that Dunbar would be apprehensive of being hurt by the bullet. C. not recover, because Doris saw Dunbar hit Phil with the tree limb. D. not recover, because Dunbar was not aware of Doris act at the time she shot at him."
D
If Sherman brings an action for battery against Richard, he will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because Charles was not an escaped felon. B. recover, unless Richard reasonably believed that Charles was an armed and dangerous escaped felon who was about to shoot Richard and Richard is not considered the original aggressor under the circumstances. C. not recover, Richard did not intend to cause a harmful or offensive touching to Sherman. D. not recover, Richard was acting as a de facto law enforcement officer and was entitled to make an honest mistake of fact as to whether Charles was armed and dangerous. "
B
Assume for purposes of this question only that Phil brought an action against National Motors and that the parties both agreed to the following findings of fact: (1) the steering mechanism defect was so apparent that a normal driver would have discovered the existence of defect; and (2) Phil did not discover the defect. In this action, based on these findings, Phil will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, because Phil did not discover the defect. B. prevail, because assumption of the risk does not apply to a products liability action. C. not prevail, because Phil should reasonably have discovered the defect. D. not prevail, because National Motors attempted to warn all owners of the defective cars. "
A
Assume for purposes of this question that Phil brings a strict liability action against Sam. Will Phil prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Sam had reason to know of the steering defect at the time of the sale and did not adequately warn Phil. B. Yes, because the car was dangerously defective when Sam sold it to Phil. C. No, because Sam is not a commercial supplier of cars. D. No, because Sam attempted to warn Phil about the defect as soon as he learned of its existence. "
C
If Buyer is successful in this suit it will be because ***OPTIONS*** A. Owner did not inform Buyer about a latent defect in the property. B. Buyer's contractor failed to discover the defect even after a thorough inspection. C. The odor presents a significant health hazard. D. The house as sold fails to comply with the implied warranties of habitability and fitness for particular purpose. "
A
If P brings an action against D for trespass, who will prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. P, and P may recover nominal damages because D intentionally used the path to reach the lake. B. D, but only if D does refrain from using the path in the future as promised. C. D, because P suffered no actual injury as a result of the trespass. D. D, because D thought the pathway was open to the public."
A
If Pat brings suit against Central High School seeking damages, Pat will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, the public schools are strictly liable for injuries occurring on school premises while school is in session. B. prevail, the employer of a tortfeasor is vicariously liable for the torts committed by the employee during the course of employment. C. not prevail, unless it was foreseeable that the reason Prossel transferred to Central was because Prossel had been terminated for good cause. D. not prevail, unless Central School District knew that Prossel had previously molested a child. "
D
Patient dies, and a lawsuit is brought by the family of Patient on Patient's behalf against Surgeon. In this action, the plaintiffs (family of Patient acting on Patient's behalf) should ***OPTIONS*** A. not prevail, absent proof that Patient's cardiologist would have recommended a different course of treatment and that Surgeon reasonably should have followed the recommendation. B. not prevail, because Patient was removed from life-sustaining equipment at his own request. C. prevail, because Surgeon failed to consult with Patient's cardiologist. D. prevail, if the heart attack was caused by the surgery conducted by Surgeon. "
A
If Dylan brings an action for assault against Paul, Dylan will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because Paul intended to cause Dylan to see Paul shoot Dylan. B. recover, because Paul committed a substantial act with the intent to cause immediate harm. C. not recover, because Paul had failed to use a loaded weapon. D. not recover, because Dylan was not aware of Paul's conduct at the time of the threat to her life. "
D
If Paul sues Dale for battery, which of the following would provide the best defense for Dale? ***OPTIONS*** A. Dale did not know that he was grabbing and throwing a person. B. Dale thought Paul was about to attack him. C. Dale was suffering from a mental illness. D. Dale did not intend to hurt Paul. "
A
If Dusty brings an action for assault against Penn, Dusty will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because Penn intended to cause Dusty to see Penn shoot Dusty. B. recover, because Penn committed a substantial act with the intent to cause immediate harm. C. not recover, because Penn had failed to use a loaded weapon. D. not recover, because Dusty was not aware of Penn's conduct at the time of the threat to her life. "
D
If Perry brings suit against Doctor to recover for his injuries, Perry will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, if Doctor could have helped Perry by offering basic emergency medical care. B. recover, if Doctor knew or should have realized that the restaurant employee was not properly performing the anti-choking technique. C. not recover, because the risk of liability from offering assistance to a stranger outweighs the likelihood of successfully assisting a stranger to avoid injury. D. not recover, because Perry cannot prove that his injury was caused by any negligent affirmative act of Doctor's part. "
D
If Pete is awarded a $10,000 judgment and Grocer pays the entire judgment to Pete, how much may Grocer recover in an indemnity action against Fred? ***OPTIONS*** A. 10000 B. 5000 C. Nothing, because an employer is liable for the acts of employees acting within the course and scope of their employment. D. Nothing, because both parties were judged to be liable to Pete. "
A
In this action Plastered will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, as an airline employee, Pilot owed Plastered a duty to use reasonable care to make sure Plastered exited the plane in a safe manner. B. recover, because Pilot used force to eject Plastered from the plane. C. not recover, because Plastered was voluntarily intoxicated. D. not recover, unless Pilot used excessive force in ejecting Plastered from the plane. "
D
If Polly brings an action against Denise for battery, Polly will ***OPTIONS*** A. not recover, by continuing to play as the level of physical contact increased, Polly has given consent. B. not recover, unless Denise intentionally tried to trip Polly using force in excess of that which Polly and the other players consented to. C. recover, if Denise intended to trip Polly. D. recover, if Denise intended Polly to suffer a harmful and offensive touching. "
B
Will Purch prevail in this lawsuit? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if neither StoreCo nor Paintco warned Purch of the danger. B. Yes, flammable cotton balls are an abnormally dangerous product. C. No, because the cotton balls were not intended to be used in this manner. D. No, unless Storeco had reason to know the cotton balls were treated with a flammable chemical. "
A
If Charles brings an action for assault against Richard, he will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, if Charles reasonably suspected that he was about to be shot. B. recover, because Richard attempted to shoot Charles. C. recover, under the reasoning in choice (A) or (B). D. not recover. "
A
If Horvath brings suit for damages against Roadway based on negligence, Horvath will ***OPTIONS*** A. not prevail, because Horvath could have easily moved to another seat or left the ""Club Car."" B. not prevail, because Belicose acted in a spontaneous and unpredictable manner. C. not prevail, because as a common carrier, Roadway is strictly liable for the safety of its passengers. D. prevail, if a Roadway employee working in the ""Club Car"" should have recognized that Belicose was a danger to other passengers and should have acted to protect Horvath before the injury occurred. "
D
If Horvath brings suit for damages against Roadway based on battery, Horvath will ***OPTIONS*** A. not prevail because Belicose was not an agent or employee of Roadway. B. not prevail, because Horvath assumed the risk of injury by choosing to continue sitting next to Belicose, an obviously intoxicated person. C. not prevail, if a reasonable person sitting next to Belicose would have realized the danger and moved to avoid being injured. D. prevail, if a Roadway employee continued serving alcoholic beverages to Belicose in reckless disregard for the risk of possible injury Belicose might inflict on another passenger. "
A
Rob is liable for: ***OPTIONS*** A. No intentional tort, because Rob had no intent to permanently deprive Joe of the Mustang. B. Trespass to chattel, because Rob had no intent to permanently deprive Joe of the Mustang. C. Trespass to chattel, because Rob interfered with Joe's possession of the Mustang. D. Conversion, because Rob either substantially interfered with Joe's possession of the Mustang, or completely deprived Joe of possession of the Mustang. "
D
If Phil brings an action based on strict liability against Dealer to recover for injuries he sustained in the accident, Phil will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, but only if he can prove that Dealer negligently failed to discover the defect. B. recover, because the car was defective when sold to Sam. C. not recover, because Dealer had no duty to warn Phil -- a party with whom they had no privity of contract. D. not recover, because Sam's failure to warn Phil was an independent superseding cause of the harm. "
B
Will Dave recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, unless a reasonable person would have determined that Sam was joking. B. Yes, for false imprisonment and battery. C. Yes, for false imprisonment. D. No, because Sam did not intend Dave any harm. "
C
If Shopper brings an action against Grocer to recover for her injuries, Shopper will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because the forklift was a dangerous condition and Shopper was a public invitee. B. recover, if the employee should have reasonably determined that Shopper did not see the forklift. C. not recover, because Shopper was a trespasser. D. not recover, because Shopper assumed the risk of her injury when she continued after reading the posted sign. "
B
If Shopper prevails, it will most likely be because ***OPTIONS*** A. Tommy ran off before entering the commercial building. B. Tommy was committing a crime. C. Shopper did not use force to compel Tommy to follow him. D. Tommy did not reasonably believe that force might be used if he tried to escape. "
D
If Felon brings an action for assault against Civic, he will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, if Felon reasonably suspected that he was about to be shot. B. recover, because Civic attempted to shoot Felon. C. recover, under the reasoning in choice (A) or (B). D. not recover "
A
If Stranger brings suit against the members of the Xenophobia Town Council, will Stranger recover damages? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if Stranger suffered severe emotional distress. B. Yes, because the letter suggested that Stranger would suffer physical injury. C. No, because Stranger did not suffer any physical injury. D. No, if the members of the Xenophobia Town Council were acting in the overall best interests of the community. "
A
In this action, Patty will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, because the bicycle was dangerously defective. B. prevail, because Club employees failed to warn Patty or correct a dangerous defect. C. not prevail, if Patty could have reasonably determined that the handlebars were loose. D. not prevail, Club is not a commercial supplier of exercise equipment."
D
If one of the homeowners brings a suit for damages based on the above facts, will the homeowner prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Club 2000 is not responsible for the conduct of customers once they have left its property. B. No, because the homeowner has suffered pure economic loss. C. Yes, because Club 2000 had notice of the disturbance. D. Yes, because the Club 2000 has substantially and unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of plaintiff's property. "
D
Will Pat prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, there was no physical intrusion by Dave onto Pat's land. B. No, if the noise generated by the heater is not unreasonable. C. Yes, because Pat suffered from sleeplessness and ill health as a consequence of Dave's conduct. D. Yes, because Dave was aware of the interference and made no effort to minimize it. "
B
If a lawsuit is brought on Paul's behalf against Drew, Paul will ***OPTIONS*** A. not prevail, because Paul had not seen the skateboard ramp assembled and operating previously and so he was not attracted to Drew's house because of it. B. not prevail, because Paul did not obtain permission from Drew before entering Drew's property. C. not prevail, if Paul did not act reasonably as measured by that of a child of similar age, intelligence and experience. D. not prevail, if the children likely to be attracted to the skateboard ramp would normally realize the risks of using the ramp without wearing protective equipment. "
D
One such resident is Pell. Pell brought an action against SmokeCo seeking damages for public nuisance. Will Pell be successful in this action? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if SmokeCo's operations substantially and unreasonably interfere with Pell's use and enjoyment of his home. B. Yes, if Pell also suffered some other injury distinct from the other residents and businesses in Pleasanton. C. No, there was no physical intrusion onto Pell's property by SmokeCo. D. No, because SmokeCo used the state of the art equipment to minimize the amount of pollution released. "
B
Assume for purposes of this question only that Pell has a 10-year-old son who suffers from a medical condition that makes it difficult for him to breathe if there are substantial pollutants in the air. Other residents of Pleasanton who suffer from bronchitis or asthma suffer some mild discomfort as a result of SmokeCo's operations, but none suffer as much as Pell's son because his medical condition is aggravated by the pollutants and he frequently must gasp for breath while playing outdoors or walking to school when SmokeCo's refinery is operating. If Pell brings an action against SmokeCo for nuisance on behalf of his son, Pell will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, because the defendant must take the victim as it finds him. B. prevail, and recover for the aggravation of Pell's son's condition. C. not prevail, because SmokeCo used state-of-the art equipment to minimize the pollution. D. not prevail, because the injury to Pell's son results from the son's special sensitivity. "
B
Hall was a casual acquaintance whom Walker had met at the Marina. Hall would infrequently ask Walker to accompany him on a cruise around the bay in a cabin cruiser. On one such trip, Walker remarked that since Hall used the boat so seldom, he should sell it, and gave Hall the name and phone number of a prospective buyer. Hall sold the boat to the buyer for cash, and then disappeared. Unknown to Walker, Hall had merely been using the cabin cruiser with the true owner's permission. If Walker is charged with aiding and abetting Hall in committing the crime of embezzlement of the cabin cruiser, which of the following verdicts should the jury properly return? ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, because he believed that Hall was the owner of the cabin cruiser. B. Not guilty, because his acts were not a legal cause of the crime. C. Not guilty, because he was not present when the crime occurred and thus cannot be a principal in the second degree. D. Guilty, because he counseled and assisted Hall, and his mistake of fact regarding the true ownership of the boat is no defense.
A
Dooley was prosecuted for the felony-murder of Rostov. He should be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. Guilty, because Dooley is strictly liable for any death which occurs in the commission of the underlying felony. B. Guilty, because Rostov's death occurred while Dooley was still making good his escape from the scene of the felony. C. Not guilty, because the burglary was complete as soon as Dooley broke and entered the store with intent to steal jewelry therein. D. Not guilty, because Dooley's actions were not a proximate cause of Rostov's death. "
D
If Dudley asserts the defense of entrapment on the charge of theft of the Buick, he will likely: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not prevail, because he was already predisposed to steal autos when Under approached him. B. Not prevail, because he had previously been convicted of auto theft. C. Prevail, because Under instigated the theft of the Buick by Dudley. D. Prevail, because Dudley would never have stolen the Buick unless Under had pretended to be from Manchester, U.K. and had cultivated Dudley's friendship. "
A
Under which of the following circumstances is the defense of necessity most likely to succeed? ***OPTIONS*** A. Defendant and Victim were painters for the Golden Gate Bridge. While Victim was moving past Defendant from one spot high on the north tower to another, having negligently unhooked his safety line, a powerful earthquake struck. Victim was just able to hook his safety line to Defendant's safety harness before the violent shaking of the bridge threw them both off into the air. Defendant, hanging by his safety line, felt the added weight of Victim begin to tear his safety harness, which if completely ruptured would send both into the waters of the Golden Gate far below. In order to prevent his harness from completely separating, Defendant unhooked Victim's safety line, sending Victim to his death. B. Defendant's husband, Victim, suffering from an excruciating form of terminal cancer which robbed him of control over his body and caused continual, untreatable pain, begged her to end his life. Defendant turned off all of the medical support equipment which maintained Victim's life, and after a few minutes he died. C. Defendant, Victim and Other managed to reach an inflatable lifeboat after the oil tanker on which they crewed was lost in a severe storm. When the weather cleared, they discovered they had been blown off the shipping lanes and could not expect immediate rescue. The lifeboat contained just enough water to supply the minimum drinking needs of three people for four days, or two people for six days. Defendant seized the water and divided it between himself and Other, giving ­Victim none. Victim died after three days without water. Defendant and Other were rescued by a cruise liner at the end of their eighth day at sea, suffering badly from two days without water. D. Because he was intoxicated, Defendant ignored warning signs posted on buoys and steered his motorboat into an area being used for water ski races. Boats towing skiers zoomed towards Defendant, and the only way he could avoid a collision that would probably kill or seriously injure several racers, as well as the three guests in his boat, was to turn the wheel hard to starboard and run over Victim's small skiff in the spectator area. Victim died as a result of being run over by Defendant's boat.
A
Elsie owned a restaurant on a small island in the harbor at Seaport. The only way customers could get to her restaurant was by boat. Some customers came by water taxi, and some regulars used their own boats, but most were transported from the mainland to the island by one of Elsie's three motorboats. Each of the motorboats was assigned to a pilot, and each pilot was permitted to use the boat to sail home after ferrying the last of the customers and employees to the mainland at the end of the day. One morning, Delbert, one of the motorboat pilots, failed to report for work with his boat. He was subsequently arrested when a boat dealer to whom he had offered Elsie's boat for sale recognized the restaurant service mark and called the police. The jurisdiction has not altered the common law theft crimes by statute. If Delbert is charged with larceny of the boat, which of the following is his best defense? ***OPTIONS*** A. Delbert intended to use the proceeds of the sale of the boat to finance a drug deal which would, if successful, result in huge profits, a portion of which he would then use to repurchase the boat and return it to Elsie. B. Any customers who wished to eat at Elsie's were ferried to the restaurant by the other two boats that day. C. The motorboat pilots were considered low level employees who were permitted to use the boats only for ferrying customers and for commuting to and from the job. D. The motorboat pilots were considered supervisory employees with discretion to use the boats for personal errands and tasks other than ferrying customers.
D
Which of the following is Duke's strongest defense to a charge of involuntary manslaughter as a result of Jimmy's death? ***OPTIONS*** A. Jimmy assumed the risk by trespassing on Duke's property at night. B. Duke's actions that night did not constitute criminal negligence. C. Jimmy's death did not result from a volitional act by Duke. D. Duke was privileged to kill in defense of his home. "
B
Alvarez was a partner in an accounting firm and major stockholder of a company which sold equipment to integrated circuit manufacturers. Alvarez's equipment firm needed additional research and development funds, and so issued additional stock for sale to the public. In response to an inquiry from a prospective purchaser, Alvarez prepared a financial statement detailing his corporation's financial status. The actual data included in the financial statement was accumulated and organized by a junior member of Alvarez' accounting firm. Although Alvarez believed the information contained therein to be true, he did not personally verify its accuracy, and the actual report contained several materially false assertions of fact regarding the financial soundness and profitability of the equipment corporation. The financial report was mailed to the prospective purchaser but was destroyed when the mail truck carrying it for delivery collided with a gasoline tanker truck and was entirely destroyed by fire. The common law crime of obtaining money by false pretenses had a few years ago been statutorily modified in this jurisdiction and the court of last resort has recently issued a ruling, after Alvarez had mailed the financial statement, that the effect of the statutory modification was to render reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of a statement of fact equivalent to intentionally making a false statement of fact. If Alvarez is prosecuted for attempting to obtain money by false pretenses in connection with the sale of stock to the prospective purchaser, his best defense is: ***OPTIONS*** A. That there was insufficient proximity to success. B. That he was operating under a mistake of law. C. That he lacked the requisite mental state. D. The doctrine of impossibility.
C
If Sam is prosecuted for the criminal homicide of Murphy, the jury should find him: ***OPTIONS*** A. Guilty, because he violated the general duty to come to the aid of another person in peril. B. Guilty, because his aborted rescue attempt left Murphy in a worse position than before he acted. C. Not guilty, because he had no legal duty to aid Murphy. D. Not guilty, because he had no intent to harm Murphy. "
B
Assuming that in the jurisdiction it is a crime to steal money by electronic means, at what point in the above facts could Lou be properly convicted of conspiracy to commit such electronic theft? ***OPTIONS*** A. When Garcia proposed the criminal scheme to him. B. When he gave the $20,000 to Garcia. C. Never, because he never agreed to participate in the electronic thefts. D. Never, because no electronic theft ever occurred. "
B
Shortly after midnight, Dexter forced open the skylight of an expensive suburban residence in order to steal jewelry the occupants were reputed to have. When he had searched the entire house, he discovered that the residents had taken their jewelry on vacation with them. Dexter then noticed that a built-in security system installed by the owners had filmed him as he moved about the house. Dexter positioned a wooden bookcase under the camera, stacked some newspapers on it, set the papers afire, and then left the premises. By the time the fire department arrived and doused the flames, summoned by the house's security system, the bookcase was burned to cinders and the wall and ceiling near the security camera were charred and peeling. The camera and its film were unharmed, and Dexter was subsequently apprehended and charged with common law burglary and arson. What should the jury's verdict be? ***OPTIONS*** A. Dexter is guilty of burglary but not arson. B. Dexter is guilty of arson but not burglary. C. Dexter is guilty of both burglary and arson. D. Dexter is not guilty of either of the charged crimes.
C
Which of the following crimes, if any, has Dan committed? ***OPTIONS*** A. Larceny. B. Larceny by trick. C. False pretenses. D. Dan is guilty of none of the above crimes. "
D
Which of the following most accurately states the criminal liability of Dane and Fred? ***OPTIONS*** A. Dane is guilty of battery as a principal in the first degree, and Fred is guilty of battery as an accomplice. B. Fred is guilty of battery as a principal in the first degree, and Dane is guilty of battery as an accomplice. C. Both Dane and Fred are guilty of battery as principals in the first degree. D. Fred is guilty of battery as a principal in the first degree, and Dane is not liable for battery. "
D
What crimes, if any, would Dan be guilty of? ***OPTIONS*** A. Receiving stolen property. B. Conspiracy to receive stolen property. C. Attempted receipt of stolen property, but not receipt of stolen property. D. Attempted false pretenses. "
C
If Dan asserts the defense of entrapment, the court should rule that ***OPTIONS*** A. Officer Smart's conduct amounted to entrapment because he used his own property to entice Dan into committing the crime. B. Officer Smart's conduct amounted to entrapment because he used a paid informant, Snitch, who was not a member of the State X police department. C. Officer Smart's conduct amounted to entrapment because he supplied the essential ingredient necessary for the crime to occur and no crime would have occurred but for Smart's conduct. D. Officer Smart's conduct did not amount to entrapment because Dan's conduct demonstrates that he had a preexisting intent to purchase stolen property and Smart's conduct merely provided Dan with the opportunity to commit the crime. "
D
III. Attempted false pretenses. ***OPTIONS*** A. I and II only. B. I and III only. C. II only. D. III only. "
D
If Sam is charged with the crime of solicitation, the jury would most likely find him ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because the crime of solicitation was complete once Sam asked Chris to allow him to hide in the garage. B. guilty, because Sam did hide in Chris' garage. C. not guilty, because Chris never seriously considered Sam's offer. D. not guilty, because Chris originally refused to let Sam hide in his garage. "
A
Chris can be convicted of ***OPTIONS*** A. being an accessory after the fact. B. being an accessory before the fact. C. aiding and abetting Sam. D. being a principal in the second degree. "
A
If Sam is later arrested, can he be convicted of robbery? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because he broke into the machines to obtain the money. B. Yes, because a customer was present and was placed in fear because Sam used force to obtain the money. C. No, because Sam did not commit all the elements of the lesser included crime of larceny. D. No, because the owner of the laundromat was not present when Sam took the money. "
D
If Tom is arrested and charged with burglary in connection with the break-in at Marcus' house, his best defense will be to argue that ***OPTIONS*** A. he and Marcus were partners in crime, having both participated in stealing the jewelry in the first place. B. he lacked the requisite intent to commit burglary because he honestly believed that under the terms of their plan, the ring he took represented his fair compensation for participating in the crime. C. he was so angry at Marcus for cheating him that he was acting in the heat of passion. D. he honestly believed that since the ring actually belonged to the jewelry store, it was not a crime to take it from Marcus. "
B
If Grant is prosecuted for arson of Craig's house, he should be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because Craig's home was burned during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony. B. guilty, because the ceiling was blackened by the smoke from the burning lighter fluid. C. not guilty, because there was insufficient damage to the structure of the house. D. not guilty, because Grant did not have the specific intent to burn down the house. "
C
If Attorney is prosecuted for a theft offense, she should be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, since Business received all the funds it was due from the collection action against Customer. B. Guilty of larceny, because Attorney intended to convert the funds collected from Customer even before they were actually collected. C. Guilty of obtaining property by false pretenses against Customer, because Attorney intended to convert the funds collected from Customer even before they were actually collected. D. Guilty of embezzlement, because Attorney converted Business' money to her own use. "
D
III. If Violet survived, Danny is guilty of attempted murder ***OPTIONS*** A. I only. B. I and III only. C. II and III only. D. I, II and III. "
D
The court should find for: ***OPTIONS*** A. Neil, because this was a contract for specifically produced goods and the agreement was oral. B. Wendy, because the cost per costume was less than $500, and so the contract did not need to be written. C. Neil, because it was a contract for goods in excess of $500 and the agreement was only oral. D. Wendy, because although the contract was oral, it was enforceable as Wendy had made a substantial start on the work. "
D
Which of the following best explains a victory for Gig in Honey's action? ***OPTIONS*** A. Gig can successfully raise the defense of laches to Mrs. Honey's action. B. The effect of the transaction among Gig, Lois and Mrs. Honey was an attornment. C. The agreement between Gig and Lois had the effect of a novation between Gig and Mrs. Honey. D. The agreement between Gig and Lois had the effect of an accord and satisfaction between Gig and Mrs. Honey. "
C
For this question only, assume that when Arrogant learned of the assignment, Arrogant refused to allow Wimpy to perform and brought an action against Handsome to compel him to resume and complete performance of the contract. Should the court award Arrogant this relief? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Handsome's services under the contract are unique. B. Yes, because Handsome has personally completed approximately one-half of the contract. C. No, because the Handsome-Arrogant contract is one for personal services by Handsome. D. No, because Handsome effectively delegated his remaining duties under the Handsome-Arrogant contract to Wimpy. "
C
III. Wimpy is liable to Arrogant. ***OPTIONS*** A. I and III only. B. II and III only. C. I, II, and III. D. I and II only. "
B
Assuming that the following statements are true, which would be Client's best defense if Vendor sues Client if Client refuses to pay Vendor the $500? ***OPTIONS*** A. A On Monday, Attorney had promised Client that he would not assign the contract. B. Vendor was incapable of performing Attorney's work. C. Attorney had not performed her work in a reasonably competent manner. D. Vendor was not the intended beneficiary of the Client-Attorney contract. "
C
***OPTIONS*** A. Prancer was never very strong in competitive endeavors of any kind. B. C. Prancer was persuaded by his wife to sign up for the dance instruction. D. The written contract for dance instruction signed by Prancer expressly excluded any prior oral representations. "
B
any of Polly's office telephone conversations was actually listened to by Dee C. the substance of any of Polly's office telephone conversations was communicated by Dee to anyone else. D. Polly was actually fired because of anything said during her office telephone conversations. "
A
If Star brings an action based on invasion of privacy against the NBO, will Star succeed? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because the NBO used Star's picture without Star's consent for financial gain. B. Yes, because Shutterbug took Star's picture without Star's permission. C. No, because NBO is a media defendant. D. No, because Star is a public figure and the picture was taken while Star was standing in a public place. "
A
If Star brings an action based on defamation against the NBO, will Star prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because the photograph was printed in a magazine such that it was sufficiently permanent to constitute libel. B. Yes, if the NBO acted recklessly when it published the photograph without verifying whether Star had given consent. C. No, because NBO is a media defendant. D. No, because Star is a public figure. "
B
Assuming that the statement is false, will Phil prevail if Phil asserts a defamation action against Dil? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if Dil intended to cause Phil to suffer emotional distress. B. Yes, if Dil should have foreseen that his statement would be heard by another person. C. No, because Phil did not suffer any pecuniary losses. D. No, because Dil made the statement to Phil and not Bill. "
B
Martin was frightened and humiliated by the experience and brings an action against Darryl for damages. Should Martin recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Darryl committed battery and false imprisonment. B. Yes, unless a reasonable person would have realized that Darryl was not a deputy sheriff at the time he pulled Martin over. C. No, because Darryl did not physically harm Martin. D. No, unless Darryl intended to inflict emotional distress. "
A
Melanie sues Albert for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Should she prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, unless the purpose of Albert's action was to inflict emotional distress. B. No, if Melanie did not suffer severe emotional distress. C. Yes, if Albert's conduct was extreme and outrageous. D. Yes, because Melanie was horrified and outraged by Albert's conduct. "
B
If Peter brings suit against Rob for damages, should he recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Rob did not intend to keep Peter's racquet permanently. B. No, because Rob did not foresee that the racquet would be damaged. C. Yes, the fair market value of the racquet at the time Rob wrongfully detained it. D. Yes, the actual damages."
