Question: On February 1, a retiree conveys his farm to an artist, and the artist duly records the conveyance. The following day, the artist conveys the property to a bartender; she does not record her deed. Then on February 4, the artist executes an identical conveyance of the farm to a caterer. The caterer gives the artist a check for $100,000 for the property and records the conveyance, even though he has actual knowledge of prior conveyance to the bartender. The bartender, however, records her deed on February 6. The caterer then conveys his interest in the farm to a dancer, who gives a purchase price of $115,000 to the caterer. On February 5, the dancer purchases the farm without notice of the conveyance to the bartender and duly records the deed. In conducting a title search, the dancer should pursue his investigation by looking in the

Choices:
- Grantor Index under the caterer's name to ascertain if the caterer acquired title.
- Grantee Index under the caterer's name only.
- Grantee Index under the caterer's name, then the Grantor Index under the caterer's name, and then in the Grantee Index again, this time under the artist's name to discover if he acquired title.
- Grantee Index under the bartender's name, then to the Grantor Index, also under the bartender's name to find out if she made any prior conveyances.


Question: A football player sued a football team for breach of contract. He was a star player for the team before suffering a serious hip injury. Although the player attempted to continue playing for the team, he failed a physical examination and was cut from the team roster. After failing his physical, the team discontinued making contract payments to the player as per the terms of his employment contract. In his lawsuit, the player claimed that he was physically fit to continue playing but that he was cut from the team because they wanted to stop making contract payments. At trial, the team called its physician, an orthopedist, to testify that the player's hip injury was, in fact, career-threatening and, in his opinion, sufficiently serious to warrant failing his physical. The team physician stated during his testimony that his diagnosis was based, in part, upon an examination of the player's x-rays and review of an MRI test conducted by another doctor. Neither the x-rays nor the MRI test results have been admitted into evidence. In all likelihood, the team physician's testimony should be

Choices:
- admissible, provided that the other doctor testifies as to the validity of the MRI test results.
- admissible, provided the team physician based his opinion on data reasonably relied upon by other orthopedic physicians in the field.
- inadmissible, because neither the x-rays nor the MRI test results had been admitted into evidence at the time he formulated his opinion.
- inadmissible, because the team physician's opinion was not based in part upon his own firsthand observation of the player's physical condition.


Question: A man and woman lived together but were never married. They bought a house together but the deed went in the man's name alone due to better credit and ability to obtain a mortgage in his name. He worked as a school vice-principal. She gave up her night law school classes to stay home and be a homemaker. She worked as a waitress and paid for all household expenses, food, laundry and other items. He paid for the mortgage, taxes, utilities, insurance, repairs and other expenses. After several years, they became estranged and the man ordered the woman out of the house. She moved out and brought an action to obtain one-half of the home's equity value and a share of the other property and accounts built up in the man's name during the marriage. Which of the following is the best and strongest argument that the woman may assert to obtain a fair share of the property?

Choices:
- There is an express contract between them to share the property equally.
- He has been unjustly enriched and he owes her restitution under a quasi-contract legal theory.
- She is entitled to damages based on a legal theory of fraudulent conversion.
- She is may be remunerated under the federal civil rights laws prohibiting gender discrimination.


Question: During a deer-hunting season open to rifle hunters, a hunter saw a deer in the forest. He shot his rifle at the deer, hoping to hit and kill it. Instead, he hit and injured a hiker. The hunter had not realized that the hiker was there. Does the injured hiker have an actionable battery claim against the hunter?

Choices:
- No, because the hunter did not intend to shoot the hiker.
- No, because the hunter did not make direct physical contact with the hiker.
- Yes, because the bullet from the hunter's rifle made direct physical contact with the hiker.
- Yes, because the hunter intentionally shot the rifle.


Question: A man was charged with tax fraud. He wished to offer evidence, on his behalf, of his honesty while running for mayor. During his political campaign, he refused to lie about a psychiatric problem in his past, and his honesty cost him the election. The man was quoted as saying, "If I lied, I'd be mayor today, but that's no way to win an election. "The BEST argument of the objector to such evidence in the tax fraud case would be which of the following?

Choices:
- Character evidence is not admissible in such cases.
- One incident doesn't prove character.
- This is an impermissible way to prove character.
- The evidence is irrelevant.


Question: A victim was standing on a street corner waiting to make a drug buy. The drug dealer was always late, so the victim continued to wait outside in the freezing cold weather because he needed a quick fix. Suddenly a car rounded the street corner and a shot rang out. The victim slumped over and fell to the sidewalk. Immediately after being shot and before he died, the victim exclaimed, "The defendant did it!" The defendant was indicted and is now on trial for the victim's murder. Based on these facts alone, the admissibility of the victim's statement should be determined by

Choices:
- the jury, after a preliminary determination by the judge.
- the jury, without a preliminary determination by the judge.
- the judge, with instruction to the jury that it may consider the dying declaration if it determines that the victim knew he was dying.
- the judge, without assistance from the jury.


Question: A homeowner said to a roofer, "My roof leaks. I think the old tiles are cracked. If you will replace them with all new tiles, I will pay you $5,000. " The roofer replied, "Sure, if I can clear my busy schedule. " The homeowner then remarked, "That's all right, but let me know soon. " Three days later, the roofer drove his pickup truck to the homeowner's home and unloaded the materials and equipment needed to perform the roofing job. When the homeowner looked out his window and saw what was transpiring, he immediately ran outside and exclaimed, "Stop! The deal's off. I decided to repair the roof myself. "In an action by the roofer against the homeowner for breach of contract, which of the following would provide the roofer with his best theory of recovery?

Choices:
- A bilateral contract was formed when the roofer purchased the materials and equipment needed to do the job.
- A bilateral contract was formed when the roofer said, "Sure, if I can clear my busy schedule. "
- The homeowner made an offer that proposed a unilateral contract, and the offer became irrevocable when the roofer purchased the materials and equipment needed for the job.
- The homeowner made an offer that proposed a unilateral contract, and the roofer manifested an intent to accept the offer when he began performance by unloading the materials and equipment at the homeowner's house.