Question: A company offered to sell several loads of landscaping stones at a specified price and itemized terms. The offeree sent a notification to the offeror stating, "We have received your offer to sell landscaping stone per specified terms this date." The offeror shipped the goods upon receiving that notification. On the date of shipment, the offeree posted an acceptance form with slight modifications to the terms. After the goods arrived, the offeree called the offeror's manager and told him that the company was unable to accept the offer at this time, he was shipping the goods back, and to "ignore any paperwork we sent." The offeror sued the offeree for breach of contract. Who will prevail?

Choices:
- The offeror will prevail because the posting of the acceptance finalized a contract between the parties.
- The offeree will prevail because it never accepted the offer on the same terms specified.
- The offeror will prevail because it shipped the goods when it received the first acceptance.
- The offeree will prevail because it rejected the offer when it called the offeror's manager.


Question: If a regulation does amount to a taking, then what must the government do?

Choices:
- Pay just compensation for the property
- Terminate the regulation and pay damages that occurred while regulation was in effect
- Pay double damages if not addressed in 30 days.
- a or b


Question: A homeowner contracted in writing with a kitchen contractor to renovate her kitchen for $25,000, "subject to the homeowner's complete personal satisfaction." The contractor replaced the cabinets, flooring, and countertops and then sought payment from the homeowner. The homeowner paid the contractor only $20,000, truthfully saying that she did not like the finish on the cabinets and was therefore not satisfied. If the contractor sues the homeowner for the balance of the contract price, will the contractor be likely to prevail?

Choices:
- No, because a condition to the homeowner's obligation to pay was not satisfied.
- No, because the contractor breached his duty of good faith and fair dealing by supplying unsatisfactory materials.
- Yes, because the homeowner breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by rejecting the cabinets without justification.
- Yes, because the homeowner was the first party to breach the contract.


Question: As part of his defense to a murder charge, a defendant offered testimony that he was committing a bank robbery in another state on the day that the victim was killed. The testimony is

Choices:
- admissible as not hearsay.
- admissible as an admission.
- admissible as a declaration against interest.
- admissible as then-existing state of mind.


Question: In her request for jury instructions on the defense of duress, a defendant argued that she should have the burden of producing some evidence of duress, but the prosecution should be required to disprove duress beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court denied the defendant's request and instead instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proof to establish the defense of duress by a preponderance of the evidence. After she was convicted by the jury, the defendant claims on appeal that the jury instructions regarding duress violated the due process clause. Were the jury instructions correct?

Choices:
- No, because the prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on all elements and defenses produced at trial by a defendant.
- No, because the jury instruction impermissibly shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.
- No, because the defense of duress is no longer a recognized defense in federal prosecutions, although it was recognized at common law, and is recognized in most state courts.
- Yes, because the defense has the burden of proving the defense of duress by a preponderance of the evidence.


Question: A producer of widgets contacted a manufacturer of boxes about the possibility of purcIiasing specially designed boxes for shipping the widgets to customers. The producer sent the manufacturer a sheet containing the dimensions of the boxes' needs, as well as the logo to be placed on each box. After negotiations, the parties entered into a written contract whereby the manufacturer agreed to supply the producer with as many of the boxes as the producer may require up to a maximum of 10,000 per month. Later that day, the producer telephoned the manufacturer and said that they were running a one-time promotion and expected to sell an unusually large number of widgets. Therefore, for the first month only, they would need 15,000 boxes. The manufacturer agreed to this request. The manufacturer's oral agreement to supply the producer with the 15,000 boxes for the first month would most likely be held

Choices:
- enforceable.
- unenforceable, because their written contract on the same date was the final integration of the terms of their agreement.
- unenforceable, because the agreement was violative of the parol evidence rule.
- unenforceable, because there was inadequate consideration to support the manufacturer's unilateral promise.


Question: In an attempt to promote safe sex a foundation began sending condoms in the mail. Thousands of Americans became incensed and objected to this type of unsolicited advertising. A group of people started a nationwide campaign against the use of condoms. This new organization also started a strong lobbying movement to have Congress pass legislation prohibiting the distribution of condoms by using the U. S. postal system. Assume that the lobbying effort was successful, and Congress passed a law prohibiting any unsolicited advertising for condoms to be distributed through the U. S. postal system. The foundation has challenged the constitutionality of this federal statute. The best argument against the constitutionality of this law is which of the following?

Choices:
- The statute is invalid because it violates the First Amendment protection of commercial free speech.
- The statute is invalid because it unduly burdens interstate commerce.
- The statute is invalid because it violates the Fifth Amendment right of privacy.
- The statute is invalid because it violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: A homeowner, his daughter, and his sister are the owners of three contiguous lots in the city. A downward slope exists from the homeowner's land to the sister's land. The homeowner's and daughter's lots were in an unimproved natural state. The sister, however, had lived for 10 years in a house that she had built on her property. The daughter, in preparation for building a house on her lot, carefully excavated an area eight feet deep for the purpose of building a basement. The daughter completed construction of her house and macadamized an area for use as a driveway without changing the former contours of the land. Shortly thereafter, the sister began to make complaints to the daughter about the flooding of her basement, which she claimed had been previously free of water. The sister then built a concrete wall three feet along her border with the daughter to prevent the flow of rain water running onto her land from the daughter's property. This caused the surface water to stand and become stagnant on the daughter's land. The daughter demanded that the sister remove the wall, and upon the sister's refusal, the daughter brought an appropriate action to compel removal. The most likely result is

Choices:
- the sister must remove the wall because she has no right to obstruct the flow of such surface water.
- the sister must remove the wall at the daughter's expense.
- the sister may leave the wall without being liable to the daughter for money damages.
- the sister may leave the wall, but she will be liable to the daughter for money damages.


Question: A minor-plaintiff suffered permanent head injuries as a result of being hit by a car driven by a defendant. The plaintiff's father commences this action as a parent in his own right and on behalf of his son. At trial, the plaintiff's attorney called the only witness to the accident, the plaintiff's friend, aged seven. The friend was four years of age at the time of the accident. It was determined that the friend lacked the capacity to perceive and relate the accident at the time it actually occurred. The court should rule that the friend would be

Choices:
- competent to testify, because he had personal knowledge of the accident.
- competent to testify, because a seven-year-old is presumed to be chronologically mature.
- incompetent, because he lacked the capacity to perceive and relate the accident at the time of its occurrence.
- incompetent, because all children under the age of 10 are deemed incompetent to testify.


Question: A defendant is on trial for false pretenses. He is charged with selling worthless stock in a dummy corporation to unwitting investors. The defendant is alleged to have masterminded a scheme wherein he set up a nonexistent corporation that never conducted business. The victims were sent prospectuses containing false financial data, which induced them to purchase stock in the phony corporation. At trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce into evidence proof that the defendant had set up 10 other so-called dummy corporations that never existed. This evidence is

Choices:
- admissible, to show defendant's character trait for dishonesty.
- admissible, to show his intent to defraud.
- inadmissible, because character cannot be proved by specific instances of misconduct.
- inadmissible, because the evidence is not relevant.


Question: A landlord, the owner of a two-story dwelling house, leased it completely furnished to a tenant for a 1 0-year period. Toward the end of the seventh year of the term, a violent storm blew off several of the roof shingles. The tenant noticed a leak through the roof where the shingles had blown off, but didn't make any repairs. A month later, a severe rain storm occurred, and water leaked through the roof, causing damage to the valuable parquet floors in the two rooms below. Before the term of his lease ended, the tenant discovered that the landlord had not paid his taxes on the property, so he purchased the property through a sheriff's sale. The tenant refuses to make any further rental payments on the property. If the landlord brings suit against the tenant for payment of rent in arrears, he would most likely

Choices:
- succeed, because the tenant is estopped to deny the landlord's title.
- succeed, because of his security interest in the property.
- fail, because the purchase by the tenant vitiated any further contractual obligations.
- fail, because the landlord was under a duty to keep the demised premises in reasonably good repair.


Question: A landlord owns a three-story building. The landlord leased the building and the surrounding property to a tenant for a term of six years, commencing on December 1, 2003 and terminating on November 30, 2009. On April 15, 2004, a neighbor, who owned an adjoining parcel of land, was burning leaves and underbrush on his land. There was a high wind blowing in the direction of the land that the landlord leased to the tenant, and the wind carried the burning leaves onto the tenant's property. The building caught fire and caused $150,000 in fire damages. Because of the fire, the tenant has not occupied the leased premises since the date of the fire because the building was rendered uninhabitable. This state is a common law jurisdiction. In addition, the controlling Statute of Limitations for initiating an action for damages due to negligence is five years from the time the cause of damage occurs. On May 1, 2004, the landlord brings suit against the tenant asserting breach of contract for failing to pay the rent. Judgment should be for

Choices:
- the landlord, because a tenant remains liable to pay rent, even though as a result of the fire, the property was rendered uninhabitable.
- the landlord, because the covenant to pay rent runs with the land.
- the tenant, because it would be inequitable to enforce the rental provision in the lease because the premises was rendered uninhabitable.
- the tenant, because an increasing number of states have enacted statutes relieving a tenant of his obligation to pay rent where the premises are rendered uninhabitable by fire or other acts of God.