C
At the concert, Prudence is having a great time until a particularly powerful wave slams her into Dan, who is standing directly to her left. Dan turns and forcefully elbows Prudence in the stomach, knocking the wind out of her. Prudence brings an action for battery against Dan. Will she prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if Dan intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another. B. Yes, if Dan intentionally used force which exceeded the consent of Prudence and the other crowd members. C. No, because a reasonable person would infer that Prudence implicitly consented to the defendant's act. D. No, unless Prudence can prove actual damages. "
B
IV. Since Herman was hit only by a baseball thrown by Ty, Ty did not make direct contact with Herman. ***OPTIONS*** A. I and III B. II and IV C. IV only D. None of the above "
D
Every year during the winter months, Noah has a drainage problem on his property. This year more rain has fallen during the winter months than usual. The last time a comparable amount of rain fell, Noah's home sustained substantial damage due to flooding. Among other things, Noah had to replace all the carpeting in his house and refinish the hard wood flooring in some of the rooms. This year, in order to prevent his house from being flooded, Noah placed sand bags in several strategic locations on his property. So far, the sand bags have worked like a charm. Noah has not had any flooding problems in his house. Unfortunately, the water diverted by Noah's sand bags has collected in the backyard of Patricia, Noah's next-door neighbor. The water has flooded and damaged the roots of several of Patricia's prize rose bushes. If Patricia sues Noah for the damage to her rose bushes, she will: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not recover, because the water was a natural force. B. Not recover, because Noah may assert necessity as an absolute defense. C. Recover, but only nominal damages, because Noah has a qualified defense. D. Recover, because, although the invasion was necessary, Noah acted for his own benefit.
D
If Motorist sues Ruby for his injuries, will he recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because his rescue of Ruby was successful. B. Yes, because Ruby put herself in danger through her unsafe conduct. C. No, because Ruby did not intend to harm anyone. D. No, because Motorist was not a foreseeable plaintiff. "
B
At trial, after the passenger presents his case, Duncan Airways presents the following evidence: (1) the maintenance technicians employed by Duncan are well-trained and experienced, (2) the plane which crashed was less than five years old, (3) planes of the same model are known to have very good safety records if properly maintained and (4) the maintenance technicians inspected the plane on a regular basis and followed systemized maintenance procedures. Duncan Airways then moves for a directed verdict. Should the court grant Duncan's motion? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because the occurrence of the injury creates a presumption of negligence. B. No, because the jury could reasonably infer that Duncan Airways was negligent. C. Yes, because the passenger was not able to present direct evidence of negligence. D. Yes, because the evidence presented by Duncan Airways establishes, as a matter of law, that due care was exercised. "
B
Which of the following is the best description of Kate's legal status? ***OPTIONS*** A. Invitee B. Licensee C. Social guest D. Trespasser "
D
Of the following statements, which best describes the duty of care that Frieda owed to Kate? ***OPTIONS*** A. Frieda owed Kate an absolute duty of care. B. Frieda had a duty to inspect the premises for nonobvious, unknown dangers and warn Kate or make the premises safe. C. Frieda had a duty to warn of any known, nonobvious dangers on the premises. D. Frieda owed Kate no duty of care. "
C
For the purposes of this question only, assume that Traci fell and broke her arm when she slipped on the puddle of water. If Traci brings a personal injury suit against Frieda, she will most likely: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not prevail, because Frieda had no duty to inspect the premises to discover unknown, dangerous conditions. B. ot prevail, unless Frieda failed to conduct a reasonable inspection of the premises. C. Prevail, because Frieda had an absolute duty to ensure that the premises were free of dangerous conditions. D. Prevail, only if Frieda had prior knowledge of the dangerous condition of the restroom floor. "
B
What should be the outcome of Trixie's prosecution? ***OPTIONS*** A. A conviction, because the statute defines a public welfare offense. B. A conviction, because Trixie was responsible for knowing the alcohol content of any food she brought into the prison. C. An acquittal, if Trixie's testimony is believed. D. An acquittal, because the statute does not provide adequate warning of exactly what behavior is prohibited. "
C
Based on these facts, Merton could be convicted of: ***OPTIONS*** A. No crime. B. Embezzlement. C. Attempted larceny. D. Larceny. "
B
If the jury believes Skimpy's testimony, the most serious criminal homicide they can properly find him guilty of committing is: ***OPTIONS*** A. Negligent homicide. B. Involuntary manslaughter. C. Voluntary manslaughter. D. Murder. "
D
Is Dillinger guilty of any crime with regard to the burglary? ***OPTIONS*** A. He is guilty of both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary, as an accessory before the fact. B. He is guilty of conspiracy to commit burglary, but not as an accessory before the fact of the burglary itself. C. He is guilty of the burglary as an accessory before the fact, but not of conspiracy to commit burglary. D. He is guilty of no crime with regard to the burglary. "
A
If prosecuted for the criminal homicide of the husband, Daphne should be found guilty of: ***OPTIONS*** A. First degree murder, since she willfully, deliberately and with premeditation killed the victim. B. First degree murder, since the homicide occurred during perpetration of a felony. C. Second degree murder, since the circumstances show that she acted with an abandoned and malignant heart. D. Involuntary manslaughter, since she did not intend to kill anyone. "
D
If prosecuted in connection with these events, the most serious crime Stu could properly be convicted of is: ***OPTIONS*** A. Robbery, because he obtained Gil's property by threat of force. B. Larceny, because the threat of force was not directed at Gil, whose property was taken. C. Larceny, because Bobby was not a relative of Gil. D. Assault on Bobby, because there was no concurrence of mens rea and actus reus as to a larceny or robbery of Gil. "
A
Clay, who was wearing body armor, was not seriously injured by Marks' shots. Marks was convicted of attempted murder of Clay, among other charges. If Jacobs is charged with attempted murder, he should be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, because the conspiracy had terminated upon Marks' arrest, and thus Jacobs could no longer be vicariously liable for Marks' acts. B. Not guilty, because Marks acted outside the scope of the conspiracy when he shot Clay. C. because he is criminally liable for any crime committed by his co-conspirator, Marks. D. Guilty, because he knew Marks was armed and might attempt to evade arrest by use of the pistol. "
D
In a jurisdiction which defines crimes according to the common law, of what crimes could Dan properly be convicted? ***OPTIONS*** A. Arson only. B. Burglary only. C. Attempted arson and burglary. D. D Arson and burglary. "
D
If Hunter testified truthfully, what should be the outcome of this litigation? ***OPTIONS*** A. Hunter should be convicted, because the statute defines a public welfare offense. B. Hunter should be convicted, if a reasonable person would have known that newspaper was recyclable. C. Hunter should be acquitted, because the Due Process Clause of the federal Constitution precludes criminally punishing an individual merely for lack of knowledge. D. Hunter should be acquitted, because he did not possess the requisite mental state to support a conviction. "
D
No other testimony was offered. Based on the evidence adduced, on which of the following charges could Ed properly be convicted? ***OPTIONS*** A. False imprisonment only. B. Kidnapping only. C. Either false imprisonment or kidnapping. D. Both false imprisonment and kidnapping. "
C
Assuming that Doctor owed a duty to Patient to adequately disclose the risks of the surgery, should Patient prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Doctor breached his duty when he failed to inform Patient of the risk to her optic nerve. B. Yes, but only if Doctor intentionally withheld the information from Patient. C. No, if the benefits of the surgery outweighed the risk. D. No, unless a reasonable person in Patient's position would probably not have consented to the surgery if informed of the risk. "
D
Pip sues Chip and Skip for his injury. Will Pip be able to recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because he cannot establish whose conduct was the cause in fact of his injury. B. No, unless Pip can show that either Chip's conduct or Skip's conduct was a substantial factor in causing his injury. C. Yes, if Pip presents sufficient evidence to cause the burden of proof to be shifted to Chip and Skip. D. Yes, but only if responsibility for Pip's injury can be apportioned between Chip and Skip. "
C
While Hans waits for Frank to return, a large branch of a nearby tree snaps under the weight of the heavy, new snow. The branch falls and hits Hans, causing Hans to break his collar-bone and left arm. If Hans sues Frank for these injuries, Frank's best defense would be: ***OPTIONS*** A. That he was not negligent. B. hat Hans was negligent in standing near a tree with snow-laden branches. C. That the falling tree branch was an intervening and superseding force. D. That his negligent conduct was not the actual cause of Hans's injuries."
C
Will Violet recover from Dale? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Dale did not join with Thief in committing the burglary. B. No, unless Dale should have foreseen that his negligence increased the risk that his tools would be stolen and used to commit the burglary. C. Yes, because Thief would not have used the glass cutting tools to commit a crime but for Dale's negligent conduct. D. Yes, unless Thief's conduct was an intervening act. "
B
Shirley sues Mario for damages. For which of her physical injuries will Shirley be able to recover from Mario? ***OPTIONS*** A. For the injuries to her head and to her hip, because Mario's negligent conduct was the cause in fact of Shirley's injuries. B. For the injury to her head only, because the fall was an intervening force. C. For the injury to her head only, because the severity of the harm caused by the fall was unforeseeable. D. For the injuries to her head and to her hip, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. "
A
Will Zilch recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, if it was not the usual practice for manufacturing companies to install safety barriers to prevent people from walking under an overhead track. B. No, if state regulations did not require Whizbang to install a safety barrier to prevent people from walking under the overhead track. C. Yes, if a reasonably prudent manufacturing company would have installed safety barriers to prevent people from walking under the overhead track. D. Yes, unless Zilch was negligent in failing to wear the hard hat. "
C
If Paul sues Darla for his injury, should he prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, unless Darla knew that the iguana had dangerous propensities. B. No, because Paul knew that Darla owned an iguana. C. Yes, because, as owner of the iguana, Darla is strictly liable for Paul's injury. D. Yes, because Darla was negligent in failing to warn Paul that the iguana was loose. "
C
Pam sues David for his injuries. Should Pam recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because no ordinance required Spot to be chained or confined. B. No, because Spot was a domestic animal. C. Yes, because Spot caused Pam's injury. D. Yes, if David knew or had reason to know of Spot's propensity for chasing roller-bladers. "
D
The Landmark Hotel was seriously damaged in a recent tornado. Built nearly 100 years ago, the Landmark is considered a classic example of turn-of-the-century architecture. Substantial portions of the hotel were destroyed in the tornado and the remaining structure is unsalvageable. The owner of the Landmark reluctantly decides to implode the remnants of the building so that he can rebuild on the same site. Lloyd, an architect, hears of the scheduled demolition. He is distraught because he believes that his childhood visits to the Landmark inspired him to become an architect. Lloyd decides that he must be present for the demolition. On the morning of the scheduled implosion, the streets surrounding the hotel have been blocked off. Signs and yellow "caution" tape have been used around the perimeter of the danger zone to prevent people from entering the area. When Lloyd arrives, he reads the signs. He is upset because he can't get close enough to get a good view of the hotel. Just before the hotel is due to implode, Lloyd ducks under the tape and sneaks close to the hotel. During the implosion, Lloyd is hit and injured by a few scraps of debris. In a suit for damages against the owner of the Landmark, will Lloyd recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because no duty is owed to an undiscovered trespasser. B. No, because Lloyd assumed the risk when he ignored the signs and the yellow tape. C. Yes, because there is an absolute duty to make an ultrahazardous activity safe. D. Yes, if the owner of the Landmark could have been more careful.
B
If Sherri sues Shine Inc. for damages, will she recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Sherri suffered only economic loss. B. No, unless Shine Inc. was negligent in designing the Super Buffer. C. Yes, if the Super Buffer was defective when it was sold by Shine Inc. D. Yes, unless Shine Inc. disclaimed all warranties. "
C
Julia brings a product liability action based on strict liability against Super Store. Julia will: ***OPTIONS*** A. Prevail, unless Julia failed to guard against the risk of fire. B. Prevail, if the misuse was reasonably foreseeable and neither Hang Ups Inc. nor Super Store adequately warned of the danger of fire. C. Not prevail, because Super Store did not manufacture the clothes hangers. D. Not prevail, because Julia was misusing the hanger. "
B
During the week following this class, Woody decides to do some furniture refinishing work at home with the Rem Inc. paint and varnish remover. He does not take the precautions recommended by his instructor. Overcome by vapors, he stops breathing. Although he is rushed to the hospital, he suffers irreversible brain damage from oxygen deprivation. Woody sues Rem Inc. for damages. The relevant jurisdiction has no comparative fault statute. Should Woody prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, unless Woody was contributorily negligent. B. Yes, unless Rem Inc. provided a warning on the cans in which its paint and varnish remover was sold. C. No, because Woody voluntarily and unreasonably assumed a known risk. D. No, because Woody was not using the remover for commercial purposes. "
C
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of larceny? ***OPTIONS*** A. Believing that the rule "finders-keepers, losers-weepers" governed ownership of lost or misplaced property, Defendant saw a valuable stamp fall out of the victim's briefcase, waited until the victim had walked out of sight, and then picked up the stamp, intending to sell it and keep the proceeds. B. Defendant and the victim both owned identical single lens reflex cameras. Believing that the victim had negligently caused his (Defendant's) camera to be dropped and damaged beyond repair, Defendant entered the victim's recreational vehicle and took the victim's camera therefrom, intending it to be compensation for the destruction of his (Defendant's) camera. C. Unreasonably mistaking the victim's Rolex for his Timex wristwatch, Defendant put the Rolex on his wrist after getting out of the health club shower and left the club. D. Defendant took the victim's bicycle from a rack outside a classroom, intending to return it after using it to get to an examination on the other side of campus. When the exam was over, Defendant discovered that someone else had stolen the bicycle from the rack where he (Defendant) had parked it.
A
Lanny was arrested and charged with attempted murder. He should be: ***OPTIONS*** A. Acquitted, if he did not intend to kill the pedestrian. B. Acquitted, because he had not gone far enough in his actions to constitute an attempt. C. Convicted, because a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his act. D. Convicted, because intent to inflict serious bodily harm is presumed from Lanny's reckless conduct. "
A
If Thatcher is prosecuted for robbery, what should the result be? ***OPTIONS*** A. She should be convicted of robbing Salt, because she took Salt's property from him by threat of force. B. She should be convicted of robbing Pepper, because the taking of Salt's property is considered as taking from Pepper's "person or presence." C. She should be found not guilty, because she did not threaten Salt, whose property she took, and did not take property from Pepper, whom she threatened. D. She should be found not guilty, because she had no gun or other weapon with which to effectuate her threat of force. "
A
At Kimberly's trial for the murder of Judith, Kimberly should be found guilty of: ***OPTIONS*** A. No crime, because Kimberly was justified in killing Judith, whom she reasonably believed was about to kill her. B. No crime, because Kimberly was excused in killing Judith, whom she reasonably believed was about to kill her. C. Voluntary manslaughter, because Kimberly unreasonably but in good faith believed that Judith was about to kill her. D. Murder, because the bitterness between the candidates demonstrates that Kimberly killed Judith with malice aforethought. "
C
Larkin was prosecuted for violation of a state statute which defines as a felony "the taking or accepting of any property, money or services by a state driver's license examiner from or on behalf of an examinee being tested for driving proficiency." Testimony at trial established that Larkin was taking his driving test from Kemp, a state driver's license examiner, when he offered Kemp $1,000 if Kemp would overlook an illegal lane change Larkin had just made (and which would disqualify him from obtaining a driver's license). Kemp accepted the $1,000, and was subsequently convicted of violating the same statute for which Larkin was being prosecuted as an aider and abettor. Larkin's best argument for a dismissal of the charge against him is that: ***OPTIONS*** A. Only a driver's license examiner can commit the crime defined by the subject statute. B. He cannot be convicted of committing a crime as to which he is the victim. C. The statute is so defined as to indicate that the legislature intended only the recipient of the property, money or services to be punished. D. He did not assist Kemp in violating the subject statute.
C
In which of the following cases is a conviction of the named defendant for robbery LEAST likely to be upheld? ***OPTIONS*** A. As the victim and her child were about to enter their car in the shopping mall parking lot, Kellogg seized the child and held a knife to her throat, and ordered the victim to give him the keys to her car, a Ferrari Testarossa. Kellogg then entered the car and drove it away. B. Weasel watched as the victim and another man engaged in a knife fight. The victim was stabbed and fell to the ground while the other man ran away. Weasel went to the victim, who was unconscious, and took his wallet, his watch, and his wedding ring. Removal of the ring revived the victim enough so that he began to call for help. Seeing a couple approaching on the sidewalk, Weasel slugged the victim with a rock to return him to unconsciousness. Weasel then left with the things he had taken. C. Cheeves, butler for the wealthy victim, forced the victim at gunpoint to phone his regular supplier and order a case of extremely expensive wine worth several thousand dollars to be delivered. Cheeves then bound and gagged the victim and rolled him up in an oriental carpet while waiting for the wine to be delivered. When the wine arrived, Cheeves signed the invoice on the victim's behalf and then left with the wine. D. While both were at a bar, Reginald deliberately insulted the victim using particularly offensive racial epithets. Provoked into a confrontation, the victim arose, whereupon Reginald immediately shoved him into the arms of a confederate, who pretended to help the victim up while removing his wallet. Reginald then apologized and blamed his remarks upon intoxication. Reginald and the confederate later split the money and credit cards in the victim's wallet.
B
Which of the following crimes, if any, has Red committed? ***OPTIONS*** A. Murder. B. Voluntary manslaughter. C. Involuntary manslaughter. D. No form of criminal homicide. "
C
If Duff is prosecuted for violation of a federal statute which prohibits willful making of false statements in documents submitted to the SEC, may Duff defend on the grounds that he acted on the advice of his attorney? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because the attorney drew up the reports which contained the false statements. B. Yes, because Duff reasonably and in good faith relied on the advice of his attorney. C. No, because the lawyer knew that the reports contained false statements. D. No, because Duff signed and submitted the reports containing false statements. "
B
Assuming that Defendant testified truthfully in each of the following circumstances, in which is Defendant most likely to be acquitted of the charged offense? ***OPTIONS*** A. Defendant was charged with common law burglary. Defendant testified that he was so intoxicated that he believed the dwelling he broke and entered at midnight for the purpose of stealing anything of value was a closed jewelry store. B. Defendant was charged with manslaughter after he shot and killed the victim. Defendant testified that he had just left a bar and was so intoxicated that when someone yelled, "Help, I've just been raped!" he (Defendant) mistakenly thought that the victim was the rapist, and shot the victim to prevent his escape. In fact the victim was an innocent bystander who was running in pursuit of the real rapist. C. Defendant was charged with murder in connection with the deaths of a family of five when the light airplane he was piloting crashed into their home. Defendant testified that he was so intoxicated while flying the airplane that he lost consciousness and only awakened in the hospital after the crash. D. Defendant was charged with attempted murder of the victim after he shot the victim in the shoulder with a target arrow. Defendant testified that he was so intoxicated he thought that the victim, another archer, was a target in a realistic practice archery range which used silhouettes of animals as targets.
D
Intending to steal Val's electronic equipment and to sell it to a "fence" for cash, Dupont waited until Val and his wife left on vacation, then went to their house after dark, forced open a window at the back and climbed inside. Dupont hurriedly gathered the components of Val's stereo entertainment center, a computer, monitor and keyboard, two cordless phones, and a camcorder and stacked them all outside in Val's driveway, preparing to load them into his (Dupont's) pickup. As Dupont started to load the equipment into his truck, he remorsefully recalled that Val was his brother-in-law and the loss of all the electronic gear would probably make his sister, Val's wife, sad. Dupont decided to return everything. He had all the equipment back in place when a passing police patrol car spotted his truck and the open front door, investigated, and apprehended him. Dupont was subsequently charged with burglary and larceny. He should be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty of either crime. B. Guilty of burglary but not of larceny. C. Guilty of burglary and attempted larceny. D. Guilty of burglary and larceny.
D
If Paulina sues Demetrius for slander, should she prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, unless most customers heard the statement. B. No, unless Demetrius made the statement with intent to defame Paulina. C. Yes, if Demetrius intended that his statement be heard and understood by others. D. Yes, but only if Demetrius knew that the statement was false when he made it. "
c
Will Carol prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if Carol can prove that her reputation was harmed by the response. B. Yes, because Steven's response referred to incest. C. No, because the response to Carol's letter was written as an opinion. D. No, because Carol was not mentioned directly by name in the response. "
A
III. Punitive damages. ***OPTIONS*** A. I only B. II only C. I and II D. I, II and III "
C
In order to prevail, Crystal must prove that: ***OPTIONS*** A. The photograph was false. B. The newspaper recklessly failed to fully investigate what Crystal had been eating. C. She was injured by the publication. D. She was not a public figure. "
B
Sidney and Charlie file suit against Willoughby for invasion of privacy. Sidney and Charlie will probably: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not recover, because Willoughby's sign did not place Sidney and Charlie in a false light. B. Not recover, because Willoughby's sign did not disclose any private information about Sidney and Charlie. C. Recover, if Willoughby's sign intruded on the seclusion of Sidney and Charlie. D. Recover, if Sidney and Charlie are able to prove that Willoughby acted with malice. "
C
Karate School is sued by the appropriate plaintiffs for invasion of privacy. Will the suits be successful? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Karate School did not use professional artists to draw the murals and, therefore, the likeness was not very good. B. No, because Karate School is well-known in the community and has always enjoyed a significant enrollment. C. Yes, because the famous characters in questions never actually wore Karate School's logo. D. Yes, because Karate School increased it's class size after displaying the murals. "
D
Petunia lives in a mixed-use neighborhood. On her street and in the surrounding blocks, there are a variety of commercial businesses and restaurants interspersed among several apartment buildings and a few houses. Many buildings have businesses on the ground floor and apartments on the upper floors. Petunia's apartment is on the second-floor of one of these buildings. The first floor of her building used to contain a bakery. However, the bakery went out of business and was replaced by Daffodil's Dry Cleaners. Petunia happens to be extremely allergic to dry cleaning fluid. In fact, she is unable to have a conversation with anyone wearing dry-cleaned clothing unless they stand at least six feet away from her. Even though Daffodil's Dry Cleaners has an off-site cleaning facility and does not do any actual cleaning on the premises, the fumes from the dry cleaners cause Petunia to have a severe allergic reaction any time she opens the windows in her apartment. Petunia complains to Daffodil and to city officials, but the operation of a dry cleaners is consistent will all zoning requirements. Petunia brings a private nuisance action against Daffodil. Petunia should: ***OPTIONS*** A. Prevail, because the dry cleaning fumes interfere with Petunia's use and enjoyment of property that she possesses. B. Prevail, because Daffodil intentionally continued to operate the dry cleaners even after Petunia complained. C. Not prevail, unless the dry cleaning fumes would offend a person of normal sensibilities in the community. D. Not prevail, because the use of the premises for dry cleaners was consistent with zoning requirements.
C
Should Carrie prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Carrie had the opportunity to inspect the property. B. No, because Archie had no duty to disclose. C. Yes, because Archie failed to disclose a hidden material defect. D. Yes, because Archie breached the implied warranty of habitability. "
C
If Daphne knew that the nurse had stolen items from nursing home residents on previous occasions, would she be liable for Polly's damages? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because the nurse was not acting within the scope of her employment. B. No, because an employer is not liable for intentional torts committed by an employee. C. Yes, because, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Daphne is responsible for the actions of her employees. D. Yes, because Daphne was aware that the nurse had stolen items on prior occasions. "
D
Assuming that Daphne did not know that the nurse had stolen items from nursing home residents on prior occasions, should Polly be able to recover damages from Daphne? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because the nurse committed intentional torts. B. No, because, Daphne had no reason to suspect that the nurse would commit the intentional torts. C. Yes, because, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Daphne is responsible for the actions of her employees. D. Yes, because, under strict liability theory, a nursing home is liable for all injuries to residents caused by employees."
B
From whom may Marcy recover the damages she has been awarded? ***OPTIONS*** A. Marcy may recover only $25,000 from each defendant because the defendants concurrently caused Marcy's injury. B. Marcy may recover the entire amount from either defendant because the defendants are jointly and severally liable for Marcy's injury. C. Marcy may not recover the damages from either defendant because there is no rational basis for apportioning the harm suffered by Marcy. D. Marcy may recover the entire amount from Flo, but nothing from Doctor Roe, because the infection would not have occurred but for Flo's negligence. "
B
Percy decides to execute the judgment solely against Dennis. If Dennis satisfies the entire judgment, what may Dennis recover from Alex? ***OPTIONS*** A. Contribution in an amount corresponding to Alex's degree of fault. B. Half of the amount he paid to Percy, since they were jointly and severally liable. C. Indemnity for the entire amount of the judgment, because Alex was an intentional tortfeasor. D. Nothing, because, despite Alex's intervening conduct, Dennis's negligence proximately caused Percy's injuries. "
C
Clare's husband was prosecuted for murder. Upon which of the following, each of which has been adopted as the law of the jurisdiction in which he is being tried, should he rely to insure that he is convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead? ***OPTIONS*** A. The doctrine that an adequate provocation is a factor in mitigation which precludes a finding that the defendant acted with malice in committing an intentional homicide. B. The statutory amendment which specifies that the survivor of a suicide pact is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. C. The doctrine that any emotional stimulus which would cause a reasonable person to engage in homicidal behavior and which actually caused the defendant to so act, is a mitigating factor which precludes a finding that the defendant acted with malice in committing an intentional homicide. D. The Model Penal Code "substantial capacity" standard for legal insanity. "
C
Stan's restaurant had ceased to be profitable when Vivian opened her Country Kitchen Restaurant across the street. Stan projected that he would go bankrupt in three months unless his patronage immediately rose to the levels he had enjoyed prior to the opening of Vivian's restaurant. Stan asked his bookie if he (the bookie) knew anyone who would do a job, no questions asked, for cash, and the bookie said to contact Pierce at a certain bar. Stan went to the bar, met Pierce, and after buying drinks offered Pierce $5,000 to burn down Vivian's restaurant. Pierce, an undercover police officer, immediately arrested Stan. Stan was subsequently charged with solicitation to commit arson. The jurisdiction has not altered the common law by any statute. A properly instructed jury should find Stan: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, because Pierce could not commit arson by performing the requested act. B. Not guilty, because there can be no solicitation when the person solicited is a police officer. C. Guilty, because solicitation is complete whether or not the person solicited actually carries out the crime. D. Guilty, because he offered to pay Pierce to commit arson.
A
Is Finnegan guilty of any crime? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because he took action intended to return the book to its owner. B. No, because there was no trespassory taking of the book. C. Yes, he committed embezzlement when, in rightful possession of the book, he decided to keep it and later sell it for his own account. D. Yes, he committed larceny when he picked up the book intending to keep it and later sell it for his own account. "
D
Sweet was prosecuted for attempting to violate a statute which made it a felony to "enter onto the property of another person for the purpose of committing murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, mayhem, rape or kidnapping." What should be the outcome of this prosecution? ***OPTIONS*** A. Sweet should be found guilty, because the statute is a public safety measure which she violated by arming herself with the shotgun. B. Sweet should be found guilty, because she was stopped by the police just short of completing the charged offense. C. Sweet should be found not guilty, because she cannot be convicted simply of having a "guilty mind." D. Sweet should be found not guilty, because the statute describes an "attempt" offense, and one cannot be convicted of "attempting" an attempt offense."
B
The jurisdiction has modified the common law definition of burglary only to the extent that any building or structure is protected and that the requirement that the crime occur in the "nighttime" has been eliminated. Which of the following would be Mays's strongest defense to a charge that he committed burglary of Rock's Department Store? ***OPTIONS*** A. He renounced his intention to burn the store and was on his way out when apprehended. B. He failed to complete the target crime and can thus be guilty only of attempt. C. He did not possess the requisite intent. D. He entered Rock's Department Store while the public was invited to enter. "
D
***OPTIONS*** A. A reasonable person. B. A reasonable person under the influence of "ice." ( C. A reasonable professional piano player. D. A reasonable professional piano player under the influence of "ice." "
C
On Monday before the Friday he was to leave on an extended fishing vacation, Marion's neighbor Berry asked to borrow his freshwater spin casting tackle box for a Tuesday afternoon fishing trip to the nearby delta. Marion agreed to lend the fishing tackle after Berry promised to return it no later than Thursday evening. When Berry had not returned the tackle box by Thursday at 10:00 p.m., Marion walked over to Berry's house in the dark and rang the doorbell. The house was unlit and silent. Marion jammed a credit card into the door latch mechanism the way he had seen it done on TV and popped open the locked front door. A quick search of the house revealed his tackle box in Berry's den; Marion took the tackle box and left via the front door, which he relocked. Police officers summoned by alert neighbors arrived as Marion stepped off Berry's porch, and arrested him for burglary. A properly instructed jury should find Marion: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, because Marion did not intend to commit a felony when he entered Berry's house. B. Not guilty, because there was no "breaking" involved in the entry to Berry's house. C. Guilty, because Berry had lawfully obtained possession of the tackle box. D. Guilty, because he broke and entered Berry's house at night with intent to carry away the tackle box.
D
Walker was subsequently charged with assault with a deadly weapon. The jury should find him ***OPTIONS*** A. Guilty, unless Camper was related to Walker. B. Guilty, unless the jurisdiction had enacted a statute permitting Walker to behave as he did. C. Not guilty, because deadly force may be used if necessary to save the life of another. D. Not guilty, if the threat of deadly force was reasonably necessary to save Camper's life. "
D
Bell offered to sell Roy a foot-high pyramid constructed of plastic tubing which Bell asserted would sharpen any knife, razorblade or other cutting edge placed inside it. Roy paid the agreed-upon price of $250 for the pyramid and placed his used razors inside. After a month, there was no discernible increase in the used razors' sharpness. Bell was arrested and prosecuted for obtaining property by false pretenses. Which of the following, if true, would NOT provide Bell with a complete defense to the charged crime? ***OPTIONS*** A. Bell was conducting an experiment on the gullibility of the consuming public and intended to return Roy's money at the conclusion of the experiment. B. Roy, an undercover police officer acting only to obtain evidence against Bell, did not believe that the plastic pyramid had any power to sharpen blades. C. Bell unreasonably but in good faith believed that the pyramid would sharpen any edged instrument placed inside it. D. Roy unreasonably but in good faith believed that the pyramid would sharpen any edged instrument placed inside it.
D
Dell could properly be convicted of which of the following crimes in connection with the described events? ***OPTIONS*** A. Arson and burglary. B. Attempted arson and burglary. C. Burglary only. D. No crime. "
A
***OPTIONS*** A. A reasonable person. B. A reasonable person under the influence of "ice." ( C. A reasonable professional piano player. D. A reasonable professional piano player under the influence of "ice." "
C
"A and B owned two adjacent lots. Both parties had begun construction of a house and garage on their lot. Unknown to either party, A's garage, when completed, would encroach onto B's land by three feet. After he had finished construction of the house and garage (which did in fact encroach onto B's land by three feet when completed), A sold the house, garage and lot to Davis. Two weeks later, B discovered that the garage on Davis' property encroached onto B's land. B brought a suit for trespass to land against A.
Will B prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, A is not the owner of the structure which is encroaching on B's land. B. No, unless A had knowledge that his garage was encroaching on B's land during construction. C. Yes, regardless of whether A knew or had reason to know of the encroachment. D. Yes, unless Davis was aware of the encroachment at the time of purchase. "
C
"A law prohibits the holding of sporting events on Sundays, and makes attendance at such events a crime. Recently, the law was amended to permit attendance at amateur football games. Daisy was aware of the law, but unaware that an amendment made an exception for amateur football. Believing that she was committing a crime, she attended an amateur football game on a Sunday, and was arrested by a police officer who was also unaware of the law's recent amendment.
If Daisy is prosecuted for attempting to violate the Sunday law, her most effective argument in defense will be that: ***OPTIONS*** A. she was unaware that the law had been amended. B. her arrest was illegal, rendering any subsequent conviction unconstitutional. C. if she had no reasonable notice of the amendment, her conviction would violate due process of law. D. she cannot be convicted of a crime for having an evil mind. "
D
"A state statute makes it a crime to impair the morals of any person under the age of 18 years. Under the decisional law of the jurisdiction, having sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 18 years is a violation of this statute. Another statute in the same jurisdiction provides that all persons over the age of 16 years are adults for purposes of fixing criminal responsibility. Davis, a female over the age of 18 years, and Vic, a male aged 16 and one-half years, engaged in sexual intercourse on three occasions. On one of the occasions, they were observed by a police officer who placed both of them under arrest. They are tried jointly for violation of the statute prohibiting impairing the morals of a minor. Davis is charged with impairing the morals of Vic, and Vic is charged with being an accessory to the crime.
Vic's best argument for a dismissal is: ***OPTIONS*** A. As a minor, Vic cannot be prosecuted for any crime. B. Vic cannot be charged as an accessory until a principal has been convicted of committing the charged crime. C. He did not assist Davis in committing the crime. D. He did not assist Davis in committing the crime. "
D
"Able and Baker were each driving in their automobiles when Baker and Able collided. Both parties were negligent because at the moment of impact, Able was speeding and Baker failed to signal when making a lane change.
If the jurisdiction in which both parties live and where the accident occurred had adopted the pure form of comparative negligence, how should the court rule when Able sues Baker for injuries sustained in the collision? ***OPTIONS*** A. Judgment for Baker, because Able was negligent. B. Judgment for Able, and Able may recover for all of his injuries because Baker was negligent. C. Judgment for Able, but only if Baker's fault in causing the accident was greater than Able's. D. Judgment for Able, and Able may recover for all his injuries but his judgment will be reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of his fault. "
D
"Able and Baker were playing football in the street. Able threw a long pass to Baker. Baker ran into an automobile driven by Charlie while attempting to catch the pass and suffered from several broken bones and other internal injuries. Able saw the automobile approaching but threw the long pass anyway, believing that Charlie would see Baker and stop his automobile safely before reaching Baker. Baker brought suit against Able and Charlie to recover for his injuries. At the close of the trial, the jury determined that Baker had suffered $100,000 in damages and that Able was 40% at fault, Baker 10% at fault, and Charlie was 50% at fault for causing the injuries Baker sustained. Assume all parties are solvent and have sufficient assets and insurance to cover any judgment amount awarded. The jurisdiction has adopted a pure form of comparative negligence, abolished both contributory negligence and the doctrine of last clear chance, but retains joint and several liability.
If Baker seeks to recover a portion of the $100,000 judgment from Able, will Baker succeed? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Baker's negligence was a substantial factor which led to his injury. B. No, because Charlie's negligence exceeded Baker's C. Yes, because Able's negligence exceeded Baker's. D. Yes, because Able's negligence was a substantial factor which caused Baker's injuries. "
D
"Able, Baker and Charlie are all armored car drivers who work for the same company. Able convinces Baker and Charlie to join him in robbing the armored car company's garage. The three men agree to disguise themselves and rob the garage early one morning before the drivers on duty start out for the day. Baker and Charlie are unaware that Able intends to kill them after the robbery is complete so that he can keep the entire proceeds of the robbery. Using guns as weapons, the three men rob the garage as planned. However, when the men reach their getaway car which is parked next to the building, Able shoots and kills Baker and then takes aim at Charlie. As Able fires, Charlie dives behind the side of the car and the bullet misses him. Hearing approaching police car sirens, Able jumps in the car and drives away, leaving Charlie behind at the scene. Charlie is arrested when the police arrive.
What is Charlie's best defense to a charge of felony murder? ***OPTIONS*** A. The killing was not a natural and probable consequence of the plan to rob the armored car company. B. The robbery which Charlie planned to help commit was completed by the time the killing occurred. C. Charlie cannot be liable for the death of a co-felon. D. The act of killing Baker was not committed in furtherance of the crime Charlie planned to commit with Able and Baker. "
D
"After his parents divorced and his father obtained custody, Dane was compelled to enroll at a private boarding school. A few weeks after enrolling, Fred, an older student, offered to admit Dane to a secret society of students called the ""Better Way"". Fred told Dane that, in order to be admitted, he had to physically attack a student from a rival school. Dane obtained a metal crowbar and, accompanied by Fred, went downtown late one Saturday. Dane saw a young man wearing a jacket with the name of a rival school. Upon seeing Fred's signal, Dane walked up behind the student with the crowbar raised to strike. Dane suddenly had a change of heart and turned to leave, but Fred ran and pushed Dane, causing Dane to fall against the student and knock the student onto the pavement.
Which of the following most accurately states the criminal liability of Dane and Fred? ***OPTIONS*** A. Dane is guilty of battery as a principal in the first degree, and Fred is guilty of battery as an accomplice. B. Fred is guilty of battery as a principal in the first degree, and Dane is guilty of battery as an accomplice. C. Both Dane and Fred are guilty of battery as principals in the first degree. D. Fred is guilty of battery as a principal in the first degree, and Dane is not liable for battery. "
D
"Al owns a motorboat. One morning, he and a couple of friends take the boat out on a lake. They spend the day water skiing and drinking beer. Al loses track of how much beer he has consumed. Eventually, it starts to get dark. The group decides to head back to the marina. By this point, Al and his friends are intoxicated. On the way back to the marina, he decides to show off for his friends by jumping the boat over a dock he sees up ahead. In the dark, the dock appears to be unoccupied. As Al attempts to pick up the speed necessary to jump the dock, he loses control of his boat. His boat crashes into the dock and kills a child who was standing on the dock. Shortly thereafter, Al is arrested.
If Al is tried on a manslaughter charge, he should be ***OPTIONS*** A. Convicted, unless the child was trespassing on the dock. B. Convicted, because he recklessly caused the child's death. C. Acquitted, because his intoxicated state prevented him from being aware of the high risk his behavior created. D. Acquitted, because, in his intoxicated state, he honestly believed that he could jump the boat over the dock. "
B
"Alan and Bob worked for the ACME company as sales associates and sat next to each other on the sales floor. After Bob left work one day, Alan decided to "play a joke" on Bob and loosened all the screws on Bob's desk chair so it would not support him when he returned to work the next day. When Bob came into work the next morning, he pulled out his chair and attempted to sit down. The chair collapsed and Bob fell to the floor. Alan and his co-workers stood up, applauded and began to laugh uncontrollably while pointing at Bob.
Bob subsequently files a lawsuit against Alan and asserts a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bob's claim will most likely ***OPTIONS*** A. succeed, because Bob received medical treatment for injuries caused by Alan's conduct. B. fail, because workplace "hazing" is an accepted employment activity. C. succeed, because Alan intended to subject Bob to ridicule and humiliation. D. fail, if Alan's conduct was not "extreme and outrageous." "
D
"Alan is an advocate of animal rights. Doctor engages in medical research that uses rabbits and mice for testing to develop medical treatments for human diseases. Alan believes that all uses of any animals for medical testing are unethical and cruel. Alan discovered that Doctor would be collecting a group of animals for use in testing a new cancer drug. Alan believed that many animals would be killed as a result of Doctor's testing procedures. When Alan learned where Doctor's medical lab was located, Alan marched outside holding up signs with pictures of tortured animals with the caption ""Doctor is engaged in cruelty to animals!"" Doctor saw Alan and the sign.
If Doctor brings a suit claiming that Alan's conduct amounts to intentional infliction of emotional distress, which of the following (if proven by Doctor) best support Doctor's claim? ***OPTIONS*** A. Alan's conduct caused Doctor to suffer emotional distress. B. The signs constitute extreme and outrageous behavior. C. Doctor suffered personal injury. D. Alan was only expressing his opinion rather than a statement of fact. "
B
"Alex, who is a teacher by trade, works during the summer as a bartender for extra money. In addition, he likes drinking for free while working and giving his friends free drinks. Usually by the time he is done working he is fully intoxicated. Knowing that his boss is going on vacation the following week Alex volunteers to do the night deposits. On the second night Alex decides to take the night deposits to Atlantic City to play craps. During the course of the night he losses all $7,520.00 cash targeted for deposit.
With reference to the free drinks that Alex gives to his friends while working, what offense has been committed? ***OPTIONS*** A. Larceny B. Larceny by trick C. Embezzlement D. False Pretenses "
A
"Archie has placed his house on the market. When Carrie comes to Archie's open house, she believes that she has finally found her dream house. After inspecting the house in the company of Archie, Carrie purchases the house. Shortly after Carrie takes up residence, she notices some details that she missed during her pre-purchase inspection: several of the doors in the house swing shut unless they are propped open with a door stop. After doing a bit of investigation and consulting a few experts, she discovers that the foundation of her new house was constructed on top of a creek bed. The contractor who build the house brought in soil to fill in the creek bed and level out the building site. For the last several years, water attempting to flow along the underground creek bed has been undermining the foundation of the house, causing one corner of the house to subside. To prevent further damage to the house, Carrie spends $10,000 to shore up the house's foundation. When Carrie contacts Archie, he says that he knew about the foundation problem and he made no attempt to hide it from Carrie when she inspected the house. Carrie brings suit against Archie to recover the costs she incurred in repairing the foundation.
Should Carrie prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Carrie had the opportunity to inspect the property. B. No, because Archie had no duty to disclose. C. Yes, because Archie failed to disclose a hidden material defect. D. Yes, because Archie breached the implied warranty of habitability. "
C
"Arnie has been going through an ugly divorce for a year and half. There have been numerous hearings on everything from child custody to times of visitation and there have been mutual restraining orders issued. Yesterday the judge ruled that Wife gets title to the house they lived in for the 20 years of their marriage. Arnie spent every weekend for 10 years renovating the house, and his award winning garden was located there. Arnie decides that if the judge won't give him justice, he'll get it himself.
On the charge of burglary the likely outcome is? ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, because he committed no crime while he was inside. B. Not guilty, because he felt he had a valid claim to the property. C. Not guilty, because he was acting under coercion. D. Guilty "
D
"Arthur, Jack, and Mike were drinking in the Iron Bar one night, when Vick stopped in for a drink. Arthur, who was sitting next to Vick at the bar, invited Vick to shoot a game of pool with him on the pool table located in the back of the barroom. During their game, Arthur asked Vick if he would buy Arthur a drink. When Vick refused Arthur became violent, and started to shove Vick and yell obscenities at him.
On a charge of battery of Vick, Jack is: ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because he knew Arthur was attempting to physically beat Vick and he shouted encouraging words to Arthur. B. guilty, because he desired that Arthur would succeed in battering Vick, and aided and abetted this by his presence. C. not guilty, because refusing to come to the aid of a crime victim is not sufficient to constitute aiding and abetting. D. not guilty, because he did not participate in the battery, nor assist in its commission. "
A
"At the county fair, Ann dropped Larry's pie as she attempted to put the pie on display at the apple pie contest. The pie was ruined and could not be entered in the contest. Larry suspected that Ann's mishandling of the pie was no accident. Larry decided to pay Ann back by destroying Ann's pie before the judging. Rushing up behind Ann in the crowd at the fair, Larry yelled her name. Ann spun around in time to see Larry swinging his fist at Ann who quickly ducked just in time to avoid Larry's fist. Larry's fist missed the pie and Ann, striking Vern - one of the pie contest judges who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Neither Ann nor her pie suffered any harm as a result of Larry's attack.
In a suit brought by Ann and Vern seeking damages, Larry is liable for: ***OPTIONS*** A. both the assault of Ann and battery of Vern. B. only the battery of Ann. C. only the assault of Ann. D. only the battery of Vern; Larry is not liable to Ann because Ann suffered no harm. "
A
"At trial of Ed on the charge of kidnapping, Basil, the victim, testified as follows: he (Basil) was in the back seat of the rented limousine that Ed was driving when, because of a remark Basil had made about Ed's coiffure, Ed locked all the doors of the limo so that Basil could not exit, despite his (Basil's) attempts to do so and his demands to be set free.
No other testimony was offered. Based on the evidence adduced, on which of the following charges could Ed properly be convicted? ***OPTIONS*** A. False imprisonment only. B. Kidnapping only. C. Either false imprisonment or kidnapping. D. Both false imprisonment and kidnapping. "
C
"Attorney specialized in prosecuting collection actions for small businesses. Attorney owed $15,000 to Business, a computer retailer, for her latest purchase of a desktop publishing system from Business. Business was threatening to repossess this computer system because Attorney was delinquent in her payments. Business had previously hired Attorney to collect an overdue account in the amount of $16,000 owed to Business by Customer. Attorney sent a demand letter to Customer, threatening legal action. Attorney hoped that Customer would pay immediately without court action, because Attorney intended to apply the funds collected from Customer to her (Attorney's) account with Business. When Customer received the letter, he sent a check for $15,000 to Attorney's office that afternoon. Attorney deposited Customer's check in her account. Attorney wrote a check from that account to Business for $13,500, which represented the $15,000 from Customer less Attorney's ten percent fee, and sent the $13,500 to Business as a payment for her desktop publishing system.
If Attorney is prosecuted for a theft offense, she should be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, since Business received all the funds it was due from the collection action against Customer. B. Guilty of larceny, because Attorney intended to convert the funds collected from Customer even before they were actually collected. C. Guilty of obtaining property by false pretenses against Customer, because Attorney intended to convert the funds collected from Customer even before they were actually collected. D. Guilty of embezzlement, because Attorney converted Business' money to her own use. "
D
"Biff Handsome signs an agreement for $100,000 with Beauregard Arrogant, owner of Arrogant Talent Agency, for Handsome to sign autographs at an annual convention for the ""Elderly Seamstress Society."" Handsome is to appear two specific hours every day for 2 months. After the first month, Handsome and Arrogant have a heated argument over whether Handsome should smile while signing autographs and whether Handsome has to talk with any of the members of the Society. In general, Handsome and Arrogant do not get along. Handsome assigns ""all of my rights and duties under my contract with Arrogant Talent Agency"" to Bruce Wimpy, a local sportscaster, who agrees with Handsome to smile and converse with the Society members while giving autographs. Handsome does not give notice to Arrogant.
III. Wimpy is liable to Arrogant. ***OPTIONS*** A. I and III only. B. II and III only. C. I, II, and III. D. I and II only. "
B
"Biker was riding his bicycle on a four-line divided highway in violation of a state law that restricted such highway uses to motor vehicles only. After riding for several miles, Biker tired and stopped at a public rest stop to use the restroom. While exiting the restroom, Biker tripped and fell when he stepped on a wet floor that had not been properly marked by state highway maintenance workers who had just cleaned the restroom.
Assuming that the state in which the restroom is located and the action is tried retains the common law landowner/occupier rules which are based on the status of the plaintiff, which of the following would be the best possible status designation which Biker should reasonably expect to achieve if he seeks to recover damages from the state? ***OPTIONS*** A. Business invitee. B. Licensee. C. Public invitee. D. Frequent trespasser. "
C
"Bill and Joe were brothers. Joe was in prison serving a ten-year sentence for armed robbery. Joe secretly informed Bill that Joe was going to break out of prison and asked Bill to leave a car with the key in the ignition at a secluded spot near the prison. Bill left a car as instructed. Joe escaped from prison and found the car. While in flight, Joe was stopped at a police barricade. When Joe reached into the glove compartment for the vehicle registration he found a handgun that Bill had negligently forgotten to remove from the car. Joe grabbed the gun and fired at one of the officers, striking him in the arm. Joe was subsequently apprehended and sent back to prison. The injured police officer brought suit against Bill and was awarded a $100,000 judgment after the court determined that Bill was negligent and that both Joe and Bill were jointly and severally liable to the police officer. The jurisdiction has adopted comparative fault and retains the common law rules regarding indemnity and contribution.
If Bill subsequently pays the $100,000 judgment to the police officer, Bill may recover from Joe ***OPTIONS*** A. $100,000 based on full indemnity, because Joe committed an intentional criminal act. B. $50,000 based on contribution, because Bill was negligent and both defendants were jointly and severally liable. C. An equitable amount, based on whatever the court determines is fair under the circumstances. D. Nothing, because but for Bill's act of leaving the gun in the car, the officer would not have been shot. "
A
"Butcher owned a butcher shop which sold meat products to customers. To increase sales, Butcher purchased a refrigerated delivery truck from Dealer so that Butcher could make deliveries of meat products to local restaurants and other customers. The day after Butcher purchased the truck, he first discovered that the refrigeration unit installed on the truck was not adequate to keep meat products sufficiently chilled to prevent spoilage and possible contamination. Butcher returned the truck and asked for a full refund. Dealer offered to repair the refrigeration unit, but Butcher declined. When Dealer again refused to take the truck back and refund Butcher's money, Butcher brought suit based on strict liability for defective product.
In this action, Butcher will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because the truck was sold in a defective condition. B. recover, unless Dealer was unaware of Butcher's intended use of the truck. C. not recover, Dealer did not manufacture the truck. D. not recover, Butcher did not experience anything other than economic loss. "
D
"Chip and Skip have been friends since childhood. One of their favorite activities when they were children was shooting marbles. One day, being in a nostalgic mood, they decide to shoot a game of marbles for old times sake. Chip and Skip each go home and dig out their old mayonnaise jar full of marbles. Each of them always kept a jar of marbles, but they never made any attempt to determine who a particular marble belonged to because of the difficulty in distinguishing between individual marbles. They draw a chalk circle for their game on the sidewalk in front of Chip's house. They have been shooting marbles for a couple of hours when it's starts to rain. Chip and Skip hurriedly collect their marbles and head inside. However, in their haste, they leave three or four marbles on the sidewalk. After it stops raining, Chip's next-door neighbor, Pip, leaves his house to go for a walk. As he walks past Chip's house, Pip loses his footing when he steps on one of the marbles which Chip and Skip left on the sidewalk. Pip falls and breaks his tailbone.
Pip sues Chip and Skip for his injury. Will Pip be able to recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because he cannot establish whose conduct was the cause in fact of his injury. B. No, unless Pip can show that either Chip's conduct or Skip's conduct was a substantial factor in causing his injury. C. Yes, if Pip presents sufficient evidence to cause the burden of proof to be shifted to Chip and Skip. D. Yes, but only if responsibility for Pip's injury can be apportioned between Chip and Skip. "
C
"Clare lived a life of the mind. Chess, bridge, computer games and the like were her favorite pastimes. She liked nothing better than to engage her friends in evening-spanning verbal combats on subjects as varied as the issues of the day and the effect of the Marian reforms on the Roman Legion of the First Century AD. Reading was like breathing—a necessary pleasure. When she learned that she suffered from Alzheimer's Disease, it was as if her most horrible nightmare had taken form and stalked about in the bright sunshine. She begged her husband, a pharmacist, to help her end her life, so that she would not have to endure a humiliating decay into decrepitude. Her entreaties were so constant, and her fear of senility so overwhelming, that he finally obtained a powerful sedative which would quickly cause her to lose consciousness and a muscle-relaxant which would painlessly stop her breathing. After a wonderful evening together, Clare's husband secretly mixed the sedative and the relaxant into her favorite drink. She consumed it and died.
Clare's husband was prosecuted for murder. Upon which of the following, each of which has been adopted as the law of the jurisdiction in which he is being tried, should he rely to insure that he is convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead? ***OPTIONS*** A. The doctrine that an adequate provocation is a factor in mitigation which precludes a finding that the defendant acted with malice in committing an intentional homicide. B. The statutory amendment which specifies that the survivor of a suicide pact is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. C. The doctrine that any emotional stimulus which would cause a reasonable person to engage in homicidal behavior and which actually caused the defendant to so act, is a mitigating factor which precludes a finding that the defendant acted with malice in committing an intentional homicide. D. The Model Penal Code "substantial capacity" standard for legal insanity. "
C
"Client hired Attorney to write a contract at an agreed fee of $500 to be paid upon completion of the work. Prior to completion of the work, Attorney writes to Client, telling Client to pay the $500 to Attorney's office supplies vendor (Vendor) to discharge a $500 debt Attorney owes to Vendor. Attorney also sends a copy of the letter to Vendor. Attorney completes the contract work.
Assuming that the following statements are true, which would be Client's best defense if Vendor sues Client if Client refuses to pay Vendor the $500? ***OPTIONS*** A. A On Monday, Attorney had promised Client that he would not assign the contract. B. Vendor was incapable of performing Attorney's work. C. Attorney had not performed her work in a reasonably competent manner. D. Vendor was not the intended beneficiary of the Client-Attorney contract. "
C
"Club 2000 operates a late-night restaurant and dance club that was very popular among young adults and college students. Adjacent to Club 2000 was a residential area. Several homeowners living nearby complained to the owners of Club 2000 that when the Club closed at 2:00 A.M. on Friday and Saturday, many of the Club 2000 customers would leave trash in their yards and wake them up with loud conversations and the slamming of car doors. It was also established that property values in the area declined by 10% as a result of Club 2000 operations.