Question: A construction contractor brought a breach of contract claim in federal court against a homeowner who had hired the contractor to build an apartment over an existing garage. The action turned on the scope of the work covered by the contract. The contractor and the homeowner were the only witnesses at the bench trial, and they strongly disagreed about the scope of the work. At the end of the trial, the judge stated findings of fact on the record but never issued a written opinion. Neither party objected to the findings. The judge found in favor of the homeowner, and the contractor appealed. Is the appellate court likely to overturn the findings?

Choices:
- No, because the appellate court must give due regard to the trial judge's opportunity to determine witness credibility.
- No, because the contractor failed to object to the findings when the judge stated them in open court.
- Yes, because a judge must set forth findings of fact in a written opinion or memorandum of decision.
- Yes, because there were disputed issues of fact at trial.


Question: A state on the eastern seaboard has a long stretch of scenic, ecologically unique, and relatively unspoiled seacoast. Most of the coastline is privately owned by persons who have permanent or vacation residences on their coastal lands. A man purchased a two-acre tract of littoral (i. e. , coastal) land in the state. When the man bought the property, there was a narrow concrete walkway (about 20 feet in length and 5 feet in width) adjoining the land. The walkway, which was designed to provide pedestrian access to the beach, was owned by the State Coastal Commission. When the man moved into his beach house, he noticed that the walkway was rarely used. As a result, the man decided to enclose the walkway and construct a paddle ball court over the entire area. He did so without notifying the State Coastal Commission. He has continued to use this area in excess of the period required for adverse possession. In an appropriate action brought by the man to establish title to the walkway area, which of the following must he establish if he is to prevail?

Choices:
- Real property interests can be abandoned by a governmental entity without an official vote.
- Lack of use of the walkway by the state created an irrevocable license in him.
- Real property interests can be lost by a state by adverse possession.
- Due to a defect in the chain of title, the state does not own this piece of land.


Question: A plaintiff sued a department store for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell in the store. At trial, the plaintiff proposes to testify that, when the store manager rushed to the scene, he said to the plaintiff, "I'm so sorry about the water on the floor there, but don't worry the store will pay for the ambulance and your hospital bill." The store's attorney objects. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the store manager's testimony?

Choices:
- The testimony is admissible in its entirety as the statement of an opposing party.
- The testimony about the water is an admissible statement of an opposing party, but the rest of the testimony is inadmissible as an offer to pay medical expenses.
- The testimony is inadmissible in its entirety, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
- The testimony is inadmissible in its entirety, because the manager's statement is in the context of an offer to pay medical expenses.


Question: A defendant was indicted for engaging in a fraudulent investment scheme. At the criminal trial, the prosecutor called a witness who had participated in the scheme with the defendant. The witness testified about the operation of the scheme and was cross-examined by the defendant's attorney. The case resulted in a mistrial. An investor who was allegedly defrauded by the scheme has now brought a civil action against the defendant. She seeks to introduce the witness's testimony from the criminal trial. The witness has testimony from the criminal trial. The witness has moved to a foreign country. Is the witness's testimony in the criminal trial admissible in the civil action?

Choices:
- No, because the burden of proof in a criminal action is different from the burden of proof in a civil action.
- No, because the parties are not identical in the two actions.
- Yes, because it is prior testimony of an unavailable declarant.
- Yes, but only if the investor demonstrates that she was unable to obtain the testimony of the witness by deposition.


Question: A collector owned a rare 16th-century tapestry. The collector contracted in writing to sell the tapestry to a tapestry dealer for $100,000. The contract stipulated that delivery would be "F. O. B. at the dealer's shop," with payment to be made one week after tender. When the dealer received the tapestry, he noticed that it had been damaged in transit. The dealer immediately contacted the collector and notified him that he was rejecting the tapestry because it had ripped apart and was becoming unwoven. The collector told the dealer that he would get back to him with re-shipping instructions. The collector did not make any further contact with the dealer. After four weeks, the dealer then sold the tapestry to a buyer for $120,000. If the collector sues the dealer for damages, the collector should recover

Choices:
- $120,000, for conversion.
- $108,000, because the dealer is entitled to a reasonable sum not exceeding 10% on the resale.
- $100,000, which is the contract price.
- $20,000, which covers the difference between the contract price and the sale price.


Question: A popular singer expressed interest in performing in a theater producer's musical production. The producer and the singer agreed that there would be no enforceable contractual obligations between them until they had entered into a final, signed contract. They then began negotiating the terms of the contract. While the parties were negotiating, the producer began to spend money on the production. When the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a final contract, the producer made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to hire another singer before abandoning the production. If the producer sues the singer, what will he likely recover?

Choices:
- Expectation damages in the form of the profits that the production would have made if it had been performed.
- Reliance damages in the form of the actual expenses the producer incurred while negotiating with the singer.
- Restitution for any harm done to the producer's reputation when the production was abandoned.
- Nothing, because it was not reasonable for the producer to expect to be reimbursed for expenses incurred when he knew that the singer was not obligated until there was a final, signed agreement.


Question: A woman was married to a very wealthy man who had a generous life insurance policy. Deciding that she had had enough of married life, and desiring to spend more time with her boyfriend, she began to plan an early and unexpected demise for her husband. The woman devised a scheme whereby she would contaminate her husband's guacamole with a poisonous substance called strychnine. To facilitate her plan, she enlisted the help of her boyfriend. At first, the boyfriend adamantly refused to go along with her scheme, but when the woman threatened to break off their relationship, he reluctantly agreed. The boyfriend, a pre-med student, got the strychnine from the pharmacy by telling them that he was using it for an experiment with rats. The boyfriend then gave the strychnine to the woman, who sprinkled it in her husband's guacamole. The husband died from the poisoning. A statute in the jurisdiction provides: "Any intentional and premeditated killing or one occurring during the perpetration of a felony, is murder in the first degree. Murder in the second degree is murder with intent to cause serious bodily harm. Manslaughter is an unlawful killing due to recklessness. " Assault with intent to kill or to cause serious physical injury is a felony in the jurisdiction. There are no separate felonies relating to adulterating food or poisoning. The most serious crime for which the boyfriend can properly be convicted is

Choices:
- first-degree murder.
- second-degree murder.
- manslaughter.
- no crime.


Question: A customer is suing a car dealer for selling him a salvaged vehicle that the car dealer had represented as being brand new. A few weeks before trial, the car dealer approached his sister and said, "Sis, I need some sympathy. I sold a salvaged vehicle to a customer, and now he's suing me. I didn't mean any harm by it. I inspected the vehicle and everything. " Unknown to either the car dealer or his sister, the sister's boyfriend was at the front door and overheard this conversation. When the time for trial came around, the car dealer left the country and refused to attend the trial, telling his attorney to handle it. The customer's attorney attempted several times to secure the car dealer's attendance at trial, but was unsuccessful. At trial, the sister's boyfriend is called to testify about the conversation he overheard. On objection by the car dealer's attorney, the court will most likely rule the testimony

Choices:
- admissible as a statement of then-existing mental or emotional condition.
- admissible as a declaration against interest.
- admissible as a statement of present sense impression.
- inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception.


Question: The most likely contract to be classified under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a contract for

Choices:
- A common carrier delivering a new computer.
- Crops and timber to be severed from the property next summer.
- The purchase of a commercial property building.
- The sale of an intangible asset.


Question: A husband and wife were shopping at a local department store when the wife saw a dress that she especially liked. The wife, who weighed more than 300 pounds, was unable to find a size large enough to fit her. She then saw a store clerk and asked if the store carried the dress in her size. The clerk looked at the wife and said, "You look like a hippopotamus, and I'm sorry, but we don't carry this dress in the hippo size. " Another customer in the store overheard the comment and began to laugh. The wife became very upset and hurried out of the store. If the wife asserts a tort action against the department store based upon the clerk's actions, the wife will

Choices:
- win, because the statement was overheard byanother customer.
- win, because the clerk's conduct was extreme and outrageous.
- lose, because the clerk was merely statingan opinion.
- lose, because the wife only suffered hurt feelings.


Question: A tenant lived in a small apartment building that was owned by a landlord. In July, the landlord was killed in an accident. In August, the tenant brought an action against the administrator of the landlord's state. The tenant alleged that he and the landlord had a contract under the terms of which the landlord was supposed to pay him $50 a week to mow the lawn and perform small maintenance repairs for the other tenants. He claimed that the landlord had not paid him for the past six months. He testified that there was a written contract and that the landlord kept the only copy of it in his home. At trial, he called the landlord's accountant to testify about the contract. The accountant testified that she had seen the contract. She further testified about the terms of the contract, consistent with the tenant's testimony. She testified that the contract, along with many other documents pertaining to the landlord's business, had most likely been destroyed when the landlord's business office was robbed a few months earlier. The trial judge should rule that the accountant's. testimony is

Choices:
- admissible as secondary evidence under the circumstances.
- admissible as a written admission by the party opponent.
- inadmissible under the Dead Man's Statute.
- inadmissible, because the accountant's testimony is not the best evidence.


Question: A man worked as a clerk in a gourmet coffee shop. His friend often stopped by the shop to chat with the man while the man was working. One afternoon, while the friend was visiting the shop, the man needed to use the bathroom. There were no customers in the shop at that moment, so the man asked the friend to watch the store for him while he went in the back to use the bathroom. The friend agreed to do so. While the man was in the bathroom, a customer came into the store. She wanted to purchase some freshly ground coffee. The shop had a grinding machine that customers could use. The customer selected a bag of coffee beans and then took it to the grinding machine. She was unsure how to start the machine, so she asked the friend for help. The friend tried to show the customer how to use the machine, but he was not familiar with how it worked, and he gave the customer erroneous instructions. The customer tried to follow the friend's instructions, but this led to her getting her finger pinched and cut by the machine. If the customer asserts a claim against the coffee shop company for her finger injury, the customer will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, because the company would be vicariously liable for the man's unauthorized actions.
- prevail, because the friend's negligence would be imputed to the company.
- not prevail, because the man acted outside the scope of employment by entrusting the supervision of the shop to his friend.
- not prevail, because the company is not liable for the friend's negligence.


Question: A man participated in a bank robbery as the driver of the getaway vehicle. The other conspirators assured him there would be no injuries or killings, but while in the bank they killed two people. Pursuant to the state's felony murder rule, the getaway driver was convicted of first degree murder, and sentenced to death. After exhausting his appeals, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear his case. He argued that he did not intend to kill and was not even present. What is the most likely holding of the Supreme Court?

Choices:
- It is constitutional for a state to authorize the execution of an individual who participates in a robbery in which another robber takes life.
- A conviction of first degree murder justifies the execution as long as aggravating circumstances are found to exist.
- The felony murder rule is unconstitutional and the defendant's conviction must be reversed.
- The execution of the defendant constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and cannot be allowed.


Question: One evening, a defendant was at a party and offered to sell an ounce of marijuana to a partygoer. The partygoer agreed to purchase the marijuana and gave the defendant $200. In return, the defendant handed the partygoer a bag containing what appeared to be marijuana. At the time of the transaction, the defendant knew that the bag did not contain marijuana but, instead, was oregano. The defendant is guilty for which, if any, of the following crimes?

Choices:
- Solicitation and attempted sale of narcotics.
- Attempted sale of narcotics and false pretenses.
- False pretenses.
- Solicitation, attempted sale of narcotics, and false pretenses.


Question: A repairman repaired damaged electrical power lines and replaced old, worn-out equipment whenever necessary for the local municipal electrical company. After a violent tornado had ripped through the city, the electrical company was busily trying to restore electrical power to its customers. The morning after the storm, the repairman was perched on a ladder trying to repair a high-voltage power line. As he was removing the cover of the transformer box, the ladder suddenly slipped on the wet ground, even though it had been properly fixed into position. The repairman struggled to maintain his balance and, luckily, the ladder came to rest against the transformer box. A pedestrian, who was walking on the street below, saw the repairman's predicament and began to climb the ladder to aid him. As the pedestrian was ascending the ladder, his foot slipped, and he fell to the ground. His fall caused the ladder to jar loose the transformer box, which in turn sent the repairman falling to the pavement. The repairman and the pedestrian both suffered serious injuries. If the pedestrian asserts a claim against the electrical company for his injuries, he will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, because he was attempting to rescue the repairman.
- prevail, because a public utility company is strictly liable in tort.
- not prevail, because he was negligent in climbing the ladder.
- not prevail, because the repairman was not negligent in not affixing the ladder properly.


Question: On Monday, a man told a gardener, "I am having a party on Sunday and I want my house to look good. If you will promise to mow my lawn by Saturday, I will pay you $50. " On Friday, the gardener arrived at the man's home just as the man was leaving for work and began to mow the man's lawn. The man said nothing to the gardener but drove off as he saw the gardener unloading his lawn mower. When the man arrived home from work that evening, he noticed that only half of his lawn had been mowed. He then found a note from the gardener slipped into his mailbox. The note said:"Sorry, but I ran out of gas to power the lawn mower and did not have time to buy more gas to finish the job. I'm taking the weekend off, but I will be back Monday morning to finish the job. "If the man brings suit against the gardener for breach of contract, who is likely to prevail?

Choices:
- The gardener, because he never accepted the offer made by the man.
- The gardener, because he offered to cure the defective performance by finishing the job on Monday morning.
- The man, because the gardener's part performance necessarily implied an acceptance and a promise that he would render complete performance.
- The man, because under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the gardener's part performance was evidence of his intent to honor the entire contract.


Question: Police officers had probable cause to believe that drug dealing was routinely taking place in a particular room at a local motel. The motel manager authorized the officers to enter the room and provided them with a passkey. Without obtaining a warrant, the officers knocked on the room's door, announced their presence, and told the occupants that they would like to speak with them. The officers then heard yelling and repeated flushing of the toilet. They then used the passkey and entered the room, where they saw the occupants dumping drugs into the toilet. The occupants of the room were charged with drug dealing and have moved to suppress the drugs. Should the court grant the motion to suppress?

Choices:
- No, because exigent circumstances justified the officers' entry.
- No, because the motel manager consented to the officers' entry.
- Yes, because exigent circumstances cannot excuse the lack of a warrant.
- Yes, because the officers cannot benefit from exigent circumstances that they created.


Question: A plaintiff alleges in a lawsuit against a store that he purchased a hot dog with chili that gave him food poisoning and caused him excruciating pain. The store offers into evidence certified copies of court proceedings revealing that the plaintiff has filed three similar lawsuits in the last 18 months against other convenience stores, claiming food poisoning resulting from the purchase of food from those stores. These copies should be ruled

Choices:
- inadmissible, because of the best evidence rule.
- inadmissible, because they are irrelevant to the present claim.
- inadmissible, because there is the danger of undue prejudice to the plaintiff, which outweighs the probative value of the evidence.
- admissible, because they establish a pattern of similar actions.


Question: A retiree lived in a single-family dwelling in the city. Adjacent to his home was a vacant lot that measured 100 feet by 175 feet. The lot, which the retiree owned, was situated on the corner of Davis Street and University Way. The tract measured 100 feet along Davis Street and 175 feet along University Way. The retiree executed a deed purporting to convey the vacant lot to his lifelong friend for the consideration of $28,000. After escrow, the deed was delivered to the friend, who immediately filed it with the county recorder's office. The recorded instrument described the property conveyed as "all the tract of land beginning at the northwest corner of Davis Street and University Way; thence west along Davis Street 100 feet; thence north 175 feet; thence west 100 feet; thence south 175 feet along University Way to the place of beginning. " Three months after his conveyance to the friend, the retiree died intestate. His heirs have now filed an appropriate action contesting the friend's title to the vacant lot. Which of the following statements is most accurate concerning the outcome of this suit?

Choices:
- The retiree's heirs will prevail because metes and bounds, rather than streets, are appropriate boundary descriptions.
- The friend will prevail because equity will not permit forfeiture for a mere technicality.
- The outcome will depend on whether the tract of land was plotted as a lot in a subdivision.
- The outcome will depend on whether the last call (175 feet along University Way) prevails over the third call (west 100 feet).


Question: A woman had been spreading rumors around town that a defendant was a shoplifter. After the defendant learned about these rumors, she was furious and decided that she would teach the woman to keep her mouth shut. Late that night, the defendant went over to the woman's house with the intent to punch her in the mouth. When the defendant arrived at the woman's home, she peered in the bedroom window and saw the woman asleep in bed. The defendant proceeded to pry open the bedroom window and climbed inside. The defendant then grabbed the woman and punched her in the face and hurriedly fled from the home. The force of the blow fractured the woman's jaw. If the defendant is subsequently prosecuted for burglary, she will most likely be found

Choices:
- guilty, because she broke into the woman's home at night with the intent to commit a felony therein.
- guilty, because the woman suffered a broken jaw as a result of the blow inflicted by the defendant.
- not guilty, because the defendant did not intend to seriously injure the woman.
- not guilty, because the defendant did not intend to commit a felony at the time of the breaking and entry.


Question: Two brothers who were in need of money approached their wealthy uncle's housekeeper and asked her to poison him. The brothers would inherit the uncle's estate when he died. The housekeeper agreed, but on the condition that they would pay her $10,000 from their inheritance. After the brothers agreed to her demand, the housekeeper decided to place some cyanide in the uncle's tea one morning. As the housekeeper was preparing the tea, the uncle was visited by his personal physician. When the housekeeper was ready to serve the tea, the uncle asked her to fix some tea for his physician also. The housekeeper did so and then carefully set the tea on the table so that the uncle's cup was facing him. However, when the physician reached over to get some sugar, he inadvertently took the uncle's cup with the cyanide and drank it. Seconds later, the physician died from the poison. Which of the following crimes are the brothers guilty of?

Choices:
- Conspiracy to commit murder of their uncle only.
- Conspiracy to commit murder of their uncle and the physician.
- Conspiracy to commit murder of their uncle, and murder of the physician.
- Solicitation, conspiracy to commit murder of their uncle, and murder of the physician.