If one of the homeowners brings a suit for damages based on the above facts, will the homeowner prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Club 2000 is not responsible for the conduct of customers once they have left its property. B. No, because the homeowner has suffered pure economic loss. C. Yes, because Club 2000 had notice of the disturbance. D. Yes, because the Club 2000 has substantially and unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of plaintiff's property. "
D
"Cole decides to have a barbecue even though it is extremely windy. He lives in one half of a duplex, so his backyard patio is very close to the patio belonging to the other half of the duplex. Cole fills the barbecue grill with charcoal, douses the charcoal liberally with lighter fluid and lights the charcoal on fire. The fire in the barbecue flares up and Cole sees that sparks are being blown by the wind toward his neighbor's redwood patio cover. He also sees a couple of the sparks land on the patio cover before they burn out. Rather than staying to watch the fire, Cole goes inside to telephone some friends and invite them over. Cole is on the telephone for 20 minutes. During that time, he fails to check on the barbecue. By the time Cole returns outside, his neighbor's patio cover is on fire. Substantial damage is done before Cole puts the fire out with his garden hose.
Cole is guilty of common law arson because: ***OPTIONS*** A. The risk of fire was a foreseeable consequence of his actions. B. He intended to light the fire in the barbecue. C. He should have known that the wooden patio cover would catch on fire. D. He was aware that the sparks were being blown in the direction of and were landing on his neighbor's wooden patio cover, yet he did nothing to prevent the patio cover from catching on fire. "
D
"Crystal is an avid vegetarian who avoids contact with any animal substance. She is a known member of the radical group ""Animals Are Better Than People"" and is a well-known speaker throughout the country. She has appeared in various publications to preach the praise of animals and the evil of using animals to further human enjoyment.
In order to prevail, Crystal must prove that: ***OPTIONS*** A. The photograph was false. B. The newspaper recklessly failed to fully investigate what Crystal had been eating. C. She was injured by the publication. D. She was not a public figure. "
B
"D was driving home when a violent thunderstorm began. D considered pulling over and waiting for the storm to pass, but since he was only one-half mile from home, D decided to continue driving. Just as D turned onto his street, a bolt of lightening struck a tree causing it to fall in front of D's car. In order to miss hitting the tree, D swerved and ran his car up onto P's yard. In so doing, D's car destroyed several of P's prize-winning rose bushes.
If P sues D for the damage caused to P's rose bushes, P will ***OPTIONS*** A. not recover, D's entry on P's land was excused by the doctrine of necessity. B. not recover, D's entry was involuntary and resulted from an unforeseen act of God. C. recover, D entered the land of P for his own private benefit even though it was necessary to avoid a greater evil. D. recover, but only for nominal damages because D's entry was excused by necessity. "
C
"Dad and his 11-year-old son (Son) were shopping in Mexico when Son saw a switch-blade knife. He pleaded with Dad to buy it for him and Dad finally relented and purchased the knife after Son assured Dad that Son would be very careful with the knife. After returning home, Son was in the backyard throwing the knife at a tree. The knife missed and sailed over the fence into Nabor's yard and struck Nabor.
If Nabor asserts a claim for damages against Dad, will Nabor prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Son did not intend the knife to strike Nabor. B. No, unless Son is found to be liable to Nabor. C. Yes, because a parent is liable for the actions of his or her child. D. Yes, if Dad did not reasonably monitor Son's use of the knife. "
D
"Dale and Ferguson were sitting in a coffee shop watching a television program about a controversial political issue when Dale reached out and grabbed Ferguson's shirt. Ferguson pushed Dale and knocked Dale down. Perris, another coffee shop patron, attempted to get between Ferguson and Dale to break up the fight. While attempting to strike Ferguson, Dale swung his fist and struck Perris. Perris brought a battery action against Dale
III. Dale did not intend to strike Ferguson, only to frighten Ferguson. ***OPTIONS*** A. I and III B. I and II C. I, II and III D. None of the above "
D
"Dale is a contractor who specializes in building custom windows. Since he does most of his work at building sites, he owns a van which he drives from job to job. He also keeps many of his tools in the van. One evening after work, Dale forgets to lock the passenger side door of his van. In the middle of the night, Thief notices the unlocked door. Thief enters the van and steals a bag of tools which Dale had left on the passenger seat. The bag contains a variety of special glass cutting tools. The next day, Thief uses the glass cutting tools to burglarize Violet's house. Thief cuts a hole in a pane of glass in Violet's front door so that he can reach through and unlock the door from the inside. Violet sues Dale for damages.
Will Violet recover from Dale? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Dale did not join with Thief in committing the burglary. B. No, unless Dale should have foreseen that his negligence increased the risk that his tools would be stolen and used to commit the burglary. C. Yes, because Thief would not have used the glass cutting tools to commit a crime but for Dale's negligent conduct. D. Yes, unless Thief's conduct was an intervening act. "
B
"Dan and Victoria were planning their wedding which was scheduled for the following month. Dan became upset when he found a picture of Victoria's old boyfriend in a very expensive locket in the back of one of her dresser drawers. He decided on the spot that he would take the locket, put a picture of himself over the picture of the boyfriend, and replace the locket in the same drawer after the dresser was moved to their new home. While on their honeymoon, Victoria mentioned that she had missed the locket while packing and wondered if Dan had seen it. He lied and told her he had no idea what she was referring to, eventually persuading her that it must be lost. When they got home from their honeymoon, Dan forgot all about the locket and now cannot remember where he hid it.
Which of the following crimes, if any, has Dan committed? ***OPTIONS*** A. Larceny. B. Larceny by trick. C. False pretenses. D. Dan is guilty of none of the above crimes. "
D
"Dan came home to find his wife lying on the floor, most of her clothing missing, her underwear ripped and her face scratched. When Dan asked her what happened, she told him that Vic, their neighbor, had raped her. Enraged, Dan shouted, ""I'll kill that little coward!"" Grabbing a revolver he kept in a cupboard, Dan ran next door to Vic's apartment and pounded on the door. No one answered, but as Dan turned away he saw Vic drive up in a car. Dan ran to where Vic was getting out of the car, leveled the gun at Vic's chest and shouted, ""I'm going to kill you for raping my wife."" Vic protested that he had been at a baseball game for two hours, but said that as he had left to go to the game, he had seen Tom, another neighbor with whom Dan's wife had previously had an extra-marital affair, go into Dan's house. Dan realized that he had heard noises as if someone was hurriedly dressing as he had entered his own house a few seconds before finding his injured wife on the floor of the kitchen. Dan suddenly put the revolver in his own mouth and tried to pull the trigger. Vic reached for the gun and struggled to pull it out of Dan's mouth. As Dan continued to try and point the gun at himself, the revolver went off. The bullet struck and killed Vic.
Dan is guilty of ***OPTIONS*** A. No crime. B. Manslaughter, because a suicide attempt made with bystanders nearby is generally considered reckless conduct sufficient for involuntary manslaughter. C. Depraved heart murder, because his attempt to kill himself created a very high risk of serious injury or death to anyone who might attempt to prevent it. D. Intent to kill murder, since his intent to kill himself is transferred to Vic. "
B
"Dan owned and operated a pawn shop in State X. The State X police had been watching Dan's pawn shop for some time hoping to gather enough evidence to prove that Dan was purchasing stolen goods. Frustrated that traditional police investigative procedures had been ineffective, Detective Smart offered Snitch, a paid informant, $100 if he would take Smart's notebook computer into Dan's pawn shop, tell Dan it was stolen and offer to sell it to Dan for $200. Snitch did as instructed but Dan refused, claiming that he believed his store was being watched by the police. Dan told Snitch to bring the computer to Dan's home later that evening. Snitch brought the computer to Dan's house later that evening and Dan paid Snitch $200 for Smart's notebook computer. Shortly thereafter, Dan was arrested by Detective Smart. At trial, Dan has been charged with receipt of stolen property and attempted receipt of stolen property.
If Dan asserts the defense of entrapment, the court should rule that ***OPTIONS*** A. Officer Smart's conduct amounted to entrapment because he used his own property to entice Dan into committing the crime. B. Officer Smart's conduct amounted to entrapment because he used a paid informant, Snitch, who was not a member of the State X police department. C. Officer Smart's conduct amounted to entrapment because he supplied the essential ingredient necessary for the crime to occur and no crime would have occurred but for Smart's conduct. D. Officer Smart's conduct did not amount to entrapment because Dan's conduct demonstrates that he had a preexisting intent to purchase stolen property and Smart's conduct merely provided Dan with the opportunity to commit the crime. "
D
"Dan was a resident of Centerville. Dan believed that the police department of Centerville was out to ""get him."" Dan knew that this belief was irrational because the police had always treated him with respect, but he was unable to convince himself that he was not the subject of a police conspiracy to persecute him. Acting on his belief, Dan walked into a Centerville police department and shot and killed a police officer.
If Dan is arrested and tried for murder and Dan asserts the defense of insanity, he is most likely to be found not guilty if the jurisdiction has adopted ***OPTIONS*** A. The M'Naghten rule. B. The Model Penal Code. C. The Felony Murder Rule. D. The doctrine of self-defense. "
B
"Danzig is a dance instructor who provided free one-hour introductory lessons to prospective students in his dance academy. Prancer participated in one of Danzig's free introductory lessons. At the end of the lesson, Danzing told Prancer that ""for a beginner, you have excellent grace and style -- with a few lessons, you could be winning some dance competitions."" Prancer was so excited that he immediately signed up for Danzig's 100 hour dance instruction program at a cost of $5,000. After about 50 hours of lessons, Prancer signed up for a dance competition and was humiliated when he was the first contestant eliminated by the judges based on his lack of dancing talent and skill. Prancer then brought suit against Danzig for misrepresentation.
***OPTIONS*** A. Prancer was never very strong in competitive endeavors of any kind. B. C. Prancer was persuaded by his wife to sign up for the dance instruction. D. The written contract for dance instruction signed by Prancer expressly excluded any prior oral representations. "
B
"Daphne owns a nursing home. One of the nurses employed at the nursing home has developed a practice of rifling through the belongings of new nursing home residents, stealing anything of value. One evening, the nurse is caught in the act by one of her victims, an elderly woman named Polly. In order to escape with the items she had taken from Polly's room, the nurse pushes Polly out of her way, causing her to fall and break her hip. Polly sues Daphne for damages.
If Daphne knew that the nurse had stolen items from nursing home residents on previous occasions, would she be liable for Polly's damages? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because the nurse was not acting within the scope of her employment. B. No, because an employer is not liable for intentional torts committed by an employee. C. Yes, because, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Daphne is responsible for the actions of her employees. D. Yes, because Daphne was aware that the nurse had stolen items on prior occasions. "
D
"Daphne was a committed vegan, eating only plant-derived foods, and the thought of all the slaughter going on to provide meat for the less-enlightened members of society made her nauseous. One night, in order to dramatize the unhealthy nature of meat and to draw attention to the slaughter of innocent animals, Daphne went to the butcher's section of the supermarket where she was employed as produce manager and sprinkled a nausea-inducing chemical on all the meat, fowl and fish products. Despite being careful, Daphne accidentally put too much powder in one package of hamburger, and when the woman who bought it served it to her family, her husband, who was unusually susceptible, died as a result of ingesting the chemical.
If prosecuted for the criminal homicide of the husband, Daphne should be found guilty of: ***OPTIONS*** A. First degree murder, since she willfully, deliberately and with premeditation killed the victim. B. First degree murder, since the homicide occurred during perpetration of a felony. C. Second degree murder, since the circumstances show that she acted with an abandoned and malignant heart. D. Involuntary manslaughter, since she did not intend to kill anyone. "
D
"Darla owns a pet iguana. Most of the time, she keeps the iguana in a glass terrarium. However, she occasionally lets the iguana loose to roam around her apartment. Generally, the iguana just picks a spot under some piece of furniture and stays there. For an iguana, he is relatively well behaved and seldom bites. One evening, she invites her friend Paul over for dinner. Paul is aware that she has a pet iguana, but he does not know that she lets it out from time to time. When Paul arrives, Darla forgets to mention that there is an iguana wandering around her apartment. While Darla is in the kitchen, the iguana decides to check out the visitor and ambles across the floor toward Paul. In his haste to avoid being bitten, Paul trips over the coffee table and falls, breaking his wrist.
If Paul sues Darla for his injury, should he prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, unless Darla knew that the iguana had dangerous propensities. B. No, because Paul knew that Darla owned an iguana. C. Yes, because, as owner of the iguana, Darla is strictly liable for Paul's injury. D. Yes, because Darla was negligent in failing to warn Paul that the iguana was loose. "
C
"Darryl lives along an isolated rural highway. To entertain himself, he likes to pretend that he is a deputy sheriff and stop passing motorists for a variety of imagined violations. One of Darryl's friends gave him an old security guard uniform. Darryl also bought a light through a mail-order catalog which he puts on the top of his car in order to make it look like a law enforcement vehicle. Late one evening, he follows and pulls over Martin's car. He asks Martin to get out of the car and put his hands on the hood. He then searches Martin and tells him that he is under arrest because his car meets the description of the vehicle seen leaving the scene of a robbery which occurred a few hours ago. Darryl orders Martin not to move. While Martin waits, Darryl pretends to talk to someone over the C.B. radio in his car for a few moments. He tells Martin that one of the other deputy sheriffs just arrested the actual robbery suspect in another part of the county. Darryl then lets Martin leave. As Martin drives away, he notices that Darryl's car does not have any markings indicating that it's a sheriff's car. He does a little more checking and finds out that Darryl was only impersonating a deputy sheriff.
Martin was frightened and humiliated by the experience and brings an action against Darryl for damages. Should Martin recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Darryl committed battery and false imprisonment. B. Yes, unless a reasonable person would have realized that Darryl was not a deputy sheriff at the time he pulled Martin over. C. No, because Darryl did not physically harm Martin. D. No, unless Darryl intended to inflict emotional distress. "
A
"Darryl was a nurse assigned to the intensive care unit at a major public hospital. For months he had watched Payne, a severely burned accident victim, languish in agony. With increasing feelings of frustration, he discussed Payne's case with the burn specialists who were treating him. The doctors all said that Payne was dying, and that the best they could hope to accomplish was to prolong his life by a month or two. Even this, they said, required special equipment since the patient could not breathe without the assistance of a breathing machine. Depressed, Darryl went to visit Payne's room just as a member of the housekeeping staff was mopping the floor. Darryl saw the cleaner's mop strike the plug of Payne's breathing machine and disconnect it from the wall outlet, but said nothing. After the cleaning person left the room Darryl watched as Payne, unable to breathe without the machine, quietly died. The jurisdiction in which this occurred defines murder as ""unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.""
If Darryl is prosecuted for the murder of Payne, he should be: ***OPTIONS*** A. acquitted, since plugging the machine back into the wall outlet or calling a doctor would not have saved Payne's life, but would only have prolonged it. B. acquitted, since Darryl was under no legal duty to take affirmative action to save the life of Payne. C. convicted, because as a nurse assigned to Payne's care, Darryl had an affirmative duty to save Payne from a life-threatening danger known to Darryl. D. convicted, because Darryl desired or knew to a substantial certainty that his inaction would result in Payne's death. "
D
"Dave had a medical condition that caused him to have poor blood circulation. As a result he always felt very cold, even in the summer. To remedy this, Dave installed a heater on the outside of his bedroom window to blow warm air into his house. Dave had to run the heater day and night to maintain a comfortable temperature in his home. Pat lived next door to Dave and Pat's bedroom window was only 15 feet away from Dave's heater. Pat is a light sleeper and complained to Dave about the noise generated by the heater. Dave refused to turn off the heater. After several sleepless nights and a resulting decline in his health, Pat brought suit to recover damages for the sleep disturbance and health problems caused by the noise from Dave's heater.
Will Pat prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, there was no physical intrusion by Dave onto Pat's land. B. No, if the noise generated by the heater is not unreasonable. C. Yes, because Pat suffered from sleeplessness and ill health as a consequence of Dave's conduct. D. Yes, because Dave was aware of the interference and made no effort to minimize it. "
B
"David and his family own a dog named Spot. Spot has always been even-tempered, well-behaved and good with children. Spot is also well-trained because David and his children took the dog to a series of obedience classes sponsored by the local parks and recreation department. David's family lives in an area of the country where houses in residential neighborhoods do not have fenced backyards. David's house is no exception. Although David has owned Spot for five years, Spot has never ventured beyond the boundaries of David's yard without permission. No ordinance requires domestic animals to be fenced in a confined area or chained in their owners' yards. One afternoon, while David and his family are out in the yard raking leaves, Spot suddenly takes off after Pam, who is roller-blading past the yard on the sidewalk. Ignoring David's commands, Spot sinks his teeth into Pam's pant leg, causing her to fall and break her arm.
Pam sues David for his injuries. Should Pam recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because no ordinance required Spot to be chained or confined. B. No, because Spot was a domestic animal. C. Yes, because Spot caused Pam's injury. D. Yes, if David knew or had reason to know of Spot's propensity for chasing roller-bladers. "
D
"Davis asked Victoria to loan him $200. As security for the loan, Davis stated that he would give Victoria his prize golden retriever dog which she could keep until Davis paid the loan back. Victoria had always wanted Davis' golden retriever and quickly agreed to loan Davis the $200 and to return the dog upon payment of the loan. Unknown to Davis, when Victoria gave Davis the $200 loan and Victoria took the dog, Victoria never intended to return the dog. Several weeks later, when Davis paid Victoria the $200 owed on the loan, Victoria falsely told Davis that the dog had run away when in fact she had taken the dog to her summer cabin.
In a jurisdiction that recognizes larceny, larceny by trick, embezzlement and false pretenses as separate crimes, Victoria is guilty of ***OPTIONS*** A. larceny. B. larceny by trick. C. embezzlement. D. false pretenses. "
B
"Davis was a professional athlete who had played as a running back for a professional football team for over ten years. Davis was forced to retire from playing professional sports after a medical examination determined that Davis had suffered brain damage after several concussions he received while playing professional football. Davis reluctantly agreed, as he was aware that he could not always think clearly and that sometimes when he was walking in a crowd, he would experience a hallucination. In the hallucination, he would see the other people in the crowd as football opponents and Davis would feel a compelling urge to run for a touchdown, evading all would-be tacklers as he had in his football career. Davis did not disclose the fact that he experienced hallucinations to any of the doctors who were treating him. One afternoon while walking down a city street in a crowd of people, Davis suffered a hallucination and ran wildly through the crowd, knocking Perry down.
If Perry brings an action for damages, will Perry be successful? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Davis caused Perry to suffer injury. B. Yes, if as a result of his prior hallucinations, Davis was negligent when he chose to walk in a crowd. C. No, Davis was unaware of his actions because of the hallucination. D. No, if Davis suffered from a mental illness. "
B
"Dee owned a small software technology company that was working on the development of a revolutionary computer software program that could prove very valuable to businesses all over the world. Dee was concerned that other software companies might be attempting to lure her employees away from the company with hopes that Dee's employees would bring information about the software Dee was developing. To prevent this information from being disclosed, Dee placed electronic wiretaps on all of the office phones. Several days later, Polly (one of Dee's software designers) was summoned to Dee's office and summarily discharged without any explanation. Polly later discovered that her office phone had been tapped and brought suit against Dee for invasion of privacy.
any of Polly's office telephone conversations was actually listened to by Dee C. the substance of any of Polly's office telephone conversations was communicated by Dee to anyone else. D. Polly was actually fired because of anything said during her office telephone conversations. "
A
"Dee wanted to go to the theater to watch a matinee, but she had no transportation. Dee went outside and noticed that her neighbor had forgotten to lock up her bicycle. Dee took the bicycle, intending to call her neighbor when Dee arrived at the theater and tell her neighbor to come pick up the bicycle. When Dee was riding the bicycle, she was struck by a car and the bicycle was destroyed.
If charged with larceny of the bicycle, Dee will most likely be found ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because she took the bicycle without permission and had no intent to return it to the place where she found it. B. guilty, because her actions led to the permanent deprivation of the bicycle. C. not guilty, because she did not ride the bicycle far enough away from where she took it. D. not guilty, if her plan to call the owner upon reaching the theater did not create a substantial risk of permanent loss. "
D
"Defendant was in a bar with some friends when he spotted Tony. For several weeks Defendant had been calling Tony a ""sissy"" and other insulting names because Tony had refused to fight another man who had insulted Tony's girlfriend, Helen, in public. Tony had come into the bar with Helen. Defendant walked over to Tony and Helen and asked her to dance. When she refused, Defendant said in a sarcastic tone of voice, ""Why don't you get yourself a real man, instead of a wimp like Tony?"" Infuriated at the constant name calling, Tony grabbed a broken beer bottle and lunged at Defendant attempting to cut Defendant's throat. Defendant could have easily ducked and walked away, but instead he pushed Tony backwards. Tony tripped and hit his head on the bar, killing him instantly.
The most serious offense with which Defendant may be properly convicted is ***OPTIONS*** A. murder. B. voluntary manslaughter. C. involuntary manslaughter. D. none of the above. "
D
"Deft and Vick were drinking in a bar when they began to argue. Vick slapped Deft and the two men began to fight. Deft suddenly pulled out a pistol and shot Vick in the head. Vick was rushed to the hospital where emergency surgery was performed. After successfully removing the bullet from Vick's head, the surgeon discovered a malignant cancerous brain tumor. The surgeon attempted to remove the tumor, but Vick died during the tumor removal procedure.
If Deft is charged with the murder of Vick, his best defense will be ***OPTIONS*** A. that he shot Vick in the heat of passion. B. that he had no time to premeditate the killing. C. that the surgeon caused Vick's death. D. that Vick would have eventually died from brain tumor anyway. "
A
"Deft was practicing rifle shooting with his collection of rifles in a vacant field. He set up his target at one end of the field and measured off a distance of 50 yards away to mark the distance he wanted to practice. Deft had used the vacant field for many years for target practice without incident. On this occasion, Deft noticed that someone had built bicycle paths with ramps and jumps in the area just beyond where he had placed his target. As he was preparing to began target shooting, Deft noticed that several children were riding bicycles on the paths. Deft began firing at the target. One of his shots missed the target and struck one of the children riding on the bicycle paths, killing the child instantly.
Deft is guilty of ***OPTIONS*** A. murder. B. voluntary manslaughter. C. involuntary manslaughter. D. no crime, because Deft was only negligent. "
A
"Deft was stopped by customs officers as he entered Los Angeles airport after arriving from a flight from Brazil. When the customs officers opened his suitcase, they found a brown paper package that contained heroin. Deft acted surprised and claimed that he had put the package in his suitcase at the request of a friend who asked Deft to bring it to the United States and that Deft had no idea what was inside the package. Deft has been charged with knowingly and intentionally transporting heroin.
The jury should be instructed that Deft is ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, no matter what he thought was in the package because there is strict liability for border crossing offenses. B. guilty, if Deft knew that the package contained heroin and intended to transport it. C. guilty, if Deft knew that the package contained illegal drugs, but not necessarily heroin. D. guilty, because Deft should have known that the package contained some type of contraband. "
B
"Dell had recently separated from his wife, Flo. Dell was very depressed and heartbroken about the separation and was desperate to reunite with Flo. After drinking a large amount of beer, Dell went to Flo's house and banged on the door and yelled at Flo to let him in. When Flo refused to open the door, Dell became angry, broke down the door and confronted Flo. When Flo became angry, Dell picked up a heavy vase and threw it at Flo. The vase struck Flo in the head, killing her instantly. Dell was arrested and charged with first degree murder. In the jurisdiction, first degree murder consists of all premeditated and deliberate murders as well as any murder committed during the course and scope of an inherently dangerous felony. All other murders are classified as second degree. At trial, evidence was admitted that Dell had consumed so much alcohol that his judgment was impaired and that a normal person who had consumed the same quantity of alcohol would have been unable to make a rational decision under the circumstances Dell was faced with. Dell testified that he could not remember any of the events that occurred on the night Flo was killed.
If Dell asserts this intoxication defense, the jury should be instructed to find that ***OPTIONS*** A. Dell is not liable for Flo's death, because alcohol destroys the ability to form the intent necessary for the crime. B. Dell is not liable for Flo's death, because his intoxication was so great that he did not realize the nature and quality of his act. C. Dell's intoxication will not totally relieve him of criminal liability, but it could be sufficient to negate his ability to premeditate or deliberate, thus reducing his criminal liability to second degree murder from first. D. Dell's intoxication will have no mitigating effect, because he was voluntarily intoxicated. "
C
"Dell was enraged when he learned that Gore was having an affair with his (Dell's) wife. Late one night while Gore was on a business trip out of town, Dell went to Gore's home, kicked in the back door which led to Gore's photography studio and darkroom, and used the volatile chemicals to build an intense fire, intending to burn down the house and destroy years' accumulation of Gore's irreplaceable negatives and photographs. As the flames leaped to the ceiling and began to burn and char the structure, Dell realized that his marriage had been loveless and empty for some time, and that he had unconsciously transferred his feelings of frustration and anger to Gore. Dell grabbed Gore's fire extinguisher and quickly put out the flames before they had destroyed any photographic materials. Dell returned the next night with tools and materials with which he completely repaired the broken back door and replaced all burned portions of the ceiling in the studio. As he was completing this work, police officers who had been summoned by neighbors arrived and arrested Dell.
Dell could properly be convicted of which of the following crimes in connection with the described events? ***OPTIONS*** A. Arson and burglary. B. Attempted arson and burglary. C. Burglary only. D. No crime. "
A
"Dell, intending to kill Vespa, placed a powerful explosive device in Vespa's automobile. Dell knew that Vespa was leaving on a long automobile trip the next day. The explosive device was timed to go off one hour after Vespa began the driving trip. Shortly after Vespa began driving on her trip the next day, a large truck ran through a red light at a high rate of speed and collided with Vespa's automobile, killing Vespa immediately. The collision disengaged the fuse of the explosive device so that it could not activate the explosives.
If Dell is prosecuted for the murder of Vespa, he should be found ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because if Vespa had not died in the automobile accident, Dell's explosive device would surely have killed Vespa. B. guilty, because Dell did everything necessary to kill Vespa and Vespa did die when Dell intended. C. guilty, because Dell's conduct demonstrates sufficient premeditation and deliberation. D. not guilty, because Dell did not cause Vespa's death. "
D
"Dennis loved animals and owned several dogs and cats. One of his dogs ran out of the door chasing a rabbit that had paused to eat some grass on Dennis' front lawn. Dennis saw his dog run out the door and called the dog to return to the house. The dog did not return immediately even though Dennis had given the dog the proper command to return to the house. The fact that the dog did not immediately obey was very unusual because Dennis had spent a great deal of time training each of his dogs and this particular dog had never been disobedient before. When Dennis ran out the door to chase after the dog, he found Pedestrian lying on the sidewalk. Pedestrian had been knocked down by the dog as it chased after the rabbit.
If Pedestrian brings suit against Dennis seeking damages for injuries sustained in the fall, Pedestrian will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, because his fall was caused by Dennis' dog B. prevail, because an animal owner is absolutely responsible for all injuries caused by the animal. C. not prevail, a dog is a domestic animal. D. not prevail, because the dog was well-trained and unexpectedly ignored Dennis on this occasion"
D
"Dent and Elkin decided to kill Galt. They met at Dent's house one afternoon to make their plans, and agreed that Dent should do the killing. They then had several drinks to bolster their courage, and by 4:30 p.m. were becoming quite drunk. Dent took his gun and walked off to the Hicks Manufacturing Company where Galt worked, while Elkin stayed behind as planned, to prepare for disposal of the gun afterwards. Soon after Dent left, Elkin had a change of heart. He called Dent and begged Dent to call the whole thing off. Dent listened, but told Elkin he was going to kill Galt anyway. Elkin went to the bus station and left town.
If Elkin is prosecuted for conspiracy, he will most likely be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, because he had a change of heart and effectively communicated his renunciation of intent to commit the murder to Elkin before Elkin arrived at Galt's location. B. Not guilty, because the gun could not be fired. C. Guilty, his change of heart and phone call statements to Dent were no defense because Elkin did not thwart the success of the conspiracy. D. Guilty, his change of heart and phone call statements to Dent were no defense because Elkin and Dent agreed to commit an illegal act. "
D
"Desmond, who was angry with Molly, came up behind a woman who looked like her and struck her on the head with the palm of his hand, thinking that she was Molly. Actually, the person he hit was not Molly, but Victoria. Victoria turned angrily toward him, and when Desmond realized she was not Molly, he apologized, saying, ""I'm sorry. I thought you were Molly."" Victoria was too angry to hear his apology, however, and lunged at him with a knife. Desmond, who was an expert at martial arts and hand-to-hand combat, struck Victoria with a barehand blow which resulted in her death.
In a prosecution for murder, Desmond's guilt or innocence will turn on whether: ***OPTIONS*** A. The doctrine of transferred intent can be applied to Desmond's initial striking of Victoria. B. Desmond was the initial aggressor. C. Victoria's use of a knife was excessive. D. Desmond's hands are deadly weapons. "
C
"Devon owned a warehouse and lived in a loft above the warehouse. After suffering three break-ins in less than a month, Devon purchased a trained attack dog that he allowed to sleep in the warehouse at night. The dog had been trained to inflict serious injury or kill any intruders. Three days after purchasing the dog, Devon awoke one night when he heard the dog barking in the warehouse. When Devon came down to determine the cause of the dog's disturbance, he found that the dog had attacked and killed a homeless person who had broken in to find a place to sleep inside.
Of what crime is Devon guilty? ***OPTIONS*** A. Murder. B. Voluntary manslaughter. C. Involuntary manslaughter. D. Battery. "
A
"Dick was invited by a group of friends to go to the mountains for the weekend. When Dick arrived, he noticed that several of the others had brought rock-climbing equipment. Dick had never tried rock-climbing before but decided that he wanted to experience the challenge. The next day, Dick and a group of more experienced rock-climbers began climbing up the side of a very steep cliff. When the group reached a difficult spot, several members wanted to turn back. Dick decided to push forward and ended up getting stuck in a very dangerous location. As it was nearing sundown and knowing that it would be dark before anyone else could arrive to help, one of the more experienced climbers (Rocky) attempted to help Dick climb down to safety. Just as both climbers were about to reach a safe spot on a nearby ledge, a safety cable broke and both Dick and Rocky fell. Dick was not hurt but Rocky suffered a broken leg.
If Rocky asserts an action against Dick seeking damages, Rocky will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, because he was injured while attempting to rescue Dick. B. prevail, if Dick was negligent. C. not prevail, because Rocky had a duty to rescue Dick. D. not prevail, because Rocky assumed the risk of injury when he voluntarily chose to rescue Dick. "
B
"Dillinger owned a retail electronics and electrical equipment store. Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde planned to burglarize the home of a wealthy couple but needed to bypass or neutralize the sophisticated security systems guarding the house. Dillinger agreed to supply Bonnie and Clyde with all the necessary electronic equipment to detect and defeat the home security systems. Dillinger asked only to be paid retail value for the equipment, and did not want to participate in the actual burglary or share in the proceeds of the burglary. Bonnie and Clyde used the equipment as planned to defeat the security system of the wealthy couple's home and to break into and steal all the valuable items in the home.
Is Dillinger guilty of any crime with regard to the burglary? ***OPTIONS*** A. He is guilty of both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary, as an accessory before the fact. B. He is guilty of conspiracy to commit burglary, but not as an accessory before the fact of the burglary itself. C. He is guilty of the burglary as an accessory before the fact, but not of conspiracy to commit burglary. D. He is guilty of no crime with regard to the burglary. "
A
"Dilly is the town's ""honorary mayor"" and well-known practical joker. Dilly discovered that a major east coast bank was going to locate a branch office in town and was sending a bank vice-president, Prude, to meet the town's business leaders and become acquainted with the area. Dilly called Prude and told him to meet Dilly at a local restaurant where Dilly would introduce Prude to all the local business leaders and show him around the area. Prude arrived at the restaurant and sat at the restaurant counter to wait for Dilly to arrive. Dilly came into the restaurant and saw Prude sitting with his back turned at the counter. Dilly came up from behind and yelled ""put your hands on the counter and spread'em!"" When Prude attempted to protest, Dilly yelled ""be quiet, you are under arrest for bank robbery!"" When Prude put his hands on the counter, Dilly frisked Prude and conducted a pat-down search of Prude's shirt and pants. At the end of the search, Dilly started to laugh and yelled, ""Gotcha!"" Everyone in the restaurant began to laugh. Prude then discovered that he had been the victim of a practical joke. Frightened, humiliated and embarrassed, Prude brought suit against Dilly seeking damages.
Will Prude recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, unless a reasonable person would have determined that Dilly was joking. B. Yes, for false imprisonment and battery. C. No, unless Prude suffered severe emotional distress. D. No, because Dilly did not intend to cause Prude to suffer any harm. "
B
"Dini was sleeping in an upstairs bedroom when she suddenly woke up upon hearing someone in her back yard. Armed with a pistol she kept in the nightstand, Dini went downstairs and saw a strange man in her back yard attempting to carry her patio furniture away. Dini fired a shot. The bullet hit the man killing him instantly. Dini was arrested and tried for murder. At the trial, Dini testified that she yelled, ""Stop, thief!"" before firing the shot. Dini's roommate testified that he also woke up upon hearing a noise downstairs, but that he did not hear Dini say anything before he heard the gunshot.
The jury should be instructed that ***OPTIONS*** A. Dini was privileged to use deadly force if necessary to protect her dwelling. B. Dini was privileged to use deadly force if necessary to prevent the theft of her patio furniture. C. Dini was not privileged to use deadly force unless she did in fact issue a warning to the intruder. D. Dini was not privileged to use deadly force to prevent the intruder's escape. "
D
"Don decided to rob the City Bank. To avoid detection by the videocamera security system, Don wore fake ""Security System"" overalls, brought a ladder into the building, and, under the guise of inspecting and cleaning a camera, disengaged the security cameras. Don then proceeded to rob the City Bank by drawing a gun and demanding that a teller give him the contents of her cash drawer. As Don was preparing to exit the building, he noticed that police officers had arrived and were in position outside the building. Another teller had observed Don during the robbery and had called the police to warn them that a man wearing ""Security System"" overalls was armed with a gun and was committing a robbery. Don told everyone in the bank to lie down on the floor. Everyone complied. When Don saw the police, he quickly removed the ""Security System"" overalls and pointed his gun at Bill, the bank president, and told Bill to put on the overalls and run outside. Bill did as Don instructed and Bill was shot and killed by a police officer when he ran out of the bank. Don was apprehended a short time later while attempting to walk to the bank parking lot wearing Bill's clothing pretending to be the bank president.
If Don is charged with felony murder for the death of Bill, Don will be ***OPTIONS*** A. convicted, because by forcing Bill to wear the ""Security System"" overalls, Don demonstrated an intent to kill. B. convicted, because Don's actions caused the death of another during the commission of a robbery. C. acquitted, because Don neither intended to kill Bill nor was he responsible for the actions of the police. D. acquitted, because the robbery was over once Don had obtained the money, changed into the clothing of the bank president and was making his escape. "
B
"Donald is an avid coin collector and belongs to a club for coin collecting enthusiasts. He has been searching for years for a particularly rare and expensive coin. At one of his club meetings, he learns that Victor, another member of the club, has one of the rare coins in his collection. After Donald expresses his interest, Victor invites Donald over to his house to see the coin. Donald goes to Victor's house and sees that Victor keeps the coin in a picture frame on the wall of his study near a window. Donald decides to take the coin for his own collection. He returns to Victor's house a few nights later. Donald forces the study window open, reaches inside the house and takes the framed coin off the wall. As Donald starts to run away with the coin, he is stopped by police and arrested.
Donald is guilty of: ***OPTIONS*** A. Burglary, but not larceny. B. Larceny, but not burglary. C. Burglary and larceny. D. Neither burglary nor larceny. "
C
"Donald was working as a cashier at a restaurant. Over a period of several months, Donald stole several thousand dollars from the cash register. When Donald heard that the restaurant was going to hire an auditor to examine the restaurant's financial records, Donald became fearful that his theft would be discovered. Donald hired Harold, a professional assassin, to kill the auditor. Donald paid the assassin $1,000 to kill the auditor. The assassin took the money and killed the auditor.
If the police arrest Donald and he confesses to stealing the money from the cash register, he can be convicted of theft and ***OPTIONS*** A. conspiracy only B. murder only C. conspiracy or murder, but not both D. conspiracy and murder "
D
"Donna and Hillary were discussing a controversial political issue when Donna reached out and grabbed Hillary's blouse. Hillary pushed Donna and knocked her down. Pearl saw the two women and attempted to get between the two of them to calm them down. While attempting to strike Hillary, Donna swung her fist and struck Pearl. Pearl brought a battery action against Donna.
III. Donna did not intend to strike Hillary, only to frighten Hillary. ***OPTIONS*** A. I and III B. I and II C. I, II and III D. None of the above "
D
"Dooley was a professional burglar who took care never to involve other persons in his crimes. He had given himself up in the past rather than risk any harm to police officers or innocent third parties. He carefully planned the burglary of Rostov's Jewelry Shoppe so that no one would be present during the heist. He used the city archives to learn of an abandoned sewer line which ran under the building. He took a correspondence course in security systems to learn how to disable Rostov's sophisticated alarm systems. He waited until the Fourth of July, on which Rostov closed every year and went to the beach, to carry out the job. Dooley dug up from the sewer line into the store, disabled all alarms, and swiftly stole the most valuable stones, amounting to more than $5 million worth of jewelry. Just as Dooley dropped back into the sewer line and prepared to crawl to his waiting van 100 yards away, Rostov returned unexpectedly from the beach; he had forgotten the American flag he always flew from the top of his beach pavilion. Rostov saw immediately that he had been burglarized, and that the loss was very substantial. At the same time Dooley started his van and drove away, Rostov died from a massive heart attack induced in part by his anxiety at having lost so much jewelry.
Dooley was prosecuted for the felony-murder of Rostov. He should be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. Guilty, because Dooley is strictly liable for any death which occurs in the commission of the underlying felony. B. Guilty, because Rostov's death occurred while Dooley was still making good his escape from the scene of the felony. C. Not guilty, because the burglary was complete as soon as Dooley broke and entered the store with intent to steal jewelry therein. D. Not guilty, because Dooley's actions were not a proximate cause of Rostov's death. "
D
"Dorian is walking in a park one evening with his girlfriend Delilah, when an unaccompanied female jogger runs past them. Gesturing towards the jogger, Dorian whispers to Delilah, ""Hey, wanna have some fun?"" After hesitating for a moment, Delilah replies, ""Okay, why not?"" Dorian and Delilah begin following the jogger. After a few minutes, Delilah says, ""Why don't you grab her and drag her into the bushes over there. Nobody will see us if you rape her in there."" When Dorian and Delilah are sure that there is no one else close by, Dorian runs up, grabs the jogger from behind and drags her into the bushes. As Dorian begins to attack the jogger, Delilah stands watch. When the jogger begins to beg Dorian to let her go, Dorian turns to Delilah and asks, ""Are you sure we should go through with this?"" Delilah says, ""Don't chicken out now!"" Dorian proceeds to rape the jogger while Delilah watches. Before leaving, Dorian and Delilah tell the jogger not to tell anyone and strike her on the head with a tree branch, rendering her unconscious.
If Delilah is prosecuted for rape, should she be convicted? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because, by being present when Dorian raped the jogger and by intending that the crime be committed, she aided and abetted Dorian. B. Yes, because she aided and encouraged Dorian with intent that he commit rape. C. No, because a woman cannot be convicted as an accomplice to a rape if she cannot be convicted as principal. D. No, because Delilah may not be convicted as an accomplice solely because she was present and encouraged Dorian to commit the rape, regardless of her intent. "
B
"Doris was driving in her car to work with Peter, a co-worker. Doris needed to drop off some clothing at a laundry so she pulled to the curb and got out, leaving Peter in the car with the key in the ignition and the engine running. Due to an increase in car thefts, the state had recently passed a new statute that made it illegal for the driver of an automobile to leave the automobile at any time or for any reason with the key in the ignition. While Doris was in the laundry, a car driven by Harold sped around the corner at an excessive rate of speed and struck Doris' car. The impact caused Doris' car transmission to engage and the car traveled for 50 feet and struck a power pole. Peter was injured when the car hit the power pole.
If Peter asserts a claim against Doris to recover damages for his injuries, basing his claim on Doris' violation of the statute, will Peter prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, Peter assumed the risk when he chose to remain in Doris' car with the key in the ignition and the engine running. B. No, the purpose of the statute was not to protect against injuries occurring in this manner. C. Yes, Doris is liable under the doctrine of negligence per se. D. Yes, because Doris negligently left the car in a position of peril. "
B
"Dorman decided to construct a fish pond in his back yard. When completed, the pond was located on the boundary of Dorman's property and located next to a public trail used by joggers and others when traveling through the woods. Dorman stocked the pond with fish, but he became angry when he discovered that some local children had been feeding candy and other snacks to the fish and many fish were dying as a consequence. To prevent the children from reaching the pond, Dorman constructed a barbed wire fence around the pond and bordering the public trail. The fence was posted every 20 feet with a sign warning of the dangers of coming into contact with the barbed wire fence. Rider was out riding on horseback on the trail when his horse was injured when it brushed against the barbed wire fence. Rider was not aware of the existence of the barbed wire fence and had not seen any of the warning signs because the local schoolchildren had recently stolen most of the signs installed by Dorman.
If Rider brings suit against Dorman for the injuries suffered by his horse, Rider will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, but only if it is established that using barbed wire fencing adjacent to a frequently-used public trail amounts to reckless conduct on Dorman's part. B. prevail, if Dorman failed to use reasonable care to warn of the dangers presented by the fence. C. not prevail, because Rider was a trespasser. D. not prevail, a landowner has no duty to warn persons not on his land about dangers arising from natural conditions on the property. "
B
"Dot purchased a roll-top desk at a used furniture store. When she brought the desk home, she found a small pill box which contained four tablets that looked like a common cold medicine. Dot took the tablets to her pharmacist who told her that the tablets were ""zylomin,"" a controlled substance. When Dot asked what she should do with the tablets the pharmacist told her that while it was illegal to purchase zylomin tablets, she could keep them without fear of breaking any laws since she had no idea the tablets were in the desk when she purchased it. Unknown to Dot or the pharmacist, a statute in the jurisdiction prohibits the ""knowing and unlawful possession of a controlled substance.""
If Dot is arrested and prosecuted for violation of this statute, she should be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because she knowingly possessed zylomin tablets. B. guilty, because she acquired the zylomin when she purchased the desk. C. not guilty, because she thought she was acting within the law on the advice of her pharmacist. D. not guilty, because she did not knowingly acquire the zylomin tablets. "
A
"Drew owned a home in a residential neighborhood. At the request of his teenage son, Drew built a wooden skateboard ramp for use by Drew's son and other children in the neighborhood in the driveway in front of Drew's home. Drew always insisted that children using the skateboard ramp wear helmets and other protective safety pads when using the skateboard ramp. When Drew took his family on a weekend trip to visit relatives, he disassembled the ramp and placed the skateboard ramp against the side of the garage. On that same weekend, Paul moved into the house next door to Drew. Paul was eleven years old and loved to ride his skateboard. When he looked out of his second-story bedroom window over the fence at Drew's house, he saw something that appeared to be a wooden skateboard ramp leaning against the side of Drew's garage. When he climbed over the fence to take a closer look, he knew exactly what he was going to do. Paul took the ramp and placed it in Drew's driveway and began skating up and down the ramp. On the third attempt, Paul fell off the top of the ramp and broke his wrist. If he had been wearing a wrist pad, he would not have been injured.
If a lawsuit is brought on Paul's behalf against Drew, Paul will ***OPTIONS*** A. not prevail, because Paul had not seen the skateboard ramp assembled and operating previously and so he was not attracted to Drew's house because of it. B. not prevail, because Paul did not obtain permission from Drew before entering Drew's property. C. not prevail, if Paul did not act reasonably as measured by that of a child of similar age, intelligence and experience. D. not prevail, if the children likely to be attracted to the skateboard ramp would normally realize the risks of using the ramp without wearing protective equipment. "
D
"Dribble loved to play basketball. He would often wait around the basketball court near his home for hours, hoping to get involved in a game with other visitors to the court.
If Potter brings an action against Dribble for battery, Potter will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, if Dribble intended to push Potter. B. recover, if Dribble intended Potter to suffer a harmful and offensive touching. C. not recover, unless Dribble intentionally tried to push Potter using force in excess of that which Potter and the other players consented to by participating in the game. D. not recover, because by continuing to play as the level of physical contact increased, Potter had given consent to be touched. "
D
"Duff hired a lawyer specializing in securities regulation to prepare all the necessary documents for an initial public offering of stock in Duff's corporation. The lawyer drew up certain reports for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which contained material misstatements of fact; the lawyer was aware of these misstatements but did not call them to Duff's attention. Duff signed the reports and submitted them to the SEC.
If Duff is prosecuted for violation of a federal statute which prohibits willful making of false statements in documents submitted to the SEC, may Duff defend on the grounds that he acted on the advice of his attorney? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because the attorney drew up the reports which contained the false statements. B. Yes, because Duff reasonably and in good faith relied on the advice of his attorney. C. No, because the lawyer knew that the reports contained false statements. D. No, because Duff signed and submitted the reports containing false statements. "
B
"Duke received a check from Hal for ten dollars. Knowing that bank tellers tended to become careless just before lunch time, Duke took the check to the bank, used a pen to add a zero in the part of the check where the numerical amount was written, and at two minutes before noon brought it to a teller's window, saying, ""I need to cash this hundred dollar check."" The alert teller, who had just returned from her 11:00 to noon lunch hour, saw the alteration that Duke had made because it was in a different color ink than Hal had used in writing the check.
III. Attempted false pretenses. ***OPTIONS*** A. I and II only. B. I and III only. C. II only. D. III only. "
D
"Duke's old dog, Rex, didn't like the new puppy, and would hide from him during the day so as not to have his (Rex's) naps interrupted by an impromptu game of "chew Rex's ear." One warm evening, Rex hid in the tool shed, and was so deeply asleep that he didn't awaken when Duke shut and locked the shed for the night. When he awoke about midnight and discovered that he was locked in, Rex began jumping against the shed door. The loud banging of the tool shed door aroused Duke from sleep. Thinking that his house was being burglarized, Duke grabbed his loaded shotgun and tiptoed out onto the back patio from where he had heard the loud banging. In the dark of the patio, Duke did not notice that his young daughter had left her jacks scattered about on the floor. When his bare feet encountered the jacks, Duke was soon hopping in pain and fell over a patio table, crashing heavily to the floor. Upon impact, the shotgun went off, both barrels blasting a hole through the patio screen. The pellets struck Duke's neighbor, Jimmy, who had also heard the thumping in the tool shed and had climbed over the fence which separated his yard from Duke's. Jimmy was killed instantly.
Which of the following is Duke's strongest defense to a charge of involuntary manslaughter as a result of Jimmy's death? ***OPTIONS*** A. Jimmy assumed the risk by trespassing on Duke's property at night. B. Duke's actions that night did not constitute criminal negligence. C. Jimmy's death did not result from a volitional act by Duke. D. Duke was privileged to kill in defense of his home. "
B
"Dunbar was an avid fisherman. One day while fishing for rainbow trout on a remote mountain stream, Dunbar slipped on a wet rock and fell into the stream. Although Dunbar was unhurt in the fall, his glasses fell into the stream and were lost.
If Phil brings an action against Dunbar for battery, which of the following would provide the best defense for Dunbar? ***OPTIONS*** A. Dunbar did not know that he was hitting a person. B. Dunbar thought the bear was about to attack him. C. By wearing a bear costume into the woods, Phil was consenting to being touched. D. Phil was not seriously hurt by the blow to the head. "
A
"Duncan owns and operates Duncan Airways, a small air commuter service. Duncan is the sole owner and pilot. Duncan Airways owns two small planes. Duncan employs two technicians to maintain the planes. Duncan Airways is based in a small town about a four hour drive from the nearest major metropolitan area, so Duncan Airways frequently transports business travelers between these two areas. On one of these trips, the plane crashes with Duncan and one passenger on board. Duncan and his passenger are severely injured in the crash. The crash was caused by an engine malfunction. The passenger brings suit against Duncan Airways for his injuries.
At trial, after the passenger presents his case, Duncan Airways presents the following evidence: (1) the maintenance technicians employed by Duncan are well-trained and experienced, (2) the plane which crashed was less than five years old, (3) planes of the same model are known to have very good safety records if properly maintained and (4) the maintenance technicians inspected the plane on a regular basis and followed systemized maintenance procedures. Duncan Airways then moves for a directed verdict. Should the court grant Duncan's motion? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because the occurrence of the injury creates a presumption of negligence. B. No, because the jury could reasonably infer that Duncan Airways was negligent. C. Yes, because the passenger was not able to present direct evidence of negligence. D. Yes, because the evidence presented by Duncan Airways establishes, as a matter of law, that due care was exercised. "
B
"During Spring break, Kate and three of her friends, all students at the University of Oregon, decide to take a trip to San Diego. They plan to take turns driving so that they can drive straight through to San Diego without stopping. Kate's first turn to drive comes when they are driving through a remote part of Northern California. As soon as Kate gets behind the wheel, she realizes that she needs to find a restroom. However, the car has just passed a sign stating that the next public rest area is sixty miles down the highway. After they have driven a few more miles, Kate sees a sign indicating that a restaurant called Frieda's Fish House is located at the next exit. She decides to exit the highway to see if she can use the restroom at the restaurant.
For the purposes of this question only, assume that Traci fell and broke her arm when she slipped on the puddle of water. If Traci brings a personal injury suit against Frieda, she will most likely: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not prevail, because Frieda had no duty to inspect the premises to discover unknown, dangerous conditions. B. ot prevail, unless Frieda failed to conduct a reasonable inspection of the premises. C. Prevail, because Frieda had an absolute duty to ensure that the premises were free of dangerous conditions. D. Prevail, only if Frieda had prior knowledge of the dangerous condition of the restroom floor. "
B
"During Spring break, Kate and three of her friends, all students at the University of Oregon, decide to take a trip to San Diego. They plan to take turns driving so that they can drive straight through to San Diego without stopping. Kate's first turn to drive comes when they are driving through a remote part of Northern California. As soon as Kate gets behind the wheel, she realizes that she needs to find a restroom. However, the car has just passed a sign stating that the next public rest area is sixty miles down the highway. After they have driven a few more miles, Kate sees a sign indicating that a restaurant called Frieda's Fish House is located at the next exit. She decides to exit the highway to see if she can use the restroom at the restaurant.
Of the following statements, which best describes the duty of care that Frieda owed to Kate? ***OPTIONS*** A. Frieda owed Kate an absolute duty of care. B. Frieda had a duty to inspect the premises for nonobvious, unknown dangers and warn Kate or make the premises safe. C. Frieda had a duty to warn of any known, nonobvious dangers on the premises. D. Frieda owed Kate no duty of care. "
C
"During Spring break, Kate and three of her friends, all students at the University of Oregon, decide to take a trip to San Diego. They plan to take turns driving so that they can drive straight through to San Diego without stopping. Kate's first turn to drive comes when they are driving through a remote part of Northern California. As soon as Kate gets behind the wheel, she realizes that she needs to find a restroom. However, the car has just passed a sign stating that the next public rest area is sixty miles down the highway. After they have driven a few more miles, Kate sees a sign indicating that a restaurant called Frieda's Fish House is located at the next exit. She decides to exit the highway to see if she can use the restroom at the restaurant.
Which of the following is the best description of Kate's legal status? ***OPTIONS*** A. Invitee B. Licensee C. Social guest D. Trespasser "
D
"Dutton was married to Frieda for over 40 years. Frieda contracted cancer and had to be hospitalized and placed on life support medical equipment. Her condition was terminal and she was experiencing a great deal of pain that was not alleviated with the medications currently available for cancer patients. Frieda begged Dutton to ""do something"" to relieve the pain. Dutton pleaded with Frieda's physicians to remove the life support equipment, but they refused to do so. One day while Frieda was asleep, Dutton entered and disconnected the life support equipment. Frieda died shortly thereafter because due to her weakened condition, she could not breathe without the life support equipment.
At common law, Dutton is guilty of which of the following crimes? ***OPTIONS*** A. No crime, because Frieda died as a result of her terminal medical condition. B. Manslaughter, because Dutton did not act with malice. C. Manslaughter, because Dutton acted while suffering from extreme emotional distress. D. Murder, because Dutton acted with the intent to kill and his act caused Frieda's death. "
D
"Eeny, Meany and Miney decide to rob Moe's Bar, one of their favorite hangouts. On Saturday night, they meet to plan their crime. They agree to rob the bar the following Friday night, just before closing. They reason that the bar's cash drawer is likely to be full at the end of a Friday night and that a small number of people will be in the bar at that time. Realizing the danger that they might be recognized by the bar owner or any bar patrons remaining in the bar, they agree that Meany will acquire three black ski masks for them to wear during the robbery. Since none of the three own any weapons, Eeny agrees to borrow his sister's can of Mace to use during the robbery. The next day, Meany steals three ski masks from a local sporting goods store and gives them to Eeny. On Thursday, the day before the robbery is to occur, Meany is hit by a car. As a result, he undergoes emergency surgery and is heavily sedated for the next three days.
If he is arrested, Meany should be convicted of: ***OPTIONS*** A. Larceny, conspiracy and attempted robbery. B. Larceny and attempted robbery C. Larceny and conspiracy. D. Larceny only. "
A
"ExerciseCo manufactured and sold exercise equipment for use by consumers in health clubs and in their own homes. One of the products produced by ExerciseCo was a stationary bicycle. Club, a health club, purchased a stationary bicycle from ExerciseCo and installed it in their Club. Patty was using the exercise bicycle when the handlebars suddenly gave way, causing her to fall and injure her arm. Patty brought suit against Club based on a theory of strict products liability. At trial, the evidence established that employees of Club had received frequent complaints about the exercise bicycle from Club patrons who claimed that the handlebars were always loose. There was also testimony from Club employees that they were constantly adjusting and tightening the handlebars, but never found a permanent solution to the problem.