Question: In his will, a veterinarian devised his home "to my friend to whom I am everlastingly grateful for the devoted care she has lavished on my prize Pomeranians, but if ever my dogs who survive me shall fail to receive proper care, then to my beloved son and his heirs, if he be living and own any dogs, otherwise to the American Society for the Protection of Animals. "Assuming that the Rule against Perpetuities is in effect in this jurisdiction, which of the following statements is correct regarding the son's interest under his father's will?

Choices:
- It is a contingent remainder.
- It is an executory interest of a shifting type.
- It is an executory interest of a shifting type that is void under the Rule against Perpetuities.
- It is an executory interest of a springing type that is void under the Rule against Perpetuities.


Question: A city has adopted the following ordinance which provides:"Section 1: It shall be unlawful for any person, group, or organization to hold a meeting of 50 persons or more in any city park without first securing a city permit;Section 2: The application shall specify the day and hours for which the permit is sought. The fee shall be $10 per hour, with a maximum fee of $50;Section 3: Permits shall be issued on a first come basis; provided that the chief of police shall deny any application if, after hearing the applicant, it is his considered judgment that the meeting would create serious traffic congestion. "An anarchist planned to hold an antigovernment protest demonstration at a city square. Although his previous antigovernment protest rallies attracted fewer than 15 demonstrators, he decided to apply for a permit pursuant to the city ordinance. After meeting with the anarchist, the chief of police denied his permit application because he believed that the demonstration would incite the protestors and threaten imminent violence or serious disorder. On October 4, the anarchist and his fellow demonstrators staged their antigovemment protest at a city park. The rally attracted only about 17 protestors and was conducted peacefully. As the anarchist was making his final remarks to the gathering, the city police arrived at the park and arrested him and his fellow demonstrators, charging them with violating the city ordinance. In a subsequent action by the anarchist in state court challenging the constitutionality of Sections 1 and 2 of the city ordinance, the court will most likely rule these sections

Choices:
- constitutional, because a state may regulate the communicative impact of speech related conduct.
- constitutional, because the aforementioned sections are within the ambit of the state's police power.
- unconstitutional, because the statute is vague and overbroad.
- unconstitutional, because the statute is a content based regulation ofspeech.


Question: A state university was the scene of campus protests against nuclear weapons. A group of students painted purple a statue of the university's founder in protest to the university's federally subsidized nuclear weapon experimental studies. The leader of this group of students was a first-year student from a neighboring state who established residency in the state after beginning classes. The group leader had been the recipient of a $5,000 annual grant from the state to finance his education. However, the aid was withdrawn because of a state statute, which provided: "Any student attending a state university who engages in disruptive campus activities will not be eligible for state aid. "The group leader was married to a fellow student. However, in light of his involvement in defacing the statue and the loss of his state aid, his wife left him. At that time, the group leader received a tax bill for $150. This tax was imposed uniformly by the city on all individuals over 19 years of age, with the exception that full-time female college students were exempted. The tax notice stated that his wife, 22 years of age, qualified for the exemption, and there was no bill enclosed for her. Subsequently, the group leader moved in with his new girlfriend and began making arrangements to secure a divorce. However, the group leader was not able to obtain a divorce, since he had not fulfilled the 12-month residency requirement as imposed by state law. In an action by the group leader against the state challenging the constitutionality of the state statute regarding disruptive campus activities in order to regain his $5,000 annual grant, the court will most likely declare the statute

Choices:
- constitutional, because it promotes a compelling state interest.
- constitutional, because it is a proper exercise of state action designed to regulate the activities of state university students.
- unconstitutional, because it is vague and overbroad.
- unconstitutional, because it is discriminatory on its face.


Question: A man was on trial for murder. Following a recess, the man was in the hallway outside the courtroom speaking with his attorney. During their conversation, the man said, "So what if I killed him, big deal. " The man's statement was overheard by the presiding judge as he was walking down the corridor to the rest room. The judge then informed the prosecuting attorney of the man's comment. After trial is reconvened, the prosecutor calls the judge as a witness to testify to what he heard the defendant tell his attorney. Upon objection by defendant's attorney, may the judge be called as a witness?

Choices:
- No, because the man's statement was a confidential communication and protected under the attorney-client privilege.
- No, because a judge may not testify in a matter over which he or she is presiding.
- Yes, because a judge has a duty to disclose incriminating evidence to the prosecution.
- Yes, because the man's statement was not a confidential communication.


Question: A large privately owned and operated shopping mall is open to the public and includes small shops, major department stores, and restaurants that are located around a pedestrian area. It also has several movie theaters, an ice-skating rink, a small amusement park, and a branch of the local public library. The mall is advertised as "a small town with a big-town feel." During shopping hours, a group of 10 protesters gathered in the pedestrian area near the entrance to a department store to denounce the sale of animal fur products in that store. The protesters were peaceful and did not interfere with traffic into or out of the store, but they carried signs and vocally communicated their message to people walking in the area. Mall management quickly broke up the protest and required the protesters to leave the mall. The protesters have sued the mall, claiming that their right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments was violated. Should the protesters prevail?

Choices:
- No, because the mall is private property, and there was no state action to which the freedom of speech guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments apply.
- No, because the prohibition of protests adjacent to the entrance of a department store during shopping hours is a constitutionally proper limitation on the time, place, and manner of speech.
- Yes, because the mall is functionally equivalent to a town and, therefore, its actions are subject to the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.
- Yes, because the mall's restriction on the protesters' speech was broader than necessary to ensure proper access to the department store.


Question: An elderly woman was riding in an elevator from her apartment on the 12th floor to the lobby. When the elevator stopped on the fifth floor, a man entered the elevator smoking a cigar. The man was standing in front of the elderly woman on the elevator when the woman tapped him on the shoulder. When the man turned around, the woman pointed to the "No Smoking" sign and said, "Excuse me, sir, would you mind putting that cigar out?" The man indignantly responded by inhaling heavily on his cigar, and then he blew a big puff of smoke into the woman's face. When the elevator stopped on the next floor, the man then departed. If the woman brings a civil suit against the man for battery, who will prevail?

Choices:
- The woman, because the smoke touched her face.
- The woman, because she had a reasonable basis for fearing that the man would attack her.
- The man, because he did not touch the woman.
- The man, because his conduct was annoying but did not inflict any bodily injury on the woman.


Question: A partnership purchased five acres of unimproved land for purposes of residential development. A state law was subsequently passed requiring the city to prepare a general plan governing both land use and open-space development. The city's plan, with new density requirements, effectively limited development of the five-acre lot to a total of one to five single family residences. The partnership sued the city, asking for a declaratory judgment that the city had taken its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The partnership lost at the local and appellate levels. The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case  what did it decide?

Choices:
- This was illegal spot zoning that was unconstitutional.
- This was an unlawful taking without prior notice and therefore unconstitutional.
- The ordinance allows for up to five residences and therefore it is constitutional.
- The law was a violation of the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution.


Question: A homeowner hired a painter to paint his house for$10,000. The day before the painter was to begin work, he decided to go on vacation for a month. The painter telephoned a handyman who had done painting work for the painter in the past, and asked if he would be willing to paint the homeowner's house for him. The painter said that if the handyman would paint the house, the handyman could keep the $10,000 that the homeowner promised to pay. The handyman agreed. The next day, the handyman went to the homeowner's house to begin the painting job. The homeowner had already left for work, so the handyman began to paint the house. When the homeowner arrived home that evening, he saw the handyman painting his house. Confused, the homeowner asked the handyman why he was doing the painting instead of the painter. The handyman told the homeowner of the arrangement he had with the painter. Although the handyman was only 50% finished with the painting, the homeowner told the handyman to immediately get off his land, so the handyman left. If the handyman brings an action against the homeowner, he will most likely

Choices:
- recover for unjust enrichment.
- recover under the doctrine of substantial performance.
- not recover, because his arrangement with the painter was not in writing.
- not recover, because there was no contract between the handyman and the homeowner.


Question: A city has undergone a massive redevelopment project aimed at remodeling and beautifying the downtown area. Recently the city council passed an ordinance prohibiting the placement of any sign with dimensions larger than six feet on the exterior of any commercial building. Furthermore, signs within the guidelines of the ordinance could only relate to advertising the business of the property's occupant. The intended purpose of the ordinance was to advance the municipality's interests in traffic safety and aesthetics. An owner of an office building in the newly developed section of town, placed a 10-foot sign on the outside of his building endorsing his brother's political candidacy. The city council has ordered the owner to remove the sign from his building, but he has refused to take it down until after the election. If the owner challenges the city ordinance, the most likely result is that he will

Choices:
- prevail, because the ordinance violates his freedom of speech.
- prevail, because such a time, place, and manner restriction on private property is discriminatory and overbroad.
- not prevail, because although commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment, it is subject to greater regulation than other forms of protected speech.
- not prevail, because the ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.


Question: In which of the following situations would the defendant not be guilty of homicide?

Choices:
- A defendant came into a bar looking for a fight. He walked up to a victim, tapped him on the shoulder and said, "You bother me. Get out of here. " The victim ignored him, and the defendant proceeded to punch the victim in the face and stab him in the arm with a knife. The victim thereupon took out a knife that had been concealed in his pocket and stabbed the defendant in the right arm. The defendant, fearful that the victim would stab him in the heart, took out a gun and shot the victim to death.
- A defendant was home in bed with a fever one night, and all the lights in his house were off. A victim, who was scouting the neighborhood that night for a house to burglarize, broke into the defendant's house through the basement window and went upstairs to the bedrooms to look for jewelry. The defendant, who was not aware that someone else was in the house, was startled when he saw the victim walk past his room toward the stairs leading to the outside doorway. The defendant pulled out a pistol from under his pillow when he saw the victim and shot him to death.
- A defendant started a joke about the victim's brother. When word got to the victim about the defendant's joke, the victim became incensed. He rushed to the defendant's home, broke open the door and found the defendant preparing dinner in the kitchen. He immediately said, "I'm going to kill you. " The defendant knew that the victim had been convicted of attempted murder several years ago, and he cringed when the victim took out a gun and pointed it at him. The defendant could have easily darted for the open front door and evaded the victim but, instead, he suddenly pulled a knife from the kitchen wall, lunged at the victim, and stabbed him to death. Unknown to the defendant, the victim's gun was not loaded.
- A defendant was a reporter for a newspaper and was sent on assignment to another state to cover the story of a mining disaster. He was sitting in his hotel room one evening, trying to get a message to his editor, when a victim knocked at the door. The defendant opened the door, and the victim announced a robbery. The defendant took a lamp from the night table and threw it at the victim. The victim was momentarily stunned, and the defendant then pulled a gun out of his own suitcase and shot the victim to death.


Question: In 1980, an attorney purchased an 80-acre tract in a rural county. The 80-acre tract included the family home, an exquisite mansion built in 1929 by a wealthy industrialist. For many years, the closest town to the tract had been in the grips of economic decline. However, in 1988 and 1989, several large corporations built plant facilities in the local area. By the early 1 990s, prosperity had burst upon the area. To take advantage of the real estate boom, the attorney divided the 80-acre tract into 160 lots. By 1995, the attorney had sold 90 lots to various individual buyers. Each deed contained the following provisions:"It is an express covenant and condition that the property hereby conveyed shall not be used for other than single-family residences. ""The grantor hereby covenants for himself, his heirs, successors, and assigns to insert a similar restriction in all deeds to lots now owned by grantor in the 80- acre tract. "In 1996, the county board of supervisors purchased from the attorney 30 lots within the 80-acre tract. The board, which had the power of eminent domain, planned to construct a new county pest-control office on the property. The deed of conveyance from the attorney to the county board of supervisors made no mention of the aforesaid restrictions contained in the deeds to other lot owners in the 80-acre tract. The attorney county deed, however, did contain a provision, which stated:"The grantee hereby covenants for itself, its successors, and assigns that this conveyance is made in lieu of the exercise of the power of eminent domain. "Thereafter, the county enacted a zoning ordinance whereby the 30 lots were rezoned to permit the construction of a pest-control office building. When the county started construction, all the other lot owners in the 80-acre tract brought suit to enjoin the building plan or, in the alternative, to recover damages. If the county board of supervisors, the named defendant, prevails on both counts, it will be because

Choices:
- the power of eminent domain is the equivalent of the power to zone.
- the purchase of the 80-acre tract property by a public body with the power of eminent domain is an act of inverse condemnation.
- the abrogation of the right to enforce the restrictive covenant is not a compensable taking.
- restrictions on the use of land can be enforced only against a buyer whose deed contains the restrictions.


Question: An investor from State A filed an action against his State B stockbroker in federal court in State A. The summons and complaint were served at the stockbroker's office in State B, where the process server handed the documents to the stockbroker's administrative assistant. The stockbroker has answered the complaint, asserting the defense of improper service of process. Assume that both states' requirements for service of process are identical to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Is the court likely to dismiss the action for improper service of process?

Choices:
- No, because service was made on a person of suitable age found at the stockbroker's place of employment.
- No, because the stockbroker waived her claim for improper service of process by asserting it in her answer.
- Yes, because an individual defendant may not be served by delivering process to a third party found at the defendant's place of employment.
- Yes, because the process of State A courts is not effective in State B.


Question: A sporting goods shop contracted with a publisher to buy, for sale in its store, 1,200 posters featuring a professional golfer. During production, the image of the golfer was inad-vertently reversed and the right-handed golfer appeared to be left-handed. When the posters were delivered on the date provided in the contract, the sporting goods shop noticed the discrepancy, which had no provable significant impact on the effectiveness of the poster. In the opinion of the shop man-agement, however, the posters did not look as good as they had in the catalog from which the shop had ordered them. Is the sporting goods shop legally entitled to reject the posters?

Choices:
- No, because the nonconformity does not materially alter the value of the posters to the sporting goods shop.
- No, because the publisher must be given an opportunity to cure the nonconformity before the sporting goods shop can reject the posters.
- Yes, because the posters do not conform to the contract.
- Yes, because the publisher has breached an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.


Question: A merchant's irrevocable written offer (firm offer) to sell goods

Choices:
- Must be separately signed if the offeree supplies a form contract containing the offer.
- Is valid for three months.
- Is nonassignable.
- Can not exceed a three-month duration even if consideration is given.


Question: As part of an externship program conducted by his law school, a law student went to work for a lawyer as a clerk. After six months, the lawyer was very impressed with the law student's work. He called the law student into his office and told him, "I know you were only to work for me for six months in exchange for credit in your law school extemship program. However, I'd like you to stay on as a clerk. I'll pay you $25 an hour for any work you do for me between now and the bar exam. In addition, if you put in a minimum of 10 hours per week during that time, I promise to hire you full-time as an associate when you pass the bar exam. " The attorney then reduced this agreement to writing, which both he and the law student signed. The law student continued to work for the lawyer throughout the rest of his law school career and while he was studying for the bar exam. During that time, the law student always worked a minimum of 10 hours per week. While the law student was awaiting the results of the bar exam, his uncle passed away and left him a large apartment building. The law student decided he did not want to practice law but wanted to spend all of his time managing the apartment building. He told his roommate, a fellow law student who was awaiting his bar results, about his plans and told the roommate he would assign to the roommate the right to be hired by the lawyer as an associate, in exchange for $100. The roommate paid the $100 to the law student, who then executed a written assignment of the right to be hired by the lawyer as an associate. The roommate passed the bar exam, but the lawyer refused to hire him as an associate. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the legal effect of this assignment?

Choices:
- The lawyer would be required to recognize the validity of the assignment so that the roommate would be entitled to be hired as an associate.
- The lawyer would be required to recognize the validity of the assignment, but would be entitled to demand adequate assurances of performance from the roommate as to the latter's willingness and professional capacity to perform satisfactory work.
- The lawyer would not be required to recognize the validity of the assignment of rights, because a contract to make a future assignment of a right is not an assignment.
- The lawyer would not be required to recognize the validity of the assignment, because neither the rights nor the duties under a personal service contract are properly assignable.


Question: An owner sold his home to a purchaser, who moved into the property. The purchaser paid the property taxes but she failed to record the deed. She remained in open possession of the property. The original owner then attempted to sell the property five years later to another purchaser who did not know of the prior conveyance. The second purchaser performed a title search, checking the public records for deeds and saw that title was in the name of his seller. The search included obtaining a standard tax lien certificate, which showed that someone other than the titled owner had been paying the taxes for the past several years. He did not look into who had possession of the property, but went ahead with the closing, paid the purchase price, and recorded a warranty deed in the recorder of deeds office. The first purchaser found out about the sale and quickly recorded her warranty deed, but this was not done until about three months after the second purchaser's deed had already been recorded. The first purchaser also brought a quiet title action to have the court declare that she had superior ownership and title. Which of the two purchasers will win title to the property in a race-notice jurisdiction and why?

Choices:
- The first purchaser wins because the second purchaser had constructive notice from the title search that someone else might be in possession, which triggered a duty to further investigate.
- The second purchaser will prevail because he recorded his deed first.
- The first purchaser will prevail because she paid the taxes on the property, and the tax lien certificate was legally treated the same as a recorded deed.
- The second purchaser wins because the first purchaser had to record her deed within five years in order to make it legal in a race-notice jurisdiction.


Question: A federal agency has been established for the purpose of stabilizing, supporting, and protecting farm income and prices. The agency is authorized to enter into and carry out such contracts or agreements as are necessary in the conduct of its business. An export company entered into a contract with the federal agency to transport a variety of goods to foreign countries. Thereafter, the federal agency suspended the export company pending an investigation into possible misuse of official inspection certificates relating to commodities exported to a foreign country. During an investigation relevant to the charge, the president of the export company presented information to the federal agency. Subsequently, the president was charged with violation of a federal statute that states:"It is a felony for any person in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency to knowingly make a false statement. "At the president's trial, the government presented evidence to show that he falsified bills of lading and embezzled over $500,000 of surplus commodities for export. The president testified that he did not know that he was dealing with a federal agency and, hence, the federal government would have jurisdiction over his company's export contract with the federal agency. As to the significance of the president's ignorance, the court should instruct the jury that it may convict the president

Choices:
- if it finds that the president knew that he was doing business with a federal agency.
- if it finds that the president was aware that he might have been doing business with a federal agency.
- if a reasonable person would have been aware that he might have been doing business with a federal agency.
- even if there was no reason the president should have known that he was doing business with a federal agency.