In this action, Patty will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, because the bicycle was dangerously defective. B. prevail, because Club employees failed to warn Patty or correct a dangerous defect. C. not prevail, if Patty could have reasonably determined that the handlebars were loose. D. not prevail, Club is not a commercial supplier of exercise equipment."
D
"Finnegan, a rare book dealer, was cleaning up his booth after a day at the annual book fair when he noticed a faded, leather-bound book lying in the debris which the janitorial staff had swept into a pile preparatory to loading into trash barrels. Bending over quickly and snatching the book from the trash pile, Finnegan quickly concealed it inside his blazer, holding it to his body with his elbow. Finnegan had seen the gold leaf characteristic of expensive first editions as he had tucked the book into his jacket, and he resolved to take the book and later offer it for sale if it in fact turned out to be valuable.
Is Finnegan guilty of any crime? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because he took action intended to return the book to its owner. B. No, because there was no trespassory taking of the book. C. Yes, he committed embezzlement when, in rightful possession of the book, he decided to keep it and later sell it for his own account. D. Yes, he committed larceny when he picked up the book intending to keep it and later sell it for his own account. "
D
"Fran drove her car to a downtown parking garage owned and operated by Garage. Fran entered and parked her car, leaving her keys with the garage attendant. For the next three hours, Fran visited several bars and consumed a large number of alcoholic beverages. When Fran returned to the parking garage she was visibly intoxicated. The attendant, a Garage employee, saw Fran and asked her, ""Do you want me to call a taxi?"" Fran said no and grabbed the keys from the attendant's hand. On the way home, Fran struck another car with hers and injured Paul, the driver of the other vehicle. Paul brought suit against Garage and the attendant, attempting to collect for his injuries.
Which of the following will provide the best defense for Garage and the attendant in this suit? ***OPTIONS*** A. Paul was injured by Fran, not by the defendants. B. Fran's intoxicated condition was the cause of the accident and neither defendant was responsible for furnishing Fran with the alcohol. C. Neither Garage nor the attendant owed any duty of care to Paul to refuse Fran's request for her car keys. D. Neither Garage nor the attendant created any foreseeable risk of harm to third parties when they allowed Fran to drive out of the garage. "
C
"Frank received a new snowmobile for Christmas. The first week of January, a snow storm drops a foot of new snow in the mountains. Frank decides to take his new snowmobile out for a spin. He is moving much too fast when he comes over a rise and sees another snowmobile directly in front of him. He swerves to avoid the other snowmobile, but loses control. His snowmobile crashes into the other snowmobile. Fortunately, Hans, the driver of the other snowmobile, is not injured, but his snowmobile has been rendered inoperable. Frank's snowmobile still runs, so he goes for help while Hans stays behind with his damaged snowmobile.
While Hans waits for Frank to return, a large branch of a nearby tree snaps under the weight of the heavy, new snow. The branch falls and hits Hans, causing Hans to break his collar-bone and left arm. If Hans sues Frank for these injuries, Frank's best defense would be: ***OPTIONS*** A. That he was not negligent. B. hat Hans was negligent in standing near a tree with snow-laden branches. C. That the falling tree branch was an intervening and superseding force. D. That his negligent conduct was not the actual cause of Hans's injuries."
C
"Garcia, a computer programmer and hacker, developed a program by which he could use the mainframe computer owned by his employer to raid the accounts of financial institutions which utilized electronic transfer of funds. Using the machine at work would leave traces by which he could be discovered, and his home computer was not powerful enough to run the program, so Garcia approached his friend Lou with a proposition: if Lou would give Garcia $20,000 to purchase a new computer which could run the account-raiding program, Garcia would give Lou $50,000 from the money he stole using the program. Lou gave Garcia $20,000 but Garcia had a change of heart; he never bought the new computer and never used his program to raid any bank accounts.
Assuming that in the jurisdiction it is a crime to steal money by electronic means, at what point in the above facts could Lou be properly convicted of conspiracy to commit such electronic theft? ***OPTIONS*** A. When Garcia proposed the criminal scheme to him. B. When he gave the $20,000 to Garcia. C. Never, because he never agreed to participate in the electronic thefts. D. Never, because no electronic theft ever occurred. "
B
"Gig wants to realize the American dream and own his own business. He convinces Mrs. Honey to loan him the money. Gig executes a promissory note payable over 20 years and other appropriate documents sufficient to give Honey a first security interest in all of the equipment of the business. A short time later, when Gig realizes that he actually has to work, he sells the business, including the equipment to Lois. The Security Agreement states, in part, that the sale is ""subject to an existing lien in favor of Mrs. Honey,"" but, even so, Gig convinces Lois to include language in the Purchase Agreement stating that Lois expressly assumes and promises to perform all obligations due on the promissory note and Security Agreement from Gig to Honey. When Honey learns of the sale of the business to Lois, she writes a letter to Gig thanking him for protecting her interests. She further states, ""I will be expecting payment on the note from Lois from now on, instead of from you.""
Which of the following best explains a victory for Gig in Honey's action? ***OPTIONS*** A. Gig can successfully raise the defense of laches to Mrs. Honey's action. B. The effect of the transaction among Gig, Lois and Mrs. Honey was an attornment. C. The agreement between Gig and Lois had the effect of a novation between Gig and Mrs. Honey. D. The agreement between Gig and Lois had the effect of an accord and satisfaction between Gig and Mrs. Honey. "
C
"Gil was leading his troop of Boy Scouts on a nature walk through the park when Stu, who had been surreptitiously following the troop and was armed with a knife, seized little Bobby, the last boy in line, and shouted, "Give me your wallet, your watch, your ring, and those binoculars, or I'll slash the kid!" Gil gave all the items to Stu, who then shoved Bobby at Gil and escaped into the woods.
If prosecuted in connection with these events, the most serious crime Stu could properly be convicted of is: ***OPTIONS*** A. Robbery, because he obtained Gil's property by threat of force. B. Larceny, because the threat of force was not directed at Gil, whose property was taken. C. Larceny, because Bobby was not a relative of Gil. D. Assault on Bobby, because there was no concurrence of mens rea and actus reus as to a larceny or robbery of Gil. "
A
"Grant wanted to kill Craig because he believed that Craig had defrauded him in a business venture. He knew that Craig had difficulty sleeping and took medication which resulted in Craig being nearly unconscious as he slept. Grant decided to burn down Craig's home while Craig slept, hoping that Craig would perish in the fire without waking up. Grant went to Craig's home with a container of lighter fluid. He went into Craig's bedroom and lit a cigarette and placed it on top of the open container of lighter fluid next to the bed. Grant assumed that when the cigarette burned closer to the can it would light the bed on fire and kill Craig. Grant then left the house. The lighter fluid burst into flame just as Grant had planned, except that Jack, a neighbor of Craig's, smelled the smoke and called for help before the bed could ignite. Craig was killed when his bed became engulfed in flames, but there was no other damage to Craig's home except the blackening of the ceiling of the bedroom from the smoke.
If Grant is prosecuted for arson of Craig's house, he should be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because Craig's home was burned during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony. B. guilty, because the ceiling was blackened by the smoke from the burning lighter fluid. C. not guilty, because there was insufficient damage to the structure of the house. D. not guilty, because Grant did not have the specific intent to burn down the house. "
C
"Grocer's small grocery store had been the subject of many break-ins over the last two years. Determined to protect himself from theft, Grocer installed an explosive device on the cash register such that the device would detonate if anyone attempted to steal the money from the register without using the security key. One night a fifteen year old boy broke into the grocery store and attempted to open the cash register. The explosive device detonated and the boy was severely injured.
If the boy brings an action seeking damages from Grocer, he will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because Grocer used excessive force. B. recover, because the pattern of past break-ins establishes that the boy was a foreseeable trespasser. C. not recover, Grocer was permitted to use force to prevent the commission of a crime. D. not recover, no duty of care is owed to criminal trespassers. "
A
"Harold owns and operates a small consignment shop for antiques and collectibles. One day, Tiffany brings an art glass vase to Harold's shop. Tiffany believes that the vase is worth approximately $1,000. Harold and Tiffany agree that Harold will take the vase on consignment for Tiffany. If Harold sells the vase, he will receive his standard 20-percent commission. Harold takes the vase to an expert art glass appraiser. The expert tells Harold that the vase is extremely rare and would be worth, to an art glass collector, between $80,000 and $100,000. Shortly thereafter, Harold sells the vase to a collector for $90,000. Harold then informs Tiffany that he has sold the vase for $1,000 and sends Tiffany a check for $800.
If Maud is tried on the accessory-after-the-fact charge, she should: ***OPTIONS*** A. Be convicted only if Maud assisted Harold with intent to prevent Harold's arrest. B. Be convicted only if Maud knew that a warrant had been issued for Harold's arrest. C. Not be convicted because Maud did not assist Harold in committing the crime, nor was she aware of Harold's actions until after the crime was completed. D. Not be convicted because Maud can not be found guilty unless Harold has been convicted on the embezzlement charge. "
A
"Hunter was prosecuted for violation of a statute which defines as a misdemeanor "knowingly discarding any recyclable material in such a fashion as to substantially prevent its recovery and reuse by an existing recycling operation" ("recycling operation" is defined in the statute as to proximity and availability). At trial the state established that Hunter had incinerated 50 pounds of news­print, while a paper recycling plant meeting the statutory definition was in operation within ten miles of Hunter's home. Hunter testified in his own defense that he was unaware that newspaper was a recyclable material.
If Hunter testified truthfully, what should be the outcome of this litigation? ***OPTIONS*** A. Hunter should be convicted, because the statute defines a public welfare offense. B. Hunter should be convicted, if a reasonable person would have known that newspaper was recyclable. C. Hunter should be acquitted, because the Due Process Clause of the federal Constitution precludes criminally punishing an individual merely for lack of knowledge. D. Hunter should be acquitted, because he did not possess the requisite mental state to support a conviction. "
D
"Hus and Wif are married and suffering from marital difficulties. Wif sought counseling from Therapist, a licensed family counselor. After several weeks of counseling in which Wif told Therapist about the intimate details of her marital problems with Hus, Wif and Therapist began a consensual sexual relationship. After several months, Hus discovered that Wif and Therapist are having an affair and instituted a divorce action against Wif. Wif broke off the relationship with Therapist and had to seek a psychiatrist to treat her for depression and other mental trauma. After the divorce decree is entered, Wif brought an action against Therapist.
The best theory for Wif to assert in order to recover damages from Therapist would be ***OPTIONS*** A. assault. B. battery. C. invasion of privacy. D. intentional infliction of emotional distress. "
D
"In honor of the first day of Spring, Dennis finally gets around to cleaning out his garage. He asks Alex, his teenage grandson, to help him. Dennis knows that Alex has a drug problem and has had some run-ins with the law, but he is hoping that he can be a positive influence on Alex. As they clean the garage, Dennis makes a collection of items which he would like to sell in a garage sale or flea market. He places these items in a cardboard box. One of the items is a hunting knife which he inherited from his father, but which he doesn't use. When they have finished cleaning the garage, Alex asks Dennis if he may pick something out of the box to keep. Dennis says, ""Sure, go ahead, it's just a lot of junk."" Dennis pays no attention to which item Alex selects for the box. Alex selects the hunting knife.
Percy decides to execute the judgment solely against Dennis. If Dennis satisfies the entire judgment, what may Dennis recover from Alex? ***OPTIONS*** A. Contribution in an amount corresponding to Alex's degree of fault. B. Half of the amount he paid to Percy, since they were jointly and severally liable. C. Indemnity for the entire amount of the judgment, because Alex was an intentional tortfeasor. D. Nothing, because, despite Alex's intervening conduct, Dennis's negligence proximately caused Percy's injuries. "
C
"In the mail, Desdemona receives an invitation to her 20-year high school class reunion. For the reunion, a dinner-dance has been scheduled to be held at a local hotel. Over the years, Desdemona has developed an irrational resentment and paranoia towards the other members of her graduating high school class. She remembers feeling miserable in high school because of the way other students treated her and blames the members of her high school class for ruining her life. She is also fixated on the idea that several members of her class have continued to plot against her over the years. Desdemona sees the reunion dinner-dance as her opportunity to get revenge.
The jurisdiction in question has adopted the American Law Institute or Model Penal Code test for the insanity defense. Desdemona is arrested and prosecuted for arson and felony murder. If Desdemona seeks acquittal based on insanity, she should argue that, at the time of her actions: ***OPTIONS*** A. A mental disease caused a defect of reason such that she lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of or understand the nature and quality of her actions. B. A mental disease or defect caused her to lack substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions or conform her actions to the law. C. A mental disease or defect caused her to believe that her conduct was morally right. D. A mental disease or defect prevented her from being able to conform her actions to the law or control her conduct. "
B
"In the mail, Desdemona receives an invitation to her 20-year high school class reunion. For the reunion, a dinner-dance has been scheduled to be held at a local hotel. Over the years, Desdemona has developed an irrational resentment and paranoia towards the other members of her graduating high school class. She remembers feeling miserable in high school because of the way other students treated her and blames the members of her high school class for ruining her life. She is also fixated on the idea that several members of her class have continued to plot against her over the years. Desdemona sees the reunion dinner-dance as her opportunity to get revenge.
If Tiffany is prosecuted for felony murder, she will probably be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, because duress is a defense to arson. B. Not guilty, because Tiffany may claim necessity as a defense. C. Guilty, because duress is never a defense to murder. D. Guilty, pursuant to the Felony Murder Rule. "
A
"Jacobs and Marks manufactured and sold "ice," a crystalline form of methamphetamine, to various drug dealers, who in turn used a network of underlings to resell the "ice" to users. Because purchasers of drugs would occasionally attempt to rob them rather than pay, Jacobs and Marks both kept pistols on their persons at all times during drug transactions.
Clay, who was wearing body armor, was not seriously injured by Marks' shots. Marks was convicted of attempted murder of Clay, among other charges. If Jacobs is charged with attempted murder, he should be found: ***OPTIONS*** A. Not guilty, because the conspiracy had terminated upon Marks' arrest, and thus Jacobs could no longer be vicariously liable for Marks' acts. B. Not guilty, because Marks acted outside the scope of the conspiracy when he shot Clay. C. because he is criminally liable for any crime committed by his co-conspirator, Marks. D. Guilty, because he knew Marks was armed and might attempt to evade arrest by use of the pistol. "
D
"Johnny told his mother (Mom) that he wanted to go miniature golfing for his 6th birthday. When the day arrived, Mom took Johnny to the local miniature golf course. On the first two golf holes, Johnny became frustrated because he could not strike the ball with enough force to allow the ball to climb over the obstacle between the tee and the hole. Mom instructed Johnny to bring the club back farther and swing harder to drive the ball over the obstacle. Pell was playing miniature golf on an adjacent hole and watched with amusement as Mom was instructing Johnny. A short time later, Pell was struck in the back of the head by an errant golf shot struck by Johnny from an adjacent tee. Pell suffered a concussion and has now brought suit against Mom and Johnny to recover for his injuries.
If Pell brings a negligence action against Mom, Pell will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, if Johnny was negligent. B. prevail, if Mom did not reasonably supervise Johnny's conduct. C. prevail, because parents are liable for the torts committed by their children. D. prevail, if Johnny intended to strike Pell. "
B
"Joker was invited to a cocktail party at the home of Host. Joker knew that Host was terribly afraid of mice so Joker brought his pet mouse in his pocket to the party intending to play a joke on Host in the middle of the party by letting the mouse run across the dinner table when everyone was seated. Spoiler, another party guest, found out about Joker's plan to let the mouse run across the dinner table and immediately informed Host right after Joker sat down at the table. Host was relieved, but had to retire to the bedroom and lie down when Host thought about how close Host had come to having her entire party ruined by Joker.
IV. Host must have suffered some type of physical injury. ***OPTIONS*** A. I and II. B. II and III. C. I and III. D. II and IV. "
B
"Julia is the leader of a Super Campers troop. Super Campers is a scouting organization for elementary school children. In preparation for a camping trip, Julia purchases a dozen wire clothes hangers from Super Store to use for toasting marshmallows over the campfire. The clothes hangers were manufactured by Hang Ups Inc. In order to make the clothes hangers more attractive than the standard black wire variety, Hang Ups Inc. coated them with a thin layer of red, yellow or green paint, covered by a sealant. On the camping trip, Julia decides to demonstrate the proper manner of toasting a marshmallow to the children. Julia sticks a marshmallow on a bent clothes hanger and holds it over the flames. After a few seconds, the paint and sealant on the clothes hanger bursts into flames, severely burning Julia's hand.
Julia brings a product liability action based on strict liability against Super Store. Julia will: ***OPTIONS*** A. Prevail, unless Julia failed to guard against the risk of fire. B. Prevail, if the misuse was reasonably foreseeable and neither Hang Ups Inc. nor Super Store adequately warned of the danger of fire. C. Not prevail, because Super Store did not manufacture the clothes hangers. D. Not prevail, because Julia was misusing the hanger. "
B
"Lanny was late for an appointment across town. Because of this, Lanny was driving recklessly through traffic at a high speed. While driving across town, Lanny ran through a red light. There were a number of people crossing the street at the time and Lanny hit one of them. The person Lanny hit was seriously injured and was rushed to the hospital.
Lanny was arrested and charged with attempted murder. He should be: ***OPTIONS*** A. Acquitted, if he did not intend to kill the pedestrian. B. Acquitted, because he had not gone far enough in his actions to constitute an attempt. C. Convicted, because a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his act. D. Convicted, because intent to inflict serious bodily harm is presumed from Lanny's reckless conduct. "
A
"Late one night, Dan slid open a shut but unlocked living room window of the Victor residence and climbed inside so that he could steal jewelry he believed was contained in a wall safe. The Victors were asleep in their bedroom at the other end of the house. Using a blowtorch, Dan cut the metal door of the wall safe and removed it. A quick glance inside revealed that the safe was empty, and the heat from the blowtorch had ignited the wallpaper, so Dan fled. A smoke alarm sounded, awakening Mr. Victor, who used a fire extinguisher to put out the flames after they had charred a large section of the wall.
In a jurisdiction which defines crimes according to the common law, of what crimes could Dan properly be convicted? ***OPTIONS*** A. Arson only. B. Burglary only. C. Attempted arson and burglary. D. D Arson and burglary. "
D
"Marcus works in a jewelry store. He developed a plan to steal jewelry from the store using a friend, Tom, who would come into the store while Marcus was on duty. According to the plan, Tom would select an inexpensive piece of jewelry. Marcus would then substitute a more expensive piece of jewelry and record the sale as for the inexpensive piece, and only charge Tom for the cheaper item. After several months of taking expensive jewelry, Tom told Marcus he no longer wanted to participate. Tom and Marcus divided up the expensive jewelry they had taken and agreed to go their separate ways. When Tom went to an appraiser to determine the value of his share of the proceeds, he discovered that Marcus had given him cheap imitation jewels instead of the expensive items Tom had taken from the jewelry store. Tom was furious and went to visit Marcus to confront him. When Marcus did not answer the door, Tom broke in and stole a ring which he recognized as one of the items he had 'purchased' from the jewelry store as part of their plan.""
If Tom is arrested and charged with burglary in connection with the break-in at Marcus' house, his best defense will be to argue that ***OPTIONS*** A. he and Marcus were partners in crime, having both participated in stealing the jewelry in the first place. B. he lacked the requisite intent to commit burglary because he honestly believed that under the terms of their plan, the ring he took represented his fair compensation for participating in the crime. C. he was so angry at Marcus for cheating him that he was acting in the heat of passion. D. he honestly believed that since the ring actually belonged to the jewelry store, it was not a crime to take it from Marcus. "
B
"Marcy decides to get her fingernails manicured at Flo's House of Nails. Unfortunately, Flo does not properly sterilize her manicure tools between clients. Due to Flo's negligence, Marcy develops an infection under her fingernails. Marcy goes to Doctor Roe for treatment of her infection. Doctor Roe misdiagnoses Marcy's infection and provides improper treatment. After Doctor Roe's negligent treatment, all of Marcy's fingernails fall out.
From whom may Marcy recover the damages she has been awarded? ***OPTIONS*** A. Marcy may recover only $25,000 from each defendant because the defendants concurrently caused Marcy's injury. B. Marcy may recover the entire amount from either defendant because the defendants are jointly and severally liable for Marcy's injury. C. Marcy may not recover the damages from either defendant because there is no rational basis for apportioning the harm suffered by Marcy. D. Marcy may recover the entire amount from Flo, but nothing from Doctor Roe, because the infection would not have occurred but for Flo's negligence. "
B
"Marcy went to Short's Drugstore to purchase the newest shade of Electric Eye Shadow: lime green. When Marcy arrived in the cosmetics section of the store, she discovered that the eye shadow she wanted to buy cost $7.00. Unfortunately, she had only $5.00 in her purse. Distressed that she would not be able to buy the eye shadow that all of her friends were wearing, Marcy looked around and noticed that one of the store clerks had left a pricing machine on the next display in the aisle. The clerk had been marking eyebrow pencils with price stickers reading ""$2.99."" A few extra stickers remained on the tape in the machine. After checking to be sure that no one else was in the aisle, she grabbed one of the $2.99 price stickers and placed it on the eye shadow package, covering the $7.00 price sticker. Marcy purchased the eye shadow for $2.99 and left the store.
Marcy is guilty of which of the following crimes? ***OPTIONS*** A. Deceit B. Larceny C. Conversion D. False pretenses "
D
"Marv worked as a teacher at a child-care center owned and operated by Childco. One morning, Marv noticed that Victoria, one of the students in his kindergarten class, had fresh bruises on her arms and legs. Suspecting that Victoria had been abused, Marv asked her how she got the bruises. Victoria refused to answer and began to cry. At the end of the school day, Marv reported the incident as a possible case of child abuse to the Childco management as he was required to do by company policy. A state law required all teachers and child care providers to report all cases of suspected child abuse to the local police or child welfare authorities. The Childco management told Marv not to report the incident to the police or local child welfare officials because they feared that the likely publicity would cause unnecessary fear by the parents of children in the school and could cause a loss of enrollments. Marv agreed not to report the incident to the authorities. Two days later, Victoria was killed during a beating administered by her mother.
If Marv is prosecuted for the murder of Victoria and evidence is presented that the bruises Marv observed were inflicted by Victoria's mother, Marv should be found ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because Marv failed to report the incident to the authorities as required by state law. B. guilty, if Marv was not aware of the law requiring him to report evidence of child abuse to the authorities. C. not guilty, Marv lacked the necessary mental state required to support a murder conviction. D. not guilty, because Marv's failure to report the incident to the authorities was not the proximate cause of death. "
C
"Mays, angry because he had been fired for incompetence from his janitorial job at Rock's Department Store, decided to gain revenge by burning the store down. He prepared an "incendiary device" that he had seen in a movie: a cigarette is inserted into book of paper matches so that it is held by the row of matchheads; when the cigarette is lit and burns to the level of the matchheads, the entire book flares up, igniting any flammable material nearby. Mays drove to Rock's and went in the front entrance. Because it was the height of the Christmas shopping season, the store was packed with shoppers and extra sales personnel. Mays had planned to place his "igniter" in the stationary section where the paper materials would provide excellent fuel, but it was so crowded that he was afraid to take action, and when his old supervisor delivered a load of new wrapping paper and saw him, he decided to try another day. Before he could exit the store, however, security guards alerted by the supervisor detained him on suspicion of shoplifting, and the incendiary device was discovered. Mays nervously blurted out his entire plan before he could even be questioned.
The jurisdiction has modified the common law definition of burglary only to the extent that any building or structure is protected and that the requirement that the crime occur in the "nighttime" has been eliminated. Which of the following would be Mays's strongest defense to a charge that he committed burglary of Rock's Department Store? ***OPTIONS*** A. He renounced his intention to burn the store and was on his way out when apprehended. B. He failed to complete the target crime and can thus be guilty only of attempt. C. He did not possess the requisite intent. D. He entered Rock's Department Store while the public was invited to enter. "
D
"Melanie received a small sculpture as a gift from her uncle several years ago. She decides to have the sculpture appraised so that she will know how much she should insure it for. She finds Albert's advertisement under ""Appraisers"" in the yellow pages. His ad happens to be the first one in the telephone book. When Melanie brings the sculpture to his shop, Albert is very excited because he would like to have the sculpture for his private collection. However, he knows that the sculpture is worth about $3,000 and he does not want to pay that much for it. He tells Melanie that he recognizes the sculpture as one that was stolen from a local art gallery several years ago. He says that he suspects that her uncle actually stole the sculpture and then gave it to her. He informs her that he really should confiscate it and turn it over to the police, but he is willing to make her a deal. He offers to buy the sculpture from her for $300, saying that he is willing to keep her uncle's criminal conduct to himself. If she refuses his offer, he will inform the police. Horrified, Melanie grabs the sculpture and hurries out of the shop.
Melanie sues Albert for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Should she prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, unless the purpose of Albert's action was to inflict emotional distress. B. No, if Melanie did not suffer severe emotional distress. C. Yes, if Albert's conduct was extreme and outrageous. D. Yes, because Melanie was horrified and outraged by Albert's conduct. "
B
"Merton was manager of a fast food restaurant. One of his duties was to gather all money received during the preceding 24-hour period at 3:00 p.m. each weekday and deposit that money in the restaurant account at the local bank. Merton was in financial difficulties but had practiced a method of playing casino blackjack which he felt would enable him to win consistently if only he had a stake to begin playing with. One Friday, instead of depositing the cash receipts for the day at the bank, Merton took the restaurant cash and drove across the state line to a city where gambling was legal. Merton played blackjack using his system for the entire weekend, pausing only to sleep, but on Sunday evening was only a few hundred dollars ahead of the amount he had started with. Merton drove back to his home and the next morning deposited in the restaurant bank account an amount equal to the Friday restaurant receipts, plus an appropriate amount of interest.
Based on these facts, Merton could be convicted of: ***OPTIONS*** A. No crime. B. Embezzlement. C. Attempted larceny. D. Larceny. "
B
"Monica and her husband Monroe own the Double M Arms, a successful luxury hotel. Monica has been having an affair for several years with Gilbert, the hotel's beverage manager. Tired of tiptoeing around Monroe, Monica and Gilbert hatch a plan to remove Monroe from the picture permanently. However, Monica and Gilbert find the prospect of ""getting their hands dirty"" distasteful. Monica and Gilbert are aware that Monroe, a creature of habit, goes to the lounge each evening for his daily martini. Consequently, they decide to approach Velvet, a cocktail waitress who is employed in the hotel's lounge. They ask her if she will spike one of Monroe's nightly martinis with hemlock. In exchange, and assuming the hemlock effectively poisons Monroe, Velvet will be appointed as the hotel's new beverage manager and receive a $20,000 per year raise in salary. Velvet agrees to poison Monroe.
Monica and Gilbert should be convicted of: ***OPTIONS*** A. Solicitation, conspiracy to murder Monroe and the murder of Lucretia. B. Conspiracy to murder Monroe and the murder of Lucretia. C. Conspiracy to murder Monroe and Lucretia. D. Conspiracy to murder Monroe. "
B
"Neil decides to have a ""Who done it?"" party where all of his 50 guests dress up in costumes that look like each other. Neil enters into an oral agreement with Wendy for Wendy to design and make all of the costumes for $10,000. About the time Wendy is completing 10 of the 50 costumes, Neil calls Wendy and says, ""I've changed my mind. We're all going out for pizza and I won't be needing any costumes."" Neil refuses to accept any costumes. Wendy sues Neil.
The court should find for: ***OPTIONS*** A. Neil, because this was a contract for specifically produced goods and the agreement was oral. B. Wendy, because the cost per costume was less than $500, and so the contract did not need to be written. C. Neil, because it was a contract for goods in excess of $500 and the agreement was only oral. D. Wendy, because although the contract was oral, it was enforceable as Wendy had made a substantial start on the work. "
D
"Niteclub is an evening entertainment establishment featuring live music and other entertainment which includes a restaurant, bar and dance floor. The police department informed the management of Niteclub that several of Niteclub's customers had complained that they had been robbed or found their cars stolen after leaving the club late at night. In response, Niteclub posted large well-lit signs at the entrances and in the rest rooms of Niteclub warning that ""Niteclub does not insure the safety of the property or persons of those who enter Niteclub"" and that ""Customers should be careful to watch for thieves and robbers who may try to rip you off in the parking lot."" Piddle entered Niteclub one evening to meet some friends. Piddle entered the club, but left less than five minutes later when he discovered that his friends were not inside. When Piddle returned to the parking lot, his car had been stolen.
If Piddle brings a lawsuit against Niteclub to recover damages, Piddle will ***OPTIONS*** A. not recover, because the warning signs were clearly visible. B. not recover, because the car thief is the proximate cause of the harm suffered by Piddle. C. recover, Niteclub will be responsible for any harm suffered by invitees while on the premises. D. recover, if Niteclub failed to take reasonable steps to protect against the harm suffered by Piddle. "
D
"Officer was a police officer who had been experiencing marital problems with his wife. One night, Officer came home early from working the night shift and found his wife in bed with Vick. Officer was furious and told Vick to get dressed and leave the house. While he was putting on his pants, Vick suddenly reached into the pocket of his jacket and pulled out a gun. Officer saw Vick pull out the gun and quickly pulled out his service revolver and shot and killed Vick.
Officer is guilty of ***OPTIONS*** A. murder. B. voluntary manslaughter. C. involuntary manslaughter. D. no crime. "
D
"On a camping trip in a state park, Rose discovered metal signs near a rubbish heap stating, ""Natural Wildlife Area-No Hunting."" She took two of the signs and used them to decorate her room at home. She is charged with violation of a state statute which provides, ""Any person who knowingly appropriates to his own use property owned by the state shall be guilty of a crime and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment."" At trial, Rose admitted taking the signs, but testified she believed the signs had been thrown away.
Rose should be found ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because this is a public welfare offense. B. guilty, because she should have inquired whether the signs had been thrown away. C. not guilty, but only if the jury finds she reasonably believed the signs were thrown away. D. not guilty, if the jury finds she honestly believed the signs had been thrown away. "
D
"One morning, Shirley is driving to visit her grandchildren when Mario runs a stop sign and hits her car broadside. Shirley suffers severe trauma to her head in the accident. Shirley is in the hospital for several weeks. Eventually, she is well enough to go home. However, the trauma to her head caused an injury to her inner ear. As a result, Shirley occasionally has trouble with her balance. One day, while Shirley is at home, she has a sudden attack of vertigo. She loses her balance and falls. Unknown to Mario, Shirley has osteoporosis, which makes her bones very fragile. As a result, when she falls, she breaks her hip.
Shirley sues Mario for damages. For which of her physical injuries will Shirley be able to recover from Mario? ***OPTIONS*** A. For the injuries to her head and to her hip, because Mario's negligent conduct was the cause in fact of Shirley's injuries. B. For the injury to her head only, because the fall was an intervening force. C. For the injury to her head only, because the severity of the harm caused by the fall was unforeseeable. D. For the injuries to her head and to her hip, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. "
A
"One Saturday, Moose decides to go to the car show being held at the local county fairground. Moose's 1972 Chevy Malibu, which he has lovingly restored to mint condition, lost a hubcap on a recent road trip. Moose wants to purchase a replacement hubcap at the show. Although Moose's girlfriend, Angel, isn't all that interested in cars, she decides to go along because one of the stars of her favorite soap opera will be signing autographs at the show. At the show, Moose finds that several dealers have the hubcap that he is looking for, but they are all charging more than he can afford to pay. Hating to see her boyfriend disappointed, Angel decides to surprise him by giving the hubcap to him for his upcoming birthday. While Moose is getting something to eat at the snackbar, Angel returns to the booth of one of the dealers and slips a hubcap into her large shoulder bag without paying for it. Shortly thereafter, Moose and Angel leave the show.
Moose should be convicted of: ***OPTIONS*** A. No crime B. Receiving stolen property C. Larceny D. Larceny by trick "
A
"Original fact pattern: Able and Baker were playing football in the street. Able threw a long pass to Baker. Baker ran into an automobile driven by Charlie while attempting to catch the pass and suffered from several broken bones and other internal injuries. Able saw the automobile approaching but threw the long pass anyway, believing that Charlie would see Baker and stop his automobile safely before reaching Baker. Baker brought suit against Able and Charlie to recover for his injuries. At the close of the trial, the jury determined that Baker had suffered $100,000 in damages and that Able was 40% at fault, Baker 10% at fault, and Charlie was 50% at fault for causing the injuries Baker sustained. Assume all parties are solvent and have sufficient assets and insurance to cover any judgment amount awarded. The jurisdiction has adopted a pure form of comparative negligence, abolished both contributory negligence and the doctrine of last clear chance, but retains joint and several liability.
If Baker seeks to recover a portion of the $100,000 judgment from Charlie, how much will Baker be entitled to recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. 100000 B. 90000 C. 45000 D. Nothing. "
B
"Original fact pattern: Arthur, Jack, and Mike were drinking in the Iron Bar one night, when Vick stopped in for a drink. Arthur, who was sitting next to Vick at the bar, invited Vick to shoot a game of pool with him on the pool table located in the back of the barroom. During their game, Arthur asked Vick if he would buy Arthur a drink. When Vick refused Arthur became violent, and started to shove Vick and yell obscenities at him.
On a charge of battery of Vick, Mike is: ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because he had a duty to aid Vick, and did not do so. B. guilty, because he was content that Arthur should batter Vick so that he could enjoy watching. C. not guilty, because he had no purpose to assist Arthur. D. D not guilty, because he did not know with certainty whether Arthur would batter Vick. "
C
"Original fact pattern: Biff Handsome signs an agreement for $100,000 with Beauregard Arrogant, owner of Arrogant Talent Agency, for Handsome to sign autographs at an annual convention for the ""Elderly Seamstress Society."" Handsome is to appear two specific hours every day for 2 months. After the first month, Handsome and Arrogant have a heated argument over whether Handsome should smile while signing autographs and whether Handsome has to talk with any of the members of the Society. In general, Handsome and Arrogant do not get along. Handsome assigns ""all of my rights and duties under my contract with Arrogant Talent Agency"" to Bruce Wimpy, a local sportscaster, who agrees with Handsome to smile and converse with the Society members while giving autographs. Handsome does not give notice to Arrogant.
For this question only, assume that when Arrogant learned of the assignment, Arrogant refused to allow Wimpy to perform and brought an action against Handsome to compel him to resume and complete performance of the contract. Should the court award Arrogant this relief? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Handsome's services under the contract are unique. B. Yes, because Handsome has personally completed approximately one-half of the contract. C. No, because the Handsome-Arrogant contract is one for personal services by Handsome. D. No, because Handsome effectively delegated his remaining duties under the Handsome-Arrogant contract to Wimpy. "
C
"Original fact pattern: Dan owned and operated a pawn shop in State X. The State X police had been watching Dan's pawn shop for some time hoping to gather enough evidence to prove that Dan was purchasing stolen goods. Frustrated that traditional police investigative procedures had been ineffective, Detective Smart offered Snitch, a paid informant, $100 if he would take Smart's notebook computer into Dan's pawn shop, tell Dan it was stolen and offer to sell it to Dan for $200. Snitch did as instructed but Dan refused, claiming that he believed his store was being watched by the police. Dan told Snitch to bring the computer to Dan's home later that evening. Snitch brought the computer to Dan's house later that evening and Dan paid Snitch $200 for Smart's notebook computer. Shortly thereafter, Dan was arrested by Detective Smart. At trial, Dan has been charged with receipt of stolen property and attempted receipt of stolen property.
What crimes, if any, would Dan be guilty of? ***OPTIONS*** A. Receiving stolen property. B. Conspiracy to receive stolen property. C. Attempted receipt of stolen property, but not receipt of stolen property. D. Attempted false pretenses. "
C
"Original fact pattern: Daphne owns a nursing home. One of the nurses employed at the nursing home has developed a practice of rifling through the belongings of new nursing home residents, stealing anything of value. One evening, the nurse is caught in the act by one of her victims, an elderly woman named Polly. In order to escape with the items she had taken from Polly's room, the nurse pushes Polly out of her way, causing her to fall and break her hip. Polly sues Daphne for damages.
Assuming that Daphne did not know that the nurse had stolen items from nursing home residents on prior occasions, should Polly be able to recover damages from Daphne? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because the nurse committed intentional torts. B. No, because, Daphne had no reason to suspect that the nurse would commit the intentional torts. C. Yes, because, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Daphne is responsible for the actions of her employees. D. Yes, because, under strict liability theory, a nursing home is liable for all injuries to residents caused by employees."
B
"Original fact pattern: Dent and Elkin decided to kill Galt. They met at Dent's house one afternoon to make their plans, and agreed that Dent should do the killing. They then had several drinks to bolster their courage, and by 4:30 p.m. were becoming quite drunk. Dent took his gun and walked off to the Hicks Manufacturing Company where Galt worked, while Elkin stayed behind as planned, to prepare for disposal of the gun afterwards. Soon after Dent left, Elkin had a change of heart. He called Dent and begged Dent to call the whole thing off. Dent listened, but told Elkin he was going to kill Galt anyway. Elkin went to the bus station and left town.
If Dent is charged with attempted murder, the fact that he could not have fired the gun ***OPTIONS*** A. prevents him from being found guilty, since he was unable to complete the last act required to fulfill his intended goal. B. does not prevent him from being found guilty, if a reasonable person would have believed that the gun could be fired. C. does not prevent him from being found guilty, if Dent actually believed that the gun could be fired. D. is immaterial, since Dent could have beaten Galt to death with the gun. "
C
"Original fact pattern: Dunbar was an avid fisherman. One day while fishing for rainbow trout on a remote mountain stream, Dunbar slipped on a wet rock and fell into the stream. Although Dunbar was unhurt in the fall, his glasses fell into the stream and were lost.
If Dunbar sues Doris for assault, Dunbar will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because Doris intended to shoot Dunbar. B. recover, because Doris should have been reasonably certain that Dunbar would be apprehensive of being hurt by the bullet. C. not recover, because Doris saw Dunbar hit Phil with the tree limb. D. not recover, because Dunbar was not aware of Doris act at the time she shot at him."
D
"Original fact pattern: Richard had always wanted to become a police officer but had been rejected each time he applied to law enforcement agencies throughout the county where he lived. After receiving his fifth rejection letter, Richard decided he would engage in law enforcement as a hobby by monitoring police radio calls and watching ""America's Most Wanted Criminals"" on television. On one television broadcast, the picture of an escaped prisoner was displayed. The prisoner was described as armed and dangerous. The following day, Richard was at the shopping mall when he spotted a man, Charles, who matched the description of the escaped prisoner. Richard casually walked near Charles to get a closer look. When Charles saw Richard approach, he turned and walked quickly toward the shopping mall exit to the parking lot. Richard ran after Charles and reached into his jacket and pulled out a gun and yelled at Charles to ""stop. . .or I'll shoot!"" When Charles appeared to reach into his jacket and turn to face Richard, Richard shot at Charles. The bullet missed and struck Sherman, another shopper who was entering the mall through the same doorway that Charles was attempting to use to exit the mall. The police arrived and it was determined that Richard was mistaken because Charles was not an escaped felon and he was not armed -- although Charles did bear a strong resemblance to the escaped felon whose picture was broadcast on the television program Richard had seen the night before.
If Sherman brings an action for battery against Richard, he will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because Charles was not an escaped felon. B. recover, unless Richard reasonably believed that Charles was an armed and dangerous escaped felon who was about to shoot Richard and Richard is not considered the original aggressor under the circumstances. C. not recover, Richard did not intend to cause a harmful or offensive touching to Sherman. D. not recover, Richard was acting as a de facto law enforcement officer and was entitled to make an honest mistake of fact as to whether Charles was armed and dangerous. "
B
"Original fact pattern: Sam asked Chris to help him hold up a laundromat located across the street from Chris' home. Sam told Chris the laundromat was equipped with a silent alarm and that the police would respond quickly after the holdup. Thus, Sam told Chris that he wanted to hide in Chris' garage right after the holdup until the police had left. Chris refused to agree to allow Sam to hide in his garage and went back inside his house and closed the door. Sam stood outside, but decided to go ahead with the holdup of the laundromat when he noticed that no one was in the laundromat at that moment. Sam entered the laundromat and began breaking open cash boxes with a hammer and putting the money in a laundry bag. Before Sam could remove the money from all of the laundry machines, a customer walked in and screamed when she saw Sam break open a cash box with a hammer. Sam grabbed the bag of money and ran to Chris' house and hid in the garage by entering an unlocked side door to the garage. Chris heard the police sirens and went into his garage where he found Sam hiding behind some boxes. Chris then took $100 from Sam and agreed to let Sam stay in the garage until the police left.
Chris can be convicted of ***OPTIONS*** A. being an accessory after the fact. B. being an accessory before the fact. C. aiding and abetting Sam. D. being a principal in the second degree. "
A
"Original fact pattern: Sam asked Chris to help him hold up a laundromat located across the street from Chris' home. Sam told Chris the laundromat was equipped with a silent alarm and that the police would respond quickly after the holdup. Thus, Sam told Chris that he wanted to hide in Chris' garage right after the holdup until the police had left. Chris refused to agree to allow Sam to hide in his garage and went back inside his house and closed the door. Sam stood outside, but decided to go ahead with the holdup of the laundromat when he noticed that no one was in the laundromat at that moment. Sam entered the laundromat and began breaking open cash boxes with a hammer and putting the money in a laundry bag. Before Sam could remove the money from all of the laundry machines, a customer walked in and screamed when she saw Sam break open a cash box with a hammer. Sam grabbed the bag of money and ran to Chris' house and hid in the garage by entering an unlocked side door to the garage. Chris heard the police sirens and went into his garage where he found Sam hiding behind some boxes. Chris then took $100 from Sam and agreed to let Sam stay in the garage until the police left.
If Sam is charged with the crime of solicitation, the jury would most likely find him ***OPTIONS*** A. guilty, because the crime of solicitation was complete once Sam asked Chris to allow him to hide in the garage. B. guilty, because Sam did hide in Chris' garage. C. not guilty, because Chris never seriously considered Sam's offer. D. not guilty, because Chris originally refused to let Sam hide in his garage. "
A
"Original fact pattern: Sam purchased a brand new car from Dealer. The car was manufactured by National Motors. Sam drove the car for two weeks without incident, but he noticed that the car had a tendency to pull to the left when driven at speeds in excess of 65 mph. Unknown to Sam, the car was sold with a defective steering mechanism that could cause the driver to suddenly lose all ability to steer the car. Sam was annoyed by this problem, but chose not to bring the car in for an inspection because he rarely drove in excess of the speed limit. Two months later, Sam lost his job and needed to sell the car to obtain money. Sam sold the car to Phil, without informing Phil about the problem with the car's steering mechanism. One month later, Sam received a recall notice from National Motors which had just discovered the defect and sent warnings to Sam and all other owners of the same model car about the steering mechanism defect and told them to stop driving the cars and to immediately have the cars towed in (at National Motor's expense) for inspection and repair. Sam called Phil to warn him, but Phil was not at home. At the time of the call, Phil was driving the car and suffered a severe injury when the steering mechanism defect caused the car to veer into another vehicle.
Assume for purposes of this question only that Phil brought an action against National Motors and that the parties both agreed to the following findings of fact: (1) the steering mechanism defect was so apparent that a normal driver would have discovered the existence of defect; and (2) Phil did not discover the defect. In this action, based on these findings, Phil will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, because Phil did not discover the defect. B. prevail, because assumption of the risk does not apply to a products liability action. C. not prevail, because Phil should reasonably have discovered the defect. D. not prevail, because National Motors attempted to warn all owners of the defective cars. "
A
"Original fact pattern: Sam purchased a brand new car from Dealer. The car was manufactured by National Motors. Sam drove the car for two weeks without incident, but he noticed that the car had a tendency to pull to the left when driven at speeds in excess of 65 mph. Unknown to Sam, the car was sold with a defective steering mechanism that could cause the driver to suddenly lose all ability to steer the car. Sam was annoyed by this problem, but chose not to bring the car in for an inspection because he rarely drove in excess of the speed limit. Two months later, Sam lost his job and needed to sell the car to obtain money. Sam sold the car to Phil, without informing Phil about the problem with the car's steering mechanism. One month later, Sam received a recall notice from National Motors which had just discovered the defect and sent warnings to Sam and all other owners of the same model car about the steering mechanism defect and told them to stop driving the cars and to immediately have the cars towed in (at National Motor's expense) for inspection and repair. Sam called Phil to warn him, but Phil was not at home. At the time of the call, Phil was driving the car and suffered a severe injury when the steering mechanism defect caused the car to veer into another vehicle.
Assume for purposes of this question that Phil brings a strict liability action against Sam. Will Phil prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Sam had reason to know of the steering defect at the time of the sale and did not adequately warn Phil. B. Yes, because the car was dangerously defective when Sam sold it to Phil. C. No, because Sam is not a commercial supplier of cars. D. No, because Sam attempted to warn Phil about the defect as soon as he learned of its existence. "
C
"Original fact pattern: Shutterbug was attending the grand opening of a new Hollywood motion picture when he spotted Star, a famous motion picture actor. As Shutterbug positioned himself to take a picture of Star, Date (Star's date for the evening) handed Star a roast beef sandwich to hold onto while Date took off her coat. Knowing that Star was an avowed vegetarian, Shutterbug immediately took the photograph of Star holding the roast beef sandwich without Star's knowledge. Shutterbug later developed the photo and sold it to the National Beef Organization (NBO). The NBO was interested in the photo for use as part of an advertising campaign designed to increase the consumption of beef which would financially benefit the members of the organization -- all of them beef suppliers. When Shutterbug initially approached the NBO, they were skeptical because it was well-known that Star was a vegetarian and had been active in several animal rights groups. Shutterbug assured NBO that Star had agreed to pose for the photo and had recently decided to renounce his vegetarianism. Based on this assurance, the NBO did not attempt to verify whether Star had given consent to publication of the photo. NBO published the picture of Star holding the roast beef sandwich with the caption, ""I love animals -- I eat them everyday."" When the picture was published in several major magazines, Star was humiliated and forced to resign from the board of several animal rights organizations he belonged to.
If Star brings an action based on invasion of privacy against the NBO, will Star succeed? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because the NBO used Star's picture without Star's consent for financial gain. B. Yes, because Shutterbug took Star's picture without Star's permission. C. No, because NBO is a media defendant. D. No, because Star is a public figure and the picture was taken while Star was standing in a public place. "
A
"Original fact pattern: SmokeCo operates a chemical refinery near Pleasanton, a small residential community. As a necessary part of its operations, SmokeCo's refinery emits a chemical pollutant into the air. SmokeCo has chosen to use state of the art cleansing screens on the refinery smokestacks to minimize the amount of pollutants that are released into the air. Nevertheless, a measurable quantity of the pollutant drifts into the community of Pleasanton each day. As a result, nearly all of the residents of Pleasanton are forced to wash and repaint the exterior of their homes and businesses every few years to remove the chemical residue caused by SmokeCo's operations which leaves an unsightly discoloration on their homes and businesses.
Assume for purposes of this question only that Pell has a 10-year-old son who suffers from a medical condition that makes it difficult for him to breathe if there are substantial pollutants in the air. Other residents of Pleasanton who suffer from bronchitis or asthma suffer some mild discomfort as a result of SmokeCo's operations, but none suffer as much as Pell's son because his medical condition is aggravated by the pollutants and he frequently must gasp for breath while playing outdoors or walking to school when SmokeCo's refinery is operating. If Pell brings an action against SmokeCo for nuisance on behalf of his son, Pell will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, because the defendant must take the victim as it finds him. B. prevail, and recover for the aggravation of Pell's son's condition. C. not prevail, because SmokeCo used state-of-the art equipment to minimize the pollution. D. not prevail, because the injury to Pell's son results from the son's special sensitivity. "
B
"Original fact pattern: Steven answered love letters for the local newspaper. When he received one from "Terribly Teary-Eyed", he knew the author was his ex-girlfriend Carol. His response to her letter was published in the evening edition of the newspaper and referred to Terribly Teary-Eyed as a "completely immature person who must not know how to hold a relationship because of a incestuous affair." Steven knew that Carol had never been involved in an incestuous affair, but wanted to get even with her for breaking off their relationship. When Carol read the response to her letter in the newspaper she was mortified. The friends who knew her identity as the author stopped calling her and informed other people of the letter and its author. As a result, Carol was forced to move to another suburb of the city and seek therapy. Once Carol found out that Steven was the writer for the newspaper she immediately sues the newspaper and Steven. For this question only, assume that Carol prevails after proving the above facts, including harm to her reputation. What will she be entitled to recover?
III. Punitive damages. ***OPTIONS*** A. I only B. II only C. I and II D. I, II and III "
C
"Owner owned Greenacre, a lot with a single family residence. Owner contracted to sell Greenacre to Buyer for $150,000. At Owner's suggestion, Buyer hired a contractor to inspect the property. The contractor issued a report which stated that there were no significant structural defects with the house or any electrical or plumbing system within the house. Two months after the sale was completed, Buyer first noticed that there was a strong unpleasant odor coming from the upstairs toilet which occurred about 30 minutes after every time the toilet was flushed. Buyer called a plumber who determined that there was a major blockage in the sewer plumbing system that would cost several thousand dollars to correct. When Buyer called Owner to ask about the problem, Owner told Buyer that the odor had always been present and that, ""after a while, you will just get used to it."" Owner reminded Buyer that Owner had suggested that Buyer get a contractor's property inspection and that Owner had made no attempt to conceal the problem. When Owner refused to help pay to repair the sewage system, Buyer brought suit against Owner to recover the full cost of sewage system repairs.
If Buyer is successful in this suit it will be because ***OPTIONS*** A. Owner did not inform Buyer about a latent defect in the property. B. Buyer's contractor failed to discover the defect even after a thorough inspection. C. The odor presents a significant health hazard. D. The house as sold fails to comply with the implied warranties of habitability and fitness for particular purpose. "
A
"P owned a twenty-five acre parcel of undeveloped land that was adjacent to a public lake. D lived in a cabin located on property that bordered P's parcel. For the last two years, D had been walking on a path across P's land to reach the lake. One day, P came to visit his land and saw D walking across his property on the path. P told D to get off his land and never use the path again. D apologized and truthfully stated that D thought the path was a public right-of-way and promised P that he would never use the path again.
If P brings an action against D for trespass, who will prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. P, and P may recover nominal damages because D intentionally used the path to reach the lake. B. D, but only if D does refrain from using the path in the future as promised. C. D, because P suffered no actual injury as a result of the trespass. D. D, because D thought the pathway was open to the public."
A
"Pat was a fourteen-year-old student at Central High School, a public school. While working on homework one afternoon in an empty classroom, Pat was sexually molested by Prossel, a math teacher recently hired by Central High School after Prossel had transferred from another school district.
If Pat brings suit against Central High School seeking damages, Pat will ***OPTIONS*** A. prevail, the public schools are strictly liable for injuries occurring on school premises while school is in session. B. prevail, the employer of a tortfeasor is vicariously liable for the torts committed by the employee during the course of employment. C. not prevail, unless it was foreseeable that the reason Prossel transferred to Central was because Prossel had been terminated for good cause. D. not prevail, unless Central School District knew that Prossel had previously molested a child. "
D
"Patient is diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Doctor recommends that Patient undergo immediate surgery to remove the brain tumor. Doctor does not inform Patient that, because the tumor is located very close to Patient's optic nerve, there is a ten-percent chance that the operation may cause Patient to lose her sight. Patient consents to the surgery. Doctor successfully removes the brain tumor during surgery. However, when Patient awakes she discovers that she has no sight in her right eye. Patient brings a medical malpractice suit against Doctor alleging that Doctor did not adequately inform her of the risks of the surgery. In the State of Jefferson, where Doctor practices, such cases are tried under negligence theory.
Assuming that Doctor owed a duty to Patient to adequately disclose the risks of the surgery, should Patient prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because Doctor breached his duty when he failed to inform Patient of the risk to her optic nerve. B. Yes, but only if Doctor intentionally withheld the information from Patient. C. No, if the benefits of the surgery outweighed the risk. D. No, unless a reasonable person in Patient's position would probably not have consented to the surgery if informed of the risk. "
D
"Patient suffers from high blood pressure and needs to have surgery to remove a stomach ulcer. Surgeon ordered the surgery without consulting Patient's cardiologist, who was treating patient for high blood pressure and a related heart condition. While in surgery to remove the stomach ulcer, Patient suffers a massive heart attack. Patient is kept alive by artificial means, but is considered brain dead with no hope for recovery as a consequence of the heart attack. Pursuant to a living will written by Patient shortly before entering the hospital for surgery, Patient's family orders the hospital to remove all life sustaining medical equipment, except that necessary to ease pain and suffering.
Patient dies, and a lawsuit is brought by the family of Patient on Patient's behalf against Surgeon. In this action, the plaintiffs (family of Patient acting on Patient's behalf) should ***OPTIONS*** A. not prevail, absent proof that Patient's cardiologist would have recommended a different course of treatment and that Surgeon reasonably should have followed the recommendation. B. not prevail, because Patient was removed from life-sustaining equipment at his own request. C. prevail, because Surgeon failed to consult with Patient's cardiologist. D. prevail, if the heart attack was caused by the surgery conducted by Surgeon. "
A
"Paul was invited to attend a party hosted by Serena. Unknown to Paul, Serena had also invited Dylan. Dylan and Paul were enemies who had vowed to kill each other on sight. Paul arrived at Serena's party first and was standing in the kitchen when he saw Dylan enter the front door. Paul went out the back door to retrieve his pistol from the car, intending to come back into the party and shoot Dylan. Paul brought the pistol into the house and attempted to move close enough to Dylan to fire a shot at her while Dylan could see who was shooting her. Before Paul could pull the trigger, a police officer grabbed Paul, quietly disarmed him and removed Paul from the party. An inspection of the pistol at the police station determined that it was not loaded. The following day, Dylan called to thank Serena for inviting her to the party. Dylan then learned for the first time that Paul had attended the party and had been disarmed while trying to get into position to shoot Dylan. Shocked at how close she came to death, Dylan suffered a heart attack and was rushed to the hospital.
If Dylan brings an action for assault against Paul, Dylan will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because Paul intended to cause Dylan to see Paul shoot Dylan. B. recover, because Paul committed a substantial act with the intent to cause immediate harm. C. not recover, because Paul had failed to use a loaded weapon. D. not recover, because Dylan was not aware of Paul's conduct at the time of the threat to her life. "
D
"Paul was out walking with his dog when he was approached by Dale, a stranger who Paul had never met before. Suddenly, and without provocation, Dale grabbed Paul and threw him to the ground. Dale had just been released from a mental hospital where he had been treated for psychotic schizophrenia. As part of Dale's condition, he would occasionally experience hallucinations where he would imagine that he was about to be attacked by space aliens from another planet. Despite taking his daily medication which usually prevented Dale from experiencing such an attack, Dale was suffering from this hallucination when he grabbed and threw Paul.
If Paul sues Dale for battery, which of the following would provide the best defense for Dale? ***OPTIONS*** A. Dale did not know that he was grabbing and throwing a person. B. Dale thought Paul was about to attack him. C. Dale was suffering from a mental illness. D. Dale did not intend to hurt Paul. "
A
"Paulina dreamed for years about opening her own authentic Greek restaurant. Finally, she got her wish, complete with an authentic Greek chef named Demetrius. From opening day, the restaurant was a rousing success. Unfortunately, Paulina's working relationship with Demetrius was not as successful. The entire kitchen staff found him impossible to work with and he continually arrived one to two hours late for work. Finally, she had to fire him. Shortly after Paulina fired Demetrius, he returned to the restaurant to collect some belongings which he had left behind. Demetrius arrived during the lunch hour when the restaurant was full of customers. Paulina and Demetrius had a tense exchange of words. As he was leaving, Demetrius said, in a voice loud enough to be heard by a large number of the restaurant patrons, ""I'm glad that I won't be working in your restaurant anymore, because I was getting tired of the rats and cockroaches in the kitchen!"" The health department had given the restaurant a clean bill of health the day before Demetrius was fired.
If Paulina sues Demetrius for slander, should she prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, unless most customers heard the statement. B. No, unless Demetrius made the statement with intent to defame Paulina. C. Yes, if Demetrius intended that his statement be heard and understood by others. D. Yes, but only if Demetrius knew that the statement was false when he made it. "
c
"Penn was invited to attend a party hosted by Sara. Unknown to Penn, Sara had also invited Dusty. Dusty and Penn were enemies who had vowed to kill each other on sight. Penn arrived at Sara's party first and was standing in the kitchen when he saw Dusty enter the front door. Penn went out the back door to retrieve his pistol from the car, intending to come back into the party and shoot Dusty. Penn brought the pistol into the house and attempted to move close enough to Dusty to fire a shot at her while Dusty could see who was shooting her. Before Penn could pull the trigger, a police officer who was also attending the party grabbed Penn, quietly disarmed him and removed Penn from the party. An inspection of the pistol at the police station determined that it was not loaded. The following day, Dusty called to thank Sara for inviting her to the party. Dusty then learned for the first time that Penn had attended the party and had been disarmed while trying to get into position to shoot Dusty. Shocked at how close she came to death, Dusty suffered a heart attack and was rushed to the hospital.
If Dusty brings an action for assault against Penn, Dusty will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, because Penn intended to cause Dusty to see Penn shoot Dusty. B. recover, because Penn committed a substantial act with the intent to cause immediate harm. C. not recover, because Penn had failed to use a loaded weapon. D. not recover, because Dusty was not aware of Penn's conduct at the time of the threat to her life. "
D
"Perry was on vacation at the Paradise Isle Hotel (Hotel) in Hawaii. One day while dining in the Hotel restaurant, Perry swallowed a large piece of food that became lodged in his throat. Perry began to gasp for breath and his face turned bright red as he struggled to remove the piece of food from his throat. Doctor, another restaurant patron on vacation at Hotel, saw Perry but chose not to assist Perry when a restaurant employee began to administer a commonly used medical anti-choking technique of standing directly behind the choking person, wrapping both arms around the choking person's chest and quickly pushing in on the chest to try to expel the lodged food item. After several minutes of failed attempts, paramedics arrived and rushed Perry to the hospital for an emergency operation. Perry survived, but suffered from reduced brain function due to the length of time he was deprived of sufficient oxygen before the operation extracted the food item lodged in Perry's throat.
If Perry brings suit against Doctor to recover for his injuries, Perry will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, if Doctor could have helped Perry by offering basic emergency medical care. B. recover, if Doctor knew or should have realized that the restaurant employee was not properly performing the anti-choking technique. C. not recover, because the risk of liability from offering assistance to a stranger outweighs the likelihood of successfully assisting a stranger to avoid injury. D. not recover, because Perry cannot prove that his injury was caused by any negligent affirmative act of Doctor's part. "
D
"Pete purchased a box of breakfast cereal at his local grocery store owned and operated by Grocer. Pete suffered personal injury after consuming contaminated cereal in the box he purchased from Grocer. It was later determined that the breakfast cereal contained bacteria due to the negligence of Fred, an employee of Grocer who mistakenly cut the cereal box open when unpacking a shipment of groceries.
If Pete is awarded a $10,000 judgment and Grocer pays the entire judgment to Pete, how much may Grocer recover in an indemnity action against Fred? ***OPTIONS*** A. 10000 B. 5000 C. Nothing, because an employer is liable for the acts of employees acting within the course and scope of their employment. D. Nothing, because both parties were judged to be liable to Pete. "
A
"Phil and Dil were studying for finals in the lounge area of their college library. It was very late on a Saturday evening and nearly everyone had left the library for the evening. Phil and Dil were both very tired and began to argue about who was the better student. At one point, Dil told Phil, ""you wouldn't even have been accepted to this university if it weren't for the fact that you failed to tell them about your conviction for selling drugs to schoolchildren."" Just as Dil made the statement, Bill walked by and overheard the remark. Phil suffered emotional distress but no pecuniary loss as a result of the statement.
Assuming that the statement is false, will Phil prevail if Phil asserts a defamation action against Dil? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if Dil intended to cause Phil to suffer emotional distress. B. Yes, if Dil should have foreseen that his statement would be heard by another person. C. No, because Phil did not suffer any pecuniary losses. D. No, because Dil made the statement to Phil and not Bill. "
B
"Plastered was traveling on a commercial airline trip from Boston to Chicago. During the course of the trip, Plastered became intoxicated after drinking several alcoholic beverages served to him by the flight attendants at his request. When the pilot asked all the passengers to ""raise their tray tables and fasten their seat belts"" because of unexpected turbulence, Plastered became belligerent and refused to follow the pilot's instructions -- even after several warnings from the flight attendants that Plastered was required to follow all pilot safety instructions according to Federal Aviation Administration rules. When the plane landed, Plastered again refused to raise his tray table or fasten his seat belt. Once the plane was on the ground, the Pilot (one of the two pilots on duty on the plane) asked all the passengers to remain seated until one of the passengers was escorted off the plane. Pilot went to where Plastered was sitting and told Plastered to get up and walk off the plane to meet a police officer standing just inside the airport terminal. Plastered refused. Pilot grabbed Plastered and shoved him up the aisle of the plane toward the exit door. Plastered fell and injured his leg. After receiving proper medical treatment, Plastered brought suit against Pilot seeking damages for his injuries.
In this action Plastered will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, as an airline employee, Pilot owed Plastered a duty to use reasonable care to make sure Plastered exited the plane in a safe manner. B. recover, because Pilot used force to eject Plastered from the plane. C. not recover, because Plastered was voluntarily intoxicated. D. not recover, unless Pilot used excessive force in ejecting Plastered from the plane. "
D
"Polly was participating in a championship game of touch football with a group of other men and women players. The games had been arranged by a city athletic club and whichever team finished the season with the most victories received a trophy at an awards ceremony. Throughout the game, Polly noticed that the level of physical contact was increasing. Many players were pushing and shoving and some players had lost their tempers and had to be restrained by their teammates. On one play late in the game, Polly caught the ball and was running toward the goal. Denise, a player for the opposing team, ran toward Polly and tripped Polly by leaping and grabbing Polly's leg.
If Polly brings an action against Denise for battery, Polly will ***OPTIONS*** A. not recover, by continuing to play as the level of physical contact increased, Polly has given consent. B. not recover, unless Denise intentionally tried to trip Polly using force in excess of that which Polly and the other players consented to. C. recover, if Denise intended to trip Polly. D. recover, if Denise intended Polly to suffer a harmful and offensive touching. "
B
"Prudence and her friends have tickets for a concert by Gall Bladder, a rock group. The audience at Gall Bladder concerts is known to get pretty wild. Traditionally, concert attendees are permitted, if they choose, to leave their seats and move up front to crowd close to the stage. With so many people crowded together, a lot of pushing and shoving occurs. Often, a single push or shove can be amplified by the close quarters, moving across the crowd in waves. Attendees who crowd down front think this is part of the fun, even though the waves often cause individual attendees to be knocked down repeatedly. Prudence and her friends are looking forward to the concert because they plan to join the crowd down front and center.
At the concert, Prudence is having a great time until a particularly powerful wave slams her into Dan, who is standing directly to her left. Dan turns and forcefully elbows Prudence in the stomach, knocking the wind out of her. Prudence brings an action for battery against Dan. Will she prevail? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if Dan intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another. B. Yes, if Dan intentionally used force which exceeded the consent of Prudence and the other crowd members. C. No, because a reasonable person would infer that Prudence implicitly consented to the defendant's act. D. No, unless Prudence can prove actual damages. "
B
"Purch went to a hardware store owned and operated by Storeco and purchased some paint and supplies Purch needed to paint his kitchen. One of the items purchased was a box of cotton balls manufactured by Paintco that Paintco had chemically treated with odorless paint remover to be used to clean up paint drips or other unintended painting errors. Purch used some of the Paintco cotton balls to remove excess paint and put the remainder back in the box and stored them in the garage. Two weeks later, while Purch was out of town on a business trip, Purch's child (Child) asked Purch's wife (Wife) to help her create a costume for a birthday party she had been invited to. Child wanted to go to the party dressed as ""Suzy Snowflake,"" a popular children's television character. Wife agreed to create the costume and glued some of the Paintco cotton balls to Child's costume to create the appearance of snow. When Child was at the party wearing the costume, the paint removal chemical in the cotton balls ignited when Child stood close to the lit birthday candles. Child was severely burned and Purch brought a lawsuit based on strict liability against Storeco on behalf of Child.
Will Purch prevail in this lawsuit? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, if neither StoreCo nor Paintco warned Purch of the danger. B. Yes, flammable cotton balls are an abnormally dangerous product. C. No, because the cotton balls were not intended to be used in this manner. D. No, unless Storeco had reason to know the cotton balls were treated with a flammable chemical. "
A
"Red was an avid basketball fan. His favorite team was playing in the seventh and deciding game of the NBA championships, and he had a ticket for a courtside seat. As he was leaving to drive to the basketball arena, his wife called to him from their bedroom. She was lying on the bed, disoriented, and he recognized that she had run out of insulin again. A diabetic, she was in danger of slipping into a coma unless she received an injection of insulin within the next few hours. Unwilling to miss the NBA championship, Red resolved to stop by a drugstore on his way back from the game and get insulin for his wife. Unfortunately, the game went to triple overtime, and traffic was especially heavy getting back, so that Red found that his wife had died when he returned five hours later.
Which of the following crimes, if any, has Red committed? ***OPTIONS*** A. Murder. B. Voluntary manslaughter. C. Involuntary manslaughter. D. No form of criminal homicide. "
C
"Richard had always wanted to become a police officer but had been rejected each time he applied to law enforcement agencies throughout the county where he lived. After receiving his fifth rejection letter, Richard decided he would engage in law enforcement as a hobby by monitoring police radio calls and watching ""America's Most Wanted Criminals"" on television. On one television broadcast, the picture of an escaped prisoner was displayed. The prisoner was described as armed and dangerous. The following day, Richard was at the shopping mall when he spotted a man, Charles, who matched the description of the escaped prisoner. Richard casually walked near Charles to get a closer look. When Charles saw Richard approach, he turned and walked quickly toward the shopping mall exit to the parking lot. Richard ran after Charles and reached into his jacket and pulled out a gun and yelled at Charles to ""stop. . .or I'll shoot!"" When Charles appeared to reach into his jacket and turn to face Richard, Richard shot at Charles. The bullet missed and struck Sherman, another shopper who was entering the mall through the same doorway that Charles was attempting to use to exit the mall. The police arrived and it was determined that Richard was mistaken because Charles was not an escaped felon and he was not armed -- although Charles did bear a strong resemblance to the escaped felon whose picture was broadcast on the television program Richard had seen the night before.
If Charles brings an action for assault against Richard, he will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, if Charles reasonably suspected that he was about to be shot. B. recover, because Richard attempted to shoot Charles. C. recover, under the reasoning in choice (A) or (B). D. not recover. "
A
"Roadway Railroad (Roadway) operated a commuter train service carrying passengers between several major cities in State X. Horvath regularly took a Roadway train to travel from his home to work each day. Horvath preferred to sit in the ""Club Car"" train car because it contained a lounge area with wider seats and offered beverages and food service. On Friday evening as the Roadway train was carrying commuters home from work for the weekend, Horvath was sitting in the ""Club Car"" quietly enjoying a cocktail when Belicose came and sat next to him. Belicose had consumed several alcoholic beverages served to him by the ""Club Car"" bartender. Belicose, who was quite obviously intoxicated, attempted to strike up a conversation with Horvath. Horvath could have moved to another seat in the ""Club Car"" or another car on the train where seats were plentiful, but chose to stay and hoped that Belicose would move away if Horvath simply ignored him. When Horvath failed to respond after several minutes and appeared to be ignoring him, Belicose became angry and pushed Horvath. Horvath fell and injured his arm.
If Horvath brings suit for damages against Roadway based on battery, Horvath will ***OPTIONS*** A. not prevail because Belicose was not an agent or employee of Roadway. B. not prevail, because Horvath assumed the risk of injury by choosing to continue sitting next to Belicose, an obviously intoxicated person. C. not prevail, if a reasonable person sitting next to Belicose would have realized the danger and moved to avoid being injured. D. prevail, if a Roadway employee continued serving alcoholic beverages to Belicose in reckless disregard for the risk of possible injury Belicose might inflict on another passenger. "
A
"Roadway Railroad (Roadway) operated a commuter train service carrying passengers between several major cities in State X. Horvath regularly took a Roadway train to travel from his home to work each day. Horvath preferred to sit in the ""Club Car"" train car because it contained a lounge area with wider seats and offered beverages and food service. On Friday evening as the Roadway train was carrying commuters home from work for the weekend, Horvath was sitting in the ""Club Car"" quietly enjoying a cocktail when Belicose came and sat next to him. Belicose had consumed several alcoholic beverages served to him by the ""Club Car"" bartender. Belicose, who was quite obviously intoxicated, attempted to strike up a conversation with Horvath. Horvath could have moved to another seat in the ""Club Car"" or another car on the train where seats were plentiful, but chose to stay and hoped that Belicose would move away if Horvath simply ignored him. When Horvath failed to respond after several minutes and appeared to be ignoring him, Belicose became angry and pushed Horvath. Horvath fell and injured his arm.
If Horvath brings suit for damages against Roadway based on negligence, Horvath will ***OPTIONS*** A. not prevail, because Horvath could have easily moved to another seat or left the ""Club Car."" B. not prevail, because Belicose acted in a spontaneous and unpredictable manner. C. not prevail, because as a common carrier, Roadway is strictly liable for the safety of its passengers. D. prevail, if a Roadway employee working in the ""Club Car"" should have recognized that Belicose was a danger to other passengers and should have acted to protect Horvath before the injury occurred. "
D
"Rob had been lusting after Joe's lovingly restored 1968 Mustang Fastback for months. Finding the keys in the car one Saturday, Rob was overcome with his desire for the car and decided to take the Mustang on a drive around the block. Just before turning the block to bring the car back, Rob decided to show the car off to his friends before returning it. After driving around town showing off the car for an hour, Rob realized that he had better return the car before Joe noticed that the car was missing. As Rob was headed back to return the car to Joe, Rob decided to race another car that pulled up next to him at a stoplight. While racing, Rob lost control of the Mustang and collided with a utility pole - totally destroying Joe's Mustang.
Rob is liable for: ***OPTIONS*** A. No intentional tort, because Rob had no intent to permanently deprive Joe of the Mustang. B. Trespass to chattel, because Rob had no intent to permanently deprive Joe of the Mustang. C. Trespass to chattel, because Rob interfered with Joe's possession of the Mustang. D. Conversion, because Rob either substantially interfered with Joe's possession of the Mustang, or completely deprived Joe of possession of the Mustang. "
D
"Rob plays tennis with a group of friends every Saturday. He also plays in amateur tournaments from time to time. He believes that he would be competing with Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras if he could just afford a better racquet. One Saturday, Rob discovers that Peter, one of Rob's friends, has left his brand new $280 racquet in Rob's car. Later that same day, Peter calls Rob to ask if he left his racquet in Rob's car. Rob, who is very envious of Peter, wants to keep the racquet so that he can use it for an upcoming match against Paul, his arch rival. He figures that he can ""find"" the racquet and return it to Peter in a few weeks. So, he tells Peter that he hasn't seen Peter's racquet. Peter does not believe Rob and suspects that Rob actually has the racquet. As a result, Peter shows up at Rob's next tournament to see if he can catch Rob with the racquet and confront him. As Peter arrives, Rob is in the midst of a temper tantrum because the new racquet has not miraculously improved his game. In disgust, Rob throws the racquet at the net. The racquet misses the net by several inches, flies past his opponent, and crashes into the fence. The racquet frame develops a hairline crack which renders it unusable without repair. Peter identifies the racquet as belonging to him.
If Peter brings suit against Rob for damages, should he recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Rob did not intend to keep Peter's racquet permanently. B. No, because Rob did not foresee that the racquet would be damaged. C. Yes, the fair market value of the racquet at the time Rob wrongfully detained it. D. Yes, the actual damages."
C
"Ruby is distraught and angry after having a serious fight with her boyfriend. She runs out of the house, jumps into her car and drives away, thinking that she'll drive around for awhile in order to calm down. However, as she drives, she becomes angrier. Soon she realizes that she is driving considerably over the speed limit. However, rather than slowing down, she thinks to herself, ""Well, it would just serve him right if I got into a wreck."" A few minutes later, Ruby loses control of her car while going around a curve. Her car crashes through a guard rail and flips over. Motorist witnesses the crash and sees that the car is beginning to smoke. Fearing that Ruby's car will catch on fire, Motorist stops his car and rushes to Ruby's car to pull her out. Just as Motorist pulls Ruby free from the car, it explodes into flames. The Motorist succeeds in saving Ruby's life, but his face and arms are severely burned.
If Motorist sues Ruby for his injuries, will he recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because his rescue of Ruby was successful. B. Yes, because Ruby put herself in danger through her unsafe conduct. C. No, because Ruby did not intend to harm anyone. D. No, because Motorist was not a foreseeable plaintiff. "
B
"Salt and Pepper were leaving the gym where they played handball when a young woman, Thatcher, confronted them. She held a large clutch purse in her left hand; her right hand was inside the purse. "I have a pistol in my purse," she said to Salt. She pointed the purse at Pepper and said to Salt, "Give me your watch, rings and wallet or I'll kill your friend." Salt immediately complied, dropping all of his jewelry plus his wallet into her purse, which she held so that he could not see inside. As the woman turned to leave, a police officer on walking patrol rounded the comer. Salt and Pepper both called for help, and the officer arrested Thatcher. A search of her purse for weapons revealed that she had had no gun or any other weapon.
If Thatcher is prosecuted for robbery, what should the result be? ***OPTIONS*** A. She should be convicted of robbing Salt, because she took Salt's property from him by threat of force. B. She should be convicted of robbing Pepper, because the taking of Salt's property is considered as taking from Pepper's "person or presence." C. She should be found not guilty, because she did not threaten Salt, whose property she took, and did not take property from Pepper, whom she threatened. D. She should be found not guilty, because she had no gun or other weapon with which to effectuate her threat of force. "
A
"Sam asked Chris to help him hold up a laundromat located across the street from Chris' home. Sam told Chris the laundromat was equipped with a silent alarm and that the police would respond quickly after the holdup. Thus, Sam told Chris that he wanted to hide in Chris' garage right after the holdup until the police had left. Chris refused to agree to allow Sam to hide in his garage and went back inside his house and closed the door. Sam stood outside, but decided to go ahead with the holdup of the laundromat when he noticed that no one was in the laundromat at that moment. Sam entered the laundromat and began breaking open cash boxes with a hammer and putting the money in a laundry bag. Before Sam could remove the money from all of the laundry machines, a customer walked in and screamed when she saw Sam break open a cash box with a hammer. Sam grabbed the bag of money and ran to Chris' house and hid in the garage by entering an unlocked side door to the garage. Chris heard the police sirens and went into his garage where he found Sam hiding behind some boxes. Chris then took $100 from Sam and agreed to let Sam stay in the garage until the police left.
If Sam is later arrested, can he be convicted of robbery? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, because he broke into the machines to obtain the money. B. Yes, because a customer was present and was placed in fear because Sam used force to obtain the money. C. No, because Sam did not commit all the elements of the lesser included crime of larceny. D. No, because the owner of the laundromat was not present when Sam took the money. "
D
"Sam purchased a brand new car from Dealer. The car was manufactured by National Motors. Sam drove the car for two weeks without incident, but he noticed that the car had a tendency to pull to the left when driven at speeds in excess of 65 mph. Unknown to Sam, the car was sold with a defective steering mechanism that could cause the driver to suddenly lose all ability to steer the car. Sam was annoyed by this problem, but chose not to bring the car in for an inspection because he rarely drove in excess of the speed limit. Two months later, Sam lost his job and needed to sell the car to obtain money. Sam sold the car to Phil, without informing Phil about the problem with the car's steering mechanism. One month later, Sam received a recall notice from National Motors which had just discovered the defect and sent warnings to Sam and all other owners of the same model car about the steering mechanism defect and told them to stop driving the cars and to immediately have the cars towed in (at National Motor's expense) for inspection and repair. Sam called Phil to warn him, but Phil was not at home. At the time of the call, Phil was driving the car and suffered a severe injury when the steering mechanism defect caused the car to veer into another vehicle.
If Phil brings an action based on strict liability against Dealer to recover for injuries he sustained in the accident, Phil will ***OPTIONS*** A. recover, but only if he can prove that Dealer negligently failed to discover the defect. B. recover, because the car was defective when sold to Sam. C. not recover, because Dealer had no duty to warn Phil -- a party with whom they had no privity of contract. D. not recover, because Sam's failure to warn Phil was an independent superseding cause of the harm. "
B
"Sam was a regular at Mary's Bar. He and the other regulars had a joke routine they used whenever a likely stranger walked in. One patron would say "Officer, that's the one", and Sam would pretend to be the local sheriff and place the stranger under arrest for robbery. When newcomer Dave walked in the gang began the routine and Sam, using his fake sheriff's badge, told Dave he was under arrest and made him raise his hands and clasp them behind his head. Dave seemed upset, but Sam refused to let him move, again repeating that he was the sheriff. As the other patrons crowded around, jeering and laughing, Dave, overcome, began to faint. As he started to fall, Sam caught him and lowered him to the ground. Dave soon recovered and the joke was explained. Even though the crowd offered to buy him a drink, he remained upset and sued Sam.
Will Dave recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. Yes, unless a reasonable person would have determined that Sam was joking. B. Yes, for false imprisonment and battery. C. Yes, for false imprisonment. D. No, because Sam did not intend Dave any harm. "
C
"Sam was walking home from work late one Saturday night when he saw Murphy, obviously intoxicated, stumbling around in the well-lit paddock where Farmer kept his prize bull. Sam watched Murphy make several unsuccessful attempts to climb over the paddock fence, while the bull, thirty yards away, became increasingly restive. Sam climbed into the paddock and took Murphy by the shoulders, leading him toward the open gate by which he had apparently entered. Murphy became agitated, yelling, "I don't need your friggin' help," and struggled away from Sam, striking Sam in the face. "O.K., tough guy, have it your way," said Sam, who exited the paddock by the gate, closing it after him. The bull, enraged by the commotion, charged Murphy and gored him to death.
If Sam is prosecuted for the criminal homicide of Murphy, the jury should find him: ***OPTIONS*** A. Guilty, because he violated the general duty to come to the aid of another person in peril. B. Guilty, because his aborted rescue attempt left Murphy in a worse position than before he acted. C. Not guilty, because he had no legal duty to aid Murphy. D. Not guilty, because he had no intent to harm Murphy. "
B
"Sherri's prize possession is a Toyota 280ZX which she had painted candy apple red. Every weekend she spends several hours waxing and buffing her ""baby."" One night she stays up very late and sees an infomercial on television advertising the Super Buffer, which is a battery-operated tool for buffing and polishing cars. The Super Buffer is manufactured by Shine Inc. She decides to order one. When Sherri tries it out on her car, the Super Buffer causes several deep scratches in the paint on her car.
If Sherri sues Shine Inc. for damages, will she recover? ***OPTIONS*** A. No, because Sherri suffered only economic loss. B. No, unless Shine Inc. was negligent in designing the Super Buffer. C. Yes, if the Super Buffer was defective when it was sold by Shine Inc. D. Yes, unless Shine Inc. disclaimed all warranties. "
C
"Shopper was shopping in a grocery store owned and operated by Grocer with her small child. After shopping on several aisles, the child told shopper she needed to use the rest room. Shopper took child to the public restroom in the grocery store, but there was a sign posted on the entrance stating that all the rest rooms were temporarily out of service due to a plumbing problem. Shopper looked at child and knew that child could not wait until they left the grocery store to find another rest room. Shopper led child into the back area of the grocery store in search of an employee restroom. Shopper continued walking into the back area of the grocery store past a sign that read, ""Loading Area -- Off limits to unauthorized personnel."" Shopper read the sign, but continued walking briskly with child in search of the employee restroom. As shopper turned a corner, she saw an employee restroom sign in the distance. As she walked toward the restroom, Shopper saw an employee of Grocer who smiled as Shopper walked past with child. Shopper pointed to child and said, ""We need to use the restroom."" The employee said nothing but pointed to the employee restroom off in the distance. The employee also saw that there was a forklift carrying a large pallet of groceries heading toward Shopper and her child, but the employee did not believe it was necessary to warn Shopper because the employee assumed that Shopper saw the large forklift approaching. Shopper was looking down at child attempting to comfort child when she was struck by the approaching forklift.