Question: A woman hired a builder to build a house according to certain plans and specifications prepared by the woman's architect. The agreed upon price was $250,000, with construction to be completed within four months. Two weeks after the building contract was formed, the builder contacted a lumber yard to purchase wood necessary for the construction of the house. The builder and the owner of the lumber yard entered into a valid written agreement whereby the lumber yard was to supply the necessary lumber in exchange for $10,000, payable by the builder within 30 days. One week later, a fire destroyed a good portion of the lumber yard's supply of lumber. As a result, the lumber yard refused to supply lumber to the builder. The builder was unable to find another supplier of lumber and therefore notified the woman that he would be unable to complete her building on time. If the woman sues the owner of the lumber yard for breach of contract, will she prevail?

Choices:
- Yes, because by operation of law the woman is an equitable assignee of the builder's claim against the owner of the lumber yard for breach of contract.
- Yes, but only if the builder's contract with the owner of the lumber yard was not discharged by the fire.
- No, because privity of contract does not exist between the woman and the owner of the lumber yard.
- No, because the woman is only an incidental beneficiary of the contract between the builder and the owner of the lumber yard.


Question: A woman owned land that abutted a public highway to the south. A neighbor owned the land immediately to the north. The neighbor's predecessor had received an easement from the woman's predecessor in title to cross the woman's land for access to the public highway. This access was desired even though the neighbor and his predecessor had other access to public roads. Recently, the woman erected a large solar collector on a portion of her land subject to the easement, even though the woman has other power resources. The location was essential to acquire the maximum sunlight. However, by erecting the collector there, the woman effectively cut off the neighbor's ability to use the easement. The local zoning code permits the use of solar collectors. The neighbor immediately sued to compel the woman to remove the solar collector. Must the solar collector be removed?

Choices:
- No, because the neighbor has other means of access.
- No, because the zoning code permits the use of solar collectors.
- Yes, because the easement remains valid.
- Yes, because the woman has other power resources.


Question: One morning in a Laundromat, a defendant approached a man and said, "If you don't pay me $500 by July 2, I'll beat you to a pulp. " A week later, on July 2, the defendant met the man at a local bar and demanded the money. The man handed the defendant the $500. After receiving the money, the defendant then punched the man in the stomach and hurriedly left the bar. Under modem statutory law, the defendant will most likely be found guilty of which of the following crimes?

Choices:
- Extortion and battery.
- Extortion and robbery.
- Assault and battery.
- Assault and robbery.


Question: Two law students were having lunch one afternoon when the first student said to the second, "I'm thinking of selling my car. " The second student replied, "I might be interested in buying your car if the price is reasonable and I can convince my parents to float me a loan. " The first student then grabbed a piece of paper and wrote the following on it:"I will sell you my car for $1,000. In exchange for $1 received this day, I agree that you can have one month from today's date to decide whether to accept this offer. "The first student then signed the paper and handed it to the second student. The second student handed a one dollar bill to the first student and left. One week later, the second student succeeded in obtaining a $1,000 loan from his parents. He then telephoned the first student to accept the offer. Upon hearing the second student say hello, and before the second student could accept the offer, the first student said, "I've changed my mind. I do not want to sell my car. "Can the second student still accept the first student's offer?

Choices:
- No, because $1 is inadequate consideration.
- No, because the first student's statement was unequivocal notice that he no longer wished to contract with the second student.
- Yes, because the first student's letter formed a valid option.
- Yes, based on the principal of promissory estoppel.


Question: In a criminal prosecution the government must prove that the defendant affixed a rubber-stamp containing his signature to certain fraudulent letters mailed to the victim. The defendant denied that he stamped the letters. There were no witnesses to the defendant stamping the letters. The prosecution attempted to present a co-worker to testify that defendant maintained sole control of the stamp and used it once daily at 3 p.m. to sign all outgoing letters, and then immediately returned it to his safe. The co-worker would testify that he saw the defendant using the stamp in that habitual manner over a period of many years. The defense objected because this did not prove that the defendant's practice was followed on the dates in question. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, what will the court rule?

Choices:
- The testimony is inadmissible because evidence of habit is not admissible in a criminal case under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
- The testimony is inadmissible because evidence of prior habit will only distract the jury from deciding whether the defendant actually acted that way on the specified dates.
- The testimony is admissible because it proves that the defendant was the only person who could have used the stamp.
- The testimony is admissible because habit and routine practice are admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.


Question: Alice owned Greyacre, a one-acre piece of property, in fee simple. Alice sold the property to Barbara who moved into the only residence on the land. Barbara neglected to record the deed, and three years later, Alice conveyed the same property to Charlene who immediately filed the deed she received from Alice. Greyacre's jurisdiction has a race-notice statute and a tract index system. If an action is filed for title to the property, the likely outcome would be for

Choices:
- Alice, since her ownership was first in time and she was of record.
- Barbara, because Charlene had notice of the prior conveyance between Alice and Barbara.
- Barbara, because she was the first to record her deed.
- Charlene, because she was the first to record her deed.


Question: A wife and her husband were having dinner at a restaurant when the wife excused herself to go to the bathroom. The restaurant was owned and operated by a chef. As the wife was walking past a table where another customer was seated, she slipped and fell on an egg roll that had been lying on the floor for quite some time, although the chef was unaware that it had fallen onto the floor. When she fell, her head struck a serving tray that was located in the aisle. The fall caused the wife to suffer a severe concussion. The customer knew that the egg roll was on the floor, and although he could have done so, he did not warn the wife. If the wife asserts a claim against the chef for the injuries she suffered from the fall, she will most likely

Choices:
- recover, because the egg roll on the floor constituted an unsafe condition of the premises.
- recover, because the egg roll was on the floor for a substantial period of time before the accident.
- not recover, because the chef did not know that the egg roll was on the floor.
- not recover, because the customer could have prevented the injury by warning the wife of the presences of the egg roll.


Question: A farmer owned a tract of land in a state that has a notice recording statute and follows the title theory of mortgages. There were two farms situated on the property, one farm on the eastern half and one farm on the western half of the property. The farmer recorded a general warranty deed conveying the property to his son. Two years later, the son obtained a mortgage, secured by the farm property, in favor of his friend. The friend promptly recorded the mortgage. Twenty years later, the son sold the property to an investor by a general warranty deed, with the investor assuming the friend's mortgage. The following year, the investor subdivided the property and sold the western farm to a developer, while retaining the eastern farm. There was no mention of the mortgage in the general warranty deed between the investor and developer. The developer was unable to rezone the property to build houses as he had planned, so the developer sold the western farm to a florist. The conveyance to the florist made no mention of the friend's mortgage. Three years later, the florist entered into a contract with a rancher, pursuant to which the rancher would purchase the western farm for $75,000. The closing date for the deal was set for January 15. Assuming that on January 10, the rancher conducted a title search that revealed the friend's mortgage on the property, which of the following is correct?

Choices:
- The rancher would be entitled to rescind the real estate contract with the florist immediately.
- The encumbrance renders title to the western farm unmarketable.
- The mortgage would only encumber the eastern farm, not the western farm, because the investor's partition of the property created a joint tenancy.
- The encumbrance would not entitle the rancher to rescind the real estate contract until closing on January 15.


Question: A pedestrian is suing a defendant for injuries she suffered to her leg when the defendant ran the pedestrian over with his motorcycle. On cross- examination of the pedestrian's physician, the defendant's attorney asked him whether or not the pedestrian had told him that the leg that she claimed was injured had been permanently stiff as a result of a former field hockey injury the pedestrian suffered in high school. Upon objection by the pedestrian's attorney, the trial judge should

Choices:
- sustain the objection, as hearsay not within any recognized exception.
- sustain the objection, as violative of the physician-patient privilege.
- overrule the objection, as a statement made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment.
- overrule the objection, as a statement against interest.


Question: A law school professor was hired to teach a bar review course. The professor taught the course in three cities. After conducting the sessions, the professor submitted an expense report to the owner of the bar review course. Her expense voucher included a $225 travel expenditure to a fourth city where the professor had attended a symposium unrelated to the bar review course. The professor also submitted the $225 travel expenditure to the administrator for the faculty at the law school where she teaches. The dean of the law school had previously approved the professor's appearance at the symposium. The owner paid the professor for the symposium-related expenditure but indicated that the expense item was improperly billed to his company. The professor was indicted for false pretenses. In her defense, she contends that the double billing was the result of a bookkeeping error. Her defense should be

Choices:
- valid, if her mistake was reasonable.
- valid, if she didn't know that the billing to the bar review company included the symposium expenditure.
- invalid, if her bookkeeping error was unreasonable.
- invalid, because white-collar crime imposes absolute criminal liability.


Question: A state law provides some funding for public schools on a per-student basis from general state revenues, which primarily come from the state income and sales taxes. The law also provides that all other public monies used to support public schools in the state come from locally levied real estate taxes. This results in a large disparity in per-student funding among the state's many public school districts because some districts have higher property values per student than other districts. Public school students who claim to be disadvantaged by this school funding law have challenged the law solely on the ground that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Which of the following best states the burden of persuasion in this action?

Choices:
- The state must demonstrate that the law is necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest.
- The state must demonstrate that the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
- The students must demonstrate that the law is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest.
- The students must demonstrate that the law is not substantially related to an important state interest.


Question: A developer leased with an option a 250-acre property from a widow who retained the right to live in a farmhouse on the land until her death. At her death, developer had a two-year option to buy for $100,000. Shortly after her death, the farmhouse was destroyed by a fire. The developer sent a letter almost two years later in which it exercised the option. The estate refused to sell. The developer brought suit on the option and for the first time claimed a $20,000 credit for destruction of the farmhouse. The court in equity granted the developer's claim and ordered a sale for $80,000. The estate of the widow appealed. Will the appellate court affirm the equity court's ruling and order the $20,000 credit to the developer for the loss of the house?

Choices:
- Yes, under equitable conversion the seller is trustee for the buyer and is responsible for the risk of loss.
- Yes, the developer had an equitable ownership interest in the property when it exercised its option and the seller must compensate for loss to that interest.
- No, the buyer acquired no equitable interest in the land or buildings until it exercised the option right before it expired; the court will order the sale at the full price without credit.
- No, the buyer gets no credit for the house because it was renting the land at the time of the fire and it is responsible for waste.


Question: A pedestrian was walking down the sidewalk past a building that was being painted. A ladder used by the painters fell and struck the pedestrian, causing an injury to his shoulder. In an action by the pedestrian against the painting company based on the theory of negligence, which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the burden of proof?

Choices:
- The pedestrian must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the painting company was negligent.
- The pedestrian must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the painting company was negligent.
- The painting company must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was not negligent.
- There is a rebuttal presumption of negligence on the part of the painting company under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.


Question: A woman owns a tract of land located in a state in the Midwest. On June 1, 2005, the woman sells to a husband and wife an undivided one-half interest in this land for $100,000 (the entire consideration being paid by the husband). The deed to the husband and wife reads as follows: "To (husband) and (wife) and their heirs as tenants by the entirety, and not as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common. "On June 1, 2006, the woman sells her remaining interest in the tract of land to the husband and his brother for $125,000 (the husband pays $80,000 of the purchase price, and the brother pays the balance). The deed to the husband and the brother provides: "To (the husband) and (the brother) and their heirs as joint tenants and not as tenants in common. "The husband conveys to his cousin all his right, title, and interest under the two deeds from the woman. The husband then dies. The brother then dies. The cousin is thus the owner of

Choices:
- an undivided one-third interest in the land.
- an undivided one-quarter interest in the land.
- an undivided one-half interest in the land.
- an undivided three-quarters interest in the land.


Question: The head coach of the local high school football team was also employed as a physical education teacher at the high school. It was a late autunm afternoon, and the football team was practicing for its upcoming game against its archrival. While the team was practicing, the skies darkened as a storm approached. Minutes later, it began to rain heavily. Even though the storm intensified, the coach did not stop the practice because he had no reason to believe the storm presented a danger to his players. Suddenly, a bolt of lightning struck and killed the team's star player. This jurisdiction has abolished governmental immunity, and a school board may be sued as a private entity. If the player's parents bring a wrongful death action against the coach and the high school board, will they prevail?

Choices:
- Yes, because the player was injured while engaged in a school activity.
- Yes, because under the circumstances the coach would be strictly liable.
- No, because the coach was not negligent by continuing the practice.
- No, because lightning is an act of God.


Question: A developer was the owner of a 300-acre tract of land that was located in a rural county. Over the course of time, she developed the property into a residential subdivision. A four-lane public highway ran along the northern boundary of the residential subdivision. When the residential subdivision was first plotted, the developer constructed a private road along (and including) the western boundary of the subdivision. This private road was used only for the benefit of the owners who purchased lots in the subdivision. A homeowner owned a 20-acre tract immediately outside of the residential subdivision, which was situated just below the public highway and immediately adjacent to the west side of the private road. The homeowner's property was divided into two 10-acre parcels: Parcel 1 was the northern half and bordered along the public highway; Parcel 2 was the southern sector and abutted a river. In 1997, the homeowner conveyed Parcel 1 to a man by warranty deed. No encumbrances were mentioned in the deed. Six months later, the homeowner conveyed Parcel 2 by warranty deed to a woman. Both the man and the woman promptly recorded their deeds with the County Recorder's Office. Assume that no part of Parcel 2 adjoins a public road. Consequently, the woman constructed an access road connecting her property to the private road. After the woman used the private road for approximately two months, a teacher who was an owner within the residential subdivision, ordered the woman to discontinue using the private road. In an appropriate action by the teacher against the woman to enjoin the use of the private road, the woman will

Choices:
- win, because there is an easement by estoppel over the private road.
- win, because there is an implied easement appurtenant over the private road.
- lose, unless the private road is the only access road by which woman can gain ingress and egress to her property.
- lose, because she has no legal right to travel over the private road.


Question: An owner of land entered into a month-to-month lease with a chemical company. At first, the company stored raw materials and finished products on the leased land. Later, the company began recycling chemical waste at the property. There was a substantial release of toxic chemicals into the environment. The EPA ordered a clean-up of the property against the owner and the chemical company. The landowner defended the proceedings, claiming it did not know what the chemical company was doing. What will the court decide?

Choices:
- The landowner is responsible under federal law regardless of whether it had knowledge or participated in the release of hazardous substances.
- The court dismissed the action against the owner because federal law does not include innocent landowners in the regulatory scheme.
- The court dismissed the action because liability for environmental hazards cannot be imposed simply because the owner has a contractual relationship with the offending tenant.
- The court imposed liability on the landowner because he had a duty to inspect the property to determine what the tenant was doing there.


Question: On January 1, an employee is hired to work for an employer for one year at a weekly salary of $500. After six months the employee is fired. In determining what rights the employee has against the employer, the agreement between the employer and the employee may best be interpreted as

Choices:
- an entire contract.
- a divisible contract.
- an installment contract.
- neither divisible nor entire.


Question: A company owns and operates a chemical plant that manufactures paraquat, an herbicide used primarily as a weed killer. The plant is located in a rural area in the southwestern part of the state. In its production of paraquat, the company emits putrid smelling fumes throughout the surrounding countryside. Although the fumes are harmless to health, they are rank and highly offensive. Despite extensive research by the company to alleviate the problem, there is no known way to manufacture paraquat without discharging malodorous fumes into the air. An owner of a large dairy farm that is adjacent to the plant finds the foul-smelling herbicide fumes to be extremely unpleasant and totally objectionable. The owner brings an action based on private nuisance against the company and seeks to enjoin the manufacture of paraquat at the chemical plant. Which of the following facts, if proven, will be most helpful to the company's defense?

Choices:
- Federal, state, and local agencies approved the design of the plant and equipment used to produce paraquat.
- The company has a contract with the federal government whereby it supplies 80 percent of its paraquat production to the Drug Enforcement Agency, which uses the herbicide as a marijuana eradicator.
- The company commenced the manufacture of paraquat at the plant before the owner acquired the land and built his dairy farm.
- Paraquat is the only herbicide that can safely and effectively kill marijuana, which, if not controlled, poses a serious drug-enforcement problem.


Question: A defendant was prosecuted for murder. At trial, the prosecutor called a police detective to testify. The detective, who questioned the defendant at the station house after his arrest, testified that the defendant initially declared his innocence. The detective further testified that when given the opportunity to take a lie detector test, the defendant refused. The defendant's attorney did not object to the detective's testimony. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to prison. The defendant, who is now represented by a new attorney, appeals, claiming that it was error to admit the detective's testimony. The appellate court should find

Choices:
- plain error, because the trial court should have acted on its own motion to order reference to the lie detector test stricken.
- plain error, because admission of the detective's testimony violated the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination.
- harmless error, because the defendant's trial attorney failed to preserve the argument by timely objection.
- harmless error, because the defendant's statements were admissions.


Question: A state-funded military institute accepts only male students. The college-level school has a renowned history of producing military and government leaders. It is known for having a uniquely rigorous form of military training that builds strong character forged in the tribulations of adversity and military discipline. A woman with excellent scholastic and athletic achievements applied for admission and was turned down. She brought an injunctive action in federal court claiming a denial of equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The state offered to develop a parallel military school for women that would not be as physically demanding or as confrontational. Facilities and faculty would not be equal to the men's institute because of initial budgetary restraints. In light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, what should the federal district court rule?

Choices:
- There is no equal protection problem when the state offers a parallel program of education to women.
- There is no equal protection problem because the unique attributes of a men-only vigorous military training program is constitutionally justified in not allowing women.
- There is a denial of equal protection because the "parallel" program does not provide the same rigorous military training or the full spectrum of benefits.
- This may be a violation of the civil rights laws against gender discrimination but it has nothing to do with a denial of equal protection.


Question: A watch manufacturer has an agreement with a watch wholesaler in which the wholesaler agrees to purchase all of the watches made each month by the manufacturer, within an estimated number of 1000 to 1500 watches per month. Although the agreement worked well at 1,000 watches per month, the manufacturer expanded its plant capacity and produced 2500 watches per month. The wholesaler could no longer pay for that volume of watches. The manufacturer sued the wholesaler to compel it to buy its full output each month as required by the contract. will the court likely grant the manufacturer's request?

Choices:
- No, because the expansion is a disproportionate increase in product that exceeds contractual estimates and cannot be handled by the buyer.
- Yes, because doubling the size of the output contract is not unreasonable and is only 500 more the top estimated limit.
- Yes, a doubling of the output contract in these circumstances meets a good faith standard and is reasonable.
- No, because a change of more than 10% is considered to be unreasonable and the basis for a breach of contract.


Question: In which of the following situations is the defendant most likely to be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder?

Choices:
- Not intending to kill, a defendant hits a person over the head with a pipe. As a result, the person dies from head injuries.
- Not intending to kill, a defendant throws a large chunk of ice off an overpass onto a busy freeway below. The chunk of ice crashes through a windshield, killing a driver.
- Not intending to kill, a defendant kidnaps a victim and takes her to a remote area of the desert. The defendant then drives off, leaving victim alone in the sweltering heat after the ransom is not paid. The next day, the victim dies from exposure because she is unable to reach the nearest town eight miles away.
- Not intending to kill, a defendant punches a victim in the face, causing the victim to fall backwards and strike his head on a curb, killing him.


Question: In 1996, an investor purchased a 100-acre tract located in a northern county of a state. Shortly thereafter, the investor prepared a subdivision plan that created 100 one-acre residential building lots on this tract. In 1997, the subdivision plan was recorded with the county recorder's office. During the next few years, the investor sold all 100 residential lots to individual purchasers. Each deed specified that every lot designated on the subdivision plan was to be recorded in the county recorder's office. Each deed also provided the following: "No lot shall be used except for residential purposes. " By 2009, the area surrounding the subdivision was rezoned for commercial and business uses. One of the lot owners now decides to operate a small beauty parlor in the basement of her home. In an action by the homeowners in the subdivision to prevent such commercial use, the court will most likely hold that

Choices:
- the residency restriction is no longer enforceable because of the change in the character of the neighborhood surrounding the development.
- the residency restriction is no longer enforceable because the area surrounding the development was rezoned for commercial use.
- the residency restriction is enforceable, thus preventing any commercial use.
- the operation of a beauty parlor would not constitute a violation of the residency restriction.


Question: A teacher is the owner in fee simple of a seven-acre quarry, on which he maintains a dwelling house for himself and his family. Adjoining the quarry to the west is a 10-acre ranch, owned by a librarian. In order to gain access to the highway, the teacher has been granted an easement to cross over the ranch using the road along the ranch's southernmost boundary. The teacher has recently purchased a 12-acre farm, which abuts the ranch, but is not appurtenant to the quarry. Directly north of the farm is the ranch and directly west is the highway. The teacher has begun constructing a farmhouse on the farm and is using the existing easement (across the ranch) to gain access to the 1 2acre farm. The teacher has never received permission from the librarian to use the road across the ranch to gain access to the farm. In an appropriate action by the librarian to enjoin the teacher from using the existing easement to gain access to the farm, the plaintiff will most likely

Choices:
- succeed, because the teacher is making use of the servient tenement beyond the scope and extent of the easement as it was originally created.
- succeed, because the teacher has no right to use the servient tenement in connection with a tract of land that is not part of the dominant tenement.
- not succeed, because the teacher has an easement by necessity.
- not succeed, because the teacher has a right to use the easement in a manner not inconsistent with the rights of the owner of the servient tenement.


Question: A defendant has been charged with committing the armed robbery of a convenience store. During the defendant's case-in-chief, the defendant called several character witnesses to testify as to his good character. As part of the prosecution's rebuttal, the defendant's ex-wife was called to testify that during their marriage the defendant had a violent temper, beat her frequently, and once threatened her with a knife. The ex-wife's testimony should be ruled

Choices:
- admissible, because it is relevant to the crime charged.
- admissible, because the defendant opened the door by introducing evidence of his good character.
- inadmissible, because the defendant will be able to prevent the testimony using the spousal testimony privilege.
- inadmissible, because character evidence may not be introduced in this manner.


Question: While dining together one night in a crowded restaurant, Billy-Joe confesses to his wife Bobbie-Sue, "Before we were married, I shot a man while robbing his castle." Police detective Larry Lawman overhears the conversation and arrests Billy-Joe. At Billy-Joe's murder trial, Bobbie-Sue is called by the prosecution and asked about Billy-Joe's statement. Which objection will the judge be most likely to sustain?

Choices:
- Hearsay.
- Marital Communication Privilege.
- Specific instances of conduct cannot be proved by extrinsic evidence.
- None, because the statement is admissible.


Question: A recent law school graduate was hired by a bar review course, under an oral agreement, as an editorial consultant. Her job responsibilities included preparing new course outlines, proofreading and grading student homework assignments. The bar review course agreed to pay the graduate a starting salary of $2,500 a month. Three months later, the graduate was approached by the regional director of the bar review course, who handed her a newly published 60-page booklet entitled "Employment Manual. " He instructed the graduate to read the manual and indicated that it contained important information concerning company policy considerations and employee benefits. When the graduate returned home that evening, she started to read the manual. After reading about 30 pages, the graduate became tired and went to sleep. She never got around to reading the rest of the manual. Six months later, the graduate received a termination notice from the bar review course. The notice indicated that the graduate was being fired for insubordination because she had complained about the poor quality of the bar review course's materials and refused to work overtime grading papers. Following her dismissal, the graduate brought suit against the bar review course for breach of contract. Which of the following, if true and provable, would furnish the bar review course with its best defense?

Choices:
- All other bar review course employees worked overtime whenever requested to do so.
- When the graduate accepted employment with the bar review course, the company never made any promises regarding job security or duration of employment.
- The materials in the bar review course had recently been reviewed by the American Bar Association's Committee on Legal Education and had received "high acclaim. "
- The second page of the bar review course manual contained a paragraph stating that all policies, guidelines and employee benefits are "purely gratuitous and not intended to create any ongoing contractual obligation. "


Question: A developer is the owner of a parcel of land in fee simple absolute (the record title is also in the developer). The parcel of land is and has been unpossessed land. Assume that each person listed below as the grantee in a deed paid value and took without actual notice of any facts that would defeat her title and without knowledge of any facts that would put her on inquiry, both at the time she took her deed and at the time she recorded it. The following conveyances, each by a general warranty deed, take place in the order listed: An artist conveys to a bartender; the developer conveys to the artist; the artist conveys to a counselor; the bartender conveys to a dentist; the counselor conveys to an engineer. No deed was recorded until after the artist-to- counselor deed was executed and then before the execution of any other deed, the order of recording was as follows: developer to artist; artist to bartender; artist to counselor. The bartender-to-dentist deed and counselor-to- engineer deed were each recorded immediately after their respective executions. The owner of the parcel of land in a notice jurisdiction is

Choices:
- the bartender.
- the counselor.
- the dentist.
- the engineer.


Question: A retiree was the record title owner in fee simple absolute of a 100-acre farm. In 1998, the retiree devised the property to his daughter and his friend as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The next year, the daughter executed a deed to a co-worker as follows:"I hereby convey all of my right, title, and interest in the northeast quarter of the farm to the co-worker and his heirs. "Thereafter, the daughter borrowed $100,000 from a lender, and a promissory note was executed as evidence of the debt. In 2008, the daughter defaulted on the loan, and the lender, as judgment creditor, levied upon and sold to his nephew on execution sale all of "(the daughter's) right, title and interest in the south half of the farm. " In December 2009, the daughter died intestate, leaving her husband as her sole surviving heir. Who owns the farm?

Choices:
- The friend and the co-worker are tenants in common of the northeast quarter of the farm; the friend and the husband are tenants in common of the northwest quarter of the farm; and the friend and the nephew are tenants in common of the south half of the farm.
- The friend and the co-worker are tenants in common of the northeast quarter of the farm; the friend is the owner in fee of the northwest quarter of the farm; and the friend and the nephew are tenants in common of the south half of the farm.
- The friend and the co-worker are tenants in common of the northeast quarter of the farm; the friend and the husband are tenants in common of the northwest quarter of the farm; and the nephew is the owner in fee of the south half of the farm.
- The friend and the co-worker are tenants in common of the northeast quarter of the farm; and the friend is the owner in fee of the remaining three-quarters of the farm.


Question: A defendant was waiting in line to enter a movie theater when he noticed a free movie pass on the ground. The pass had a space where the owner of the pass needed to write in his name. The defendant waited until he got to the cashier's window and presented the pass, seeking a free admission to the movie, and claiming that he received it as a birthday present from a friend. The cashier told him that the passes were invalid unless the holder's name was entered on the pass. The defendant wrote his name on the pass, gave it to the cashier, and was admitted to the theater. The defendant is guilty of

Choices:
- larceny.
- false pretenses.
- forgery.
- no crime